boudaba Yeah the H265 is 20.6 mbit/s. A quality that's really below industry standard at the moment. One can only HOPE that this is some kind of mistake. And that it's not their idea to only included sub par video quality in the monthly subscription because they want to push us towards the $7 ppv version.
harigeharry The AV1 version has the same very poor quality problem. I think it's a mistake, otherwise it's really sad, especially with such an actress.
Terrible move. Selling cheap lifetime subs with the full intention of replacing lost revenue by charging for high quality downloads and who knows what else. You absolutely could increase revenue from lifetime users by adding features instead of this awful bait and switch. So disappointed. I've been a huge champion of SLR on reddit and other forums and now I feel like an idiot.
boudaba The previous PT scene was 21 mbit/s for AV1 so they lowered the bitrate starting from the Emily Pink video.
21mb/s for h265 and even lower for av1 is crazy bad. Way too low indeed. Seems they went the cost saving route instead of improving quality with av1 then. Hope this is a mistake too
doublevr What the deal with lack of original video download option on the last 2 SLR originals? Its because of AV1? If it is, then this option is very bad.
High bitrate witnessers is like flat-earthers
https://forum.sexlikereal.com/d/3545-bitrate-comparison-test
Post some comparison screens or GTFO
Asked my guy again:
SchnuppiLilac The Dunning-Kruger effect
doublevr You waste pixels on 190 FOV when most headsets struggle to even show over 100 then you lower the bitrate. I don't know all the details but it looks low quality. You don't need a degree from MIT to see when something looks bad to you. You know it when you see it. I know what the original videos looked like before and what the new ones look like now. They look obviously worse. If there was no difference why are you even selling the PPV version?
Why the hell I'm going to post and have the trouble and work of do the compare between AV1 and original bitrate? That is your work on seeing the obvious lack of quality. If you dont see it, I suggest you buy a pair of glasses.
And paying for high bitrate when I already pay for a subscription? Its just the tip of the water in terms of greedyness. If this is the way, its the wrong way and I'm not giving you any dime for it.
Thank you.
I did some tests and compared the AV1 and H265 versions as well as an old video in high bitrate master format. In the AV1 version we lose the granularity of the skin at the cheeks. There is still a loss of quality which reinforces the blur effect. On the master we see more granularity of the skin. I would have compared to the master version but we don't have it on this video. Now maybe this video has a problem. SLR seems to be investigating the quality issue I raised in the comments of this video.
From master video:
Last time someone made the effort to post such comparisons, I think the response was something like: this is negligible, you can only notice this if you really want to find it, end of story. But from a VR porn consumer's perspective, these quality improvements, how little they may be, make all the difference.
SchnuppiLilac I was curious to compare. Honestly, with the headset, I couldn't differentiate between AV1 and H265, even if we lose quality. This video is blurry by default because both formats are encoded at a low bitrate. Now we can clearly see the difference with the master on another video, and for now, I can't see the quality of the master in AV1.
