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.

    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.

            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.

                  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?

                          Natch
                          Nobody said that these shouldn't be available anymore.

                          This thread is about an additional(!) download option.

                            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.

                                    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.

                                        spacepirate Yes, but we are talking specifically about the SLR Originals here. Videos from most other studios already are available in higher bitrates or have much smaller "original" files (only RealJamVR has a similar problem) - they don't need a second download option.

                                        So the extra effort is relatively small - no matter if you toss it on top of the existing solution or use a separate workstation for it. Having to use a separate $2000 workstation would already be the worst case.

                                          spacepirate This, and we also encode multiple versions per scene.
                                          It all has to fit in the pipeline. We're not sitting here inputting every single encode manually in Handbreak. Much of the encoding is also done on CPU with the x265 library because it has better results, but is a lot slower.[1] - You can check any studio's files, they all use CPU encoding. (this doesn't mean GPU's are not needed or used.). You're also dealing with files that can be several terabytes large. GPU's with 8 or 16 GB mem are not enough.

                                          [1] If you have k-lite codec pack installed on your system, you likely have mediainfo too. Right click a file and select Mediainfo.

                                          The RAW versions I use for scripting already are about 300GB for 40 minutes at only 1080x1080
                                          If any scripter is reading this, protip, using RAW YUV gives you real-time forward AND backward scrubbing in OFS and JFS. - No waiting required.

                                              Rakly3 Yeah, but in the end it would still be only one additional encoding only for the SLRO scenes. So indeed we're only speaking about 2-3 scenes each week.

                                                  LordCrash I understand what you are saying, really. But it's not going to happen, at least not at this stage. It's a lot more productive to focus our efforts in using newer technologies and ways of doing things. Which we are! But NDA 😉

                                                    LordCrash Had to think of this thread when I saw this. (youtube link below)
                                                    The part I'm talking about is, "streaming 4K is very expensive and difficult."
                                                    Though correct, it would be more correct if he would have said high bitrates. It really makes a big difference whether you are using a streaming platform vs a fileserver (downloads).

                                                    The internet as a whole is too slow for high bitrate streaming at this point. And I can't stress enough we are talking about actual streaming services. If you stream from a fileserver, then you are still 'just' downloading the whole file. This would be not feasible for a streaming server to send the whole file to everyone watching a stream.

                                                    This of course requires a lot more server resources and management to accomplish.

                                                    They also go on about why some people have good connections, and others have bad connections from the same service. Even if both users are practically Neighbours.

                                                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltyntSIVsjA&t=676s

                                                        Rakly3
                                                        Hm, how about offering an additional fileserver for SLRO downloads then? I get that you need streaming servers for all the streaming but that doesn't mean that you couldn't establish a fileserver only for your own scenes (SLRO).

                                                        I'm honest with you, SLRO scenes are at least 50% of the reason why I'm here and I guess I'm not the only one. It's far more important than you might think. Netflix and Amazon etc. know that their original content is essential for their streaming platform and they do offer the best possible quality and extras for their very own content. Amazon for examples streams 4k content with Dolby Atmos sound etc. Yes, it costs more. But that's the stuff that people actually subscribe for. All the additional 3rd party content is just "goodies" for quite a few people. Same is true for SLR. So you should offer the best possible experience for your SLRO scenes, maybe more than you offer for 3rd party content.

                                                            LordCrash 💯 Originals are 75% of the value proposition for me, and have already differentiated SLR from other studios (harem scenes for example). I think it’s very important to treat the SLRO releases with extra tender loving care. We’re not the only ones brought in by (1) Original releases (2) perhaps 20% of the other content, while (3) trying to ignore the tsunami of all the rest which is mostly garbage, and should absolutely not be treated on par with originals.