Dear SLR Team, I know there have been lot's of questions and you even wrote multiple blogposts about it, but still I'm not totally sure about wich version of the files are the best te download. Size isn't really an issue, but I also read that you state that smaller sizes from the same codec can still be of better quality then the bigger files. Well, I made up a list of questions that could be the final answer once and for all. I assume that if your PC can handle it it's always the best to download the biggest resolution h.265 file. To start off: Is (in your opinion) your own re-encode h.265 file always the best (/same) quality even if it's smaller then the original or is it just the best quality vs size ratio you can offer? If I'm all in to quality and size doesn't matter, wich version is best to download? For example Sexual Pampering by SexbabesVR the original is almost 20gb and the re-encode 7,3gb. Is it just lot's of unused bitrate the original packs that doesn't add a single thing to the quality? Or is it a 1% to 5% loss in quality for 1/3rd the size? Is your own file always a re-encode from the "original" posted file, or do you have a raw source file that isn't posted on the website which you re-encode? You also have your own published studio SLR originals. Even on most of those video's (for example Wild Things) the original can be 4-5 times bigger than the re-encode. How can it be a re-encode if it's your own file? And when it's the same or even better quality, why even publish the "original" file? I think I covered all my questions. Maybe even rephrased the same question a couple of times. I don't think it's explicitly covered in the blogposts and hope I'm not asking things you already explained.

@dutchvr#4073 Yeah you did kinda asked same thing in different ways though. Re-encoded files are never better then original master file, with one exception, if master file are two different files, for example you went to LethalHardcore site and downloaded one file, and then compared the same scene but from our SLR remastering file, then our file will be better. Our software encodes CBR and to make sure we don't loose any info on this step we set bitrate to 100mbps for most scenes. That's why our Originals files are so huge, but this way we ensure that no quality lost there (or a minimum possible quality loss). Then that master gets re-encoded to VBR with CFR (I don't remember exact number, 19 I think), which is visually lossless. Those files are also served for streaming in SLR app. As per which file to download: if it would be me I'd download re-encoded h265 of highest resolution. I don't really see a good reason to pull 4-5 times bigger file, quality loss is negligible. If you see a badly encoded file with pixelation and other encoding artifacts, most likely it's because we received a poor quality master from studio. They save on data (bitrate) and put up low-bitrate files on their website in order to reduce bills. If someone hosts on Amazon they can rack up huge bills very easily. Not so much storage, but traffic is expensive with them. We have our own cloud. TLDR: Download h265 re-encoded, save the data, help trees, go vegan

Re-encodings by SLR - What file to download for best quality?

dutchvr

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I will definately download the re-masters in 99% of the cases.

If you think it's lossless then I shouldn't upload the 4-5 times bigger files for your own sake. One other thing I thought was strange, was seeing re-encodes just half a gig smaller. I wouldn't go to all that trouble to have almost the same file in the end. But hey, who am I to decide 🙂

Thanks again!

Philip

dutchvr Those files with little to no difference, means original file didn't really have any "room" to save with variable bitrate, but this also means that they might have 'cut' where they shouldn't have. You can actually see this on some SinsVR videos with outdoors scenes, once they are outside, quality falls really badly because of leafs, grass etc. Once they are back in the room everything is fine.

dutchvr

Alright, but is your re-encode of better quality? Otherwise I don't see the point of re-encoding to shave of just a few mb's.

Philip

dutchvr
As I already mentioned

Re-encoded files are never better then original master file, with one exception, if master file are two different files

So in this case yeah, no point of re-downloading to save few mb. Quality won't be better

shrub100

Sorry to drag up an old thread - but the query is relevant and this is likely the best place to put the query.

The query is this....if your re-encodings are larger in file size than the original (I can see the difference is FPS) is that because you have used hardware/software to interpret the missing frames? In which case I guess that the larger framerates are likely the better quality files to download as hardware/software has magically/technologically increased quality?

shrub100

Just to add to this comment, there are some files where the original is smaller than the reencode at the same quality e.g. https://www.sexlikereal.com/scenes/girlfriend-first-vr-scene-13273?playlist=419175

original 5k h265 - 6.09gb
Re-encode 5k h265 - 7.33gb

Rakly3

shrub100

The re-encode is better suited for streaming and the 5k will work on a HDMI2.0b cable/port. The original needs a HDMI 2.1 cable/port.

mgbgt35

Rakly3
So,in cases like this, for the purpose of downloading and subsequently playing the file from my own library,I would save some hard disc space to download the original file without sacrificing the picture quality?

Rakly3

mgbgt35 Yes, but the Original studio file is not guaranteed to work in our app.

smoothnougat

In situations where there is a "Max" and "Optimal" of the same rez and codec, what is the intended difference between those two?

In situations when the Max and Optimal are different resolutions, is that the only difference?

Rakly3

smoothnougat It's a trade-off between complexity and filesize. If they are the same, then I guess they are 4K or less?