- Edited
Bitrate alternative for 8K SLROriginals.
LordCrash I wouldn't hold my breath! In light of the recent restrictions placed on downloading I would almost bet that in 12 months SLR will be a streaming only service anyway.
- Edited
Could we please stay on topic?
The restrictions are not that unusual anyway. You can only download 25 scenes on Blacked or Vixen each week or you could only download 15 scenes each week on Teenfidelity. Neither of them have any intentions to be streaming only. But since this was also discussed at greath lenghts before I'd kindly ask you to let it be and to stay on topic.
- Edited
I've checked what some of the most popular studios use for their highest resolution files at the moment:
Top Tier
CzechVR 57/76Mbps (8K)
VRP 50Mbps (8K)
VR Bangers + VRConk 46-48Mbps (8K)
WankzVR + MilfVR + POVR 42-48Mbps (7K)
Medium Tier
NaughtyAmerica + Tonights Girlfriend 41-43Mbps (8K)
BrasilVR 39-43Mbps (7K)
KinkVR 40Mbps (7K)
BadoinkVR + 18VR + VRCosplayX 38/42Mbps (7K)
VirtualTaboo + DarkRoomVR 37/38Mbps (7K)
Bottom Tier
RealJamVR 29Mbps (7K) - like SLR they offer huge original files which are unfit for "daily use" as high quality alternative
SLR Originals 28/29Mbps (8K)
VRediging + VRsolos (on SLR) 17Mbps (6K)
So the industry standard seems to be 46-57Mbps for 8K videos and 37-43Mbps for 7K videos. 47-50Mbps should be sufficient to join the top tier for 8K files.
Looks like SLR is aiming for two more industry records with the highest (original files) and lowest bitrates. 
- Edited
It's a lot more complicated than just the bitrate.
erniescar69 The downloads don't affect which formats we render. The files could be made a lot smaller at the same quality if we were just concerned about offering downloadable files. They would be terrible for streaming though. All our (non-studio) files are encoded for streaming, and compatible with as broad as possible devices and systems.
- Edited
Rakly3
I do wonder though why pretty much every other major VR porn studio offers a higher bitrate for their high resolution downloadable files.
It's not like all the others hate streaming, quite the contrary...
And the difference is obvious. CVR files for example look better than any SLR vid so far...
Maybe you simply have not found the best solution for this issue yet...
- Edited
Rakly3 It's a lot more complicated than just the bitrate.
Sure, image quality depends on different factors and some studios look worse, even if they use a higher bitrate.
Depends on the camera, source resolution, film grain, scene details like lightning/brightness and post production too, but the bitrate sets limits and if it's too low, you can't prevent a loss of detail - you can't compensate for everything with encoder settings or by preparing the video in a certain way.
After all the scene content and codec are the same or similar between all studios and almost all of them came to the conclusion, that they need higher average bitrates to preserve as much detail as possible, while keeping file sizes reasonable and save server capacities and bandwidth.
- Edited
LordCrash well other studios arent trying to be 100% streaming focused like slr.
even with the low bitrates slr struggles to deliver stable, reliable streaming. my internet connection is easily fast enough and the streaming experience still sucks with slr. anyway... i digress.. thats a different discussion.
- Edited
someoneX After all the scene content and codec are the same or similar between all studios and almost all of them came to the conclusion, that they need higher average bitrates to preserve as much detail as possible, while keeping file sizes reasonable and save server capacities and bandwidth.
That's actually common sense in the video industry that ultra high resolution content requires a proper bitrates. 30 mbps is definitely not enough and results in a poor image with a lot of nosie. Just look at my post above, for 4k and better at 60 FPS the bitrate should be at least 50 mbps, better 60 mbps or better.
SLR should at least be honest and say: "We do it to save costs because higher bitrates mean bigger files and more data traffic that we have to pay for. We can't reduce resolution due to marketing reasons but we can reduce the bitrate to make a few extra bucks."
It's definitely NOT a technical issue since all the other studios obviously have no issue at all releasing scenes at the same resolution but with a much better bitrate - all of these files can be streamed as well.
I actually think that I pay a reasonable monthy subscription fee to get proper ultra high videos with a bitrate that fits the resolution. It's a damn shame that great content is artificially worsened by a lacking video bitrate.
- Edited
LordCrash I do wonder though why pretty much every other major VR porn studio offers a higher bitrate for their high resolution downloadable files.
It's a valid question and comparison as a consumer. The main difference is that we have a load-balancing streaming network, while other sites have a file server. Not just the bandwidth, but the servers themselves work completely differently. - I also want to note that the download files on SLR are the same files used for streaming.
You can try it at home, copy a video file over your network from one device to another.
Then set up a server that can stream to several devices at the same time, all viewing a different video.
Even with tools like Plex, it will still take you some setting up, trial and error, to make it work correctly. The PC you use as a server also will need to be quite a bit more powerful. - A 1Gbps network connection is pretty standard these days, but you can saturate it pretty easily if you have to keep all streams going at the same time. All the videos that are being streamed also have to be cached in the memory, so you now also have to worry about decking out the server with enough mem.
This is of course true for all streaming services, but even at 30Mbps per file, that's still 10 times more than other non-VR services.
I'm sure in time the bitrates will go up, but it's not as simple as starting to encode at higher rates. The network would have to expand quite substantially too. Take with that, many streaming hosts don't even allow you to stream at 30Mbps per stream, let alone 80. Then, there's the porn aspect too. There are hosts that don't want to offer porn content either. - So you're starting to get pretty limited even before you're up and running. - We even have users where their ISP doesn't allow them to watch streams at 30Mbps. They subscribe, use the service a couple of days, BAM, they're throttled. - This does happen less and less, however. But it's perfectly legal in the USA with the abolishment of net neutrality. (Unless it changed again, I don't follow it really)
The ideal solution would be how Google (youtube) and Netflix work, having servers inside the ISP networks of the customers. This doesn't cost the ISP much, if anything. When an ISP has to traffic data outside their own network, it costs them money.
Rakly3 The ideal solution would be how Google (youtube) and Netflix work, having servers inside the ISP networks of the customers. This doesn't cost the ISP much, if anything. When an ISP has to traffic data outside their own network, it costs them money.
And that's not possible for you guys?
Is the decision to go with a load-balancing streaming network and not with dedicated file servers a technical necessity or rather a cost-saving business decision?
It doesn't sound like the former is actually all that well suited for the streaming of ultra high-res VR porn content. I mean, I get that the ultimate goal of the SLR overlords is a pure streaming network but all the stuff you told us here rather indicates that the environment you're working in doesn't give you the proper possibilities to reach that goal yet. Reality is that the internet for many people is too slow for ultra high-end VR content. And that's not only the case for those living in regions with only limited internet bandwidths but apparently the case for everyone(!) since it's not even possible to stream ultra-high end content with high bitrates on a reliable basis due to IPSs not granting the respective bandwidth. It shouldn't come as a surprise that that's one of the core reasons why so many people prefer downloadable files. Imho there's a severe disparity between the high-flying streaming vision and the technical realities on the ground.
In the end there's simply something wrong when you guys shoot content in ultra-high resolution with great bitrates and your customers own expensive headsets which could display that stuff but are only able to watch an inferior product due to a disparity in your company's vision and the techncial possiblities on the internet...
All we ask for right now is an additional download option for the best possible resolution but at a higher bitrate. No raw file with insane file sizes. I think it would be greatly appreciated by quite a few of your die hard fans. And yes, it would require an additional encoding effort for each SLRO scene. So you had to start an additional encoding on an additional server/PC somewhere in the basement. I don't think it would be THAT costly to do so or require THAT much effort to do so. I think it's rather a very minor effort and costs only very little money so I'd really appreciate it if you could at least consider adding such an option for your fans who'd really like to enjoy your content in the best possible way.
- Edited
LordCrash Is the decision to go with a load-balancing streaming network and not with dedicated file servers a technical necessity or rather a cost-saving business decision?
It's certainly not cost-saving, it's a lot more expensive.
Having thousands of users simultaneously streaming from a file server would simply not work.
LordCrash that the environment you're working in doesn't give you the proper possibilities to reach that goal yet.
Well, that's simply not correct, but I can't go into details here without getting fired heh.
Without the streaming service, SLR (and DeoVR) wouldn't even exist. There would be no reason for studios to join us. It's way to expensive to set this up, even for large studios with their own editors and website, let alone the numerous studios that only exist on SLR, don't go under because of the SLR's revenue stream, and are possible because of SLR's platform. - Even the interactive sex toy industry would not be what it is without @RealcumberScripts , @raser1 and SLR. - There's a lot more going on than just the website here. But again, most of it is NDA.
- Edited
Rakly3 Well, I understand that the streaming platform is vital for all the 3rd party content - but we speak about the SLRO scenes in particular here, the scenes you own and produce yourself. So there is no complex business deals to follow etc., you can 100% decide on your own what to do with your own content. You could even provide file servers only for your own SLRO scenes, you know. But I also understand that this is not really something you want to provide since it will also cost some money.
The only thing you had to provide to make me (and others) happy was an additional encoding effort for an additional "download only" file option with maximum resolution (be it 6k, 7k or 8k or whatever is best right now) and a much better bitrate. Like I said, I can't imagine that this would require a lot of effort or cost a lot of money. The only reason why you don't do it so far is probably this "100% streaming vision" that prevents you from providing even stuff with little effort that isn't aligned with this vision - no matter if it would benefit your customers right now.
Anyway, thanks for the information and the open conversation, that's more than I expected already.
I only download, and I want the best possible quality. Always download the maximum bitrate, 100, 144 GB files.... And I am not rich. In my country for 50 euros a month you have 300 Mbps connection with no download limits. And hard drives of several TB are not too expensive.
But I'm not a hoarder either. I only watch (download) around 10 or 12 movies a week at SLR. And I don't store all of them.
So I vote to keep the 100+ GB files with max bitrate.
Rakly3 You already implemented an option for download-only versions of your videos, which are not used in the streaming environment. So all you would need to add at this point is a second file alongside the extremely large original version, which is also download-only. The streaming part of SLR wouldn't be affected at all by that option.
Your explanations about the streaming limitations are all understandable, but they don't explain why it's not possible to offer a second download-only option. The reason why this doesn't happen can only be guessed from between the lines and from the company's general behavior/direction.
Why can't the reason be spelled out straightforwardly to create a reasonable basis for conversation about possible solutions, like a higher tier subscription for download users?
- Edited
Natch
Nobody said that these shouldn't be available anymore.
This thread is about an additional(!) download option.
- Edited
LordCrash You could even provide file servers only for your own SLRO scenes, you know. But I also understand that this is not really something you want to provide since it will also cost some money.
We actually had slroriginals.com until recently, but it closed a month or three ago and merged here.
LordCrash I can't imagine that this would require a lot of effort or cost a lot of money.
It's like running a farm of crypto mining rigs. But with graphic cards of $15k each. A decked-out encoding server would cost you about $150k to $200k each. Video encoding is probably the largest expense for most studios.
But we are building other stuff to enhance quality and experience, pushing innovation. A very big chunk of SLR is VR-R&D
Rakly3 Hm, sounds like a bigger investment than I expected...sigh... 
But well, in the end, it's still common knowledge that 30 mbps is not enough for 4k 60 fps videos for the best possible outcome. So something has to change sooner or later.
At least I still hope that one day we'll get to see a better bitrate. Personally, I don't care that much about other gimmicks. Video quality is all that counts for me - besides the content itself, of course.
- Edited
Rakly3 How do you need a server for $150k-$200k to encode a smaller version of the SLR-Original videos every 2-3 days, when a simple Mac Book can handle 8k60 to 8k60 H.265 Main 10 encoding with 40fps, like shown in this video:
https://youtu.be/d0ybV0OFFaE?t=866
With a new video every 2-3 days even much higher quality settings shouldn't be a problem, without requiring a server farm or $15.000 graphic cards.
You could even outsource the task. I'm sure you find someone who would download the original and send you back the smaller version for a very reasonable price.