i voted yes, i have a dvd burner so suits me fine

I voted nothing, since I miss a vote option. Generally I am ok with larger file sizes as long as I still can fit 6 movies on a dvd, but I don't like filling a DVD 100%. I am just afraid that the stability of a DVD is lower on the outer parts and with writing to the last bit, data loss is more likely. So I might prefer a size larger than 700mb but somewhat smaller than 747mb.

I did and I've been trying to come up with a way to word my post that doesn't make me sound like a luddite

I think my main beef with it is that the TDX rules, anachronistic though they are are actually pretty good IF they are followed correctly and they represent a sensible compromise, I really don't see the quality gained by another 47Mb per film (which will turn into 750Mb when oversized and then won't fit 6 movies to a disk anyway) would make that much difference, you'll just get people using it for mono / stereo AC3 tracks and tedious commentaries

There really is no need for that extra 47 Mb, IF people rip properly in the first place (this isn't aimed at anyone, I've screwed up my fair share )

I'm not going to rip "1cd" releases at anything other than 700Mb, I might be pursuaded on "2cd" releases though to look at 1/3 dvd

I don't agree with that at all, there are times when that 47mb are a total life saver, and you can make an excellent rip at 600mb but the fact is you'll have compromised to the space allocated.

Your making out as if there's some scientific reasoning for 700mb but it was merely a size to ensure that the media was filled, not to 'ensure' quality. You know as well as i do, it doesn't make that much difference.

Ripping is a compromise, but here there's a) an adjustment to a size better suited to DVDr b) utilisation of wasted space.

There's loads of rips that i could have got a lot more out of if i had the extra space, but i compromised to an antique standards developed by a set of groups umpteen years ago. Hell i'm surprised they even removed divx3.11 this time around.

TDX states very clearly that 90min is the minimum time you should have before going to 2cd, and your saying that when you have a 90min movie you don't need every bit of space to prevent upping to 2cds.

Its not so much upgrading the standards as making them an applicable size, ie a size that fits a medium in 2006. The only reason for 700mb is because of cd sizes, and its already been covered that DVDr is more economical, not to mention far higher quality.

Wargand raises a point about DVDr being less quality towards the edge, however this is barely applicable and to what extent it is, its exactly the same too. In reality, if you cheap out on media then your going to get that cheapness reflected in the quality of the discs. If you get something like g05 or something more modern, it aint going to happen.

ps. not putting any opinion down, just balancing it out with the opposite for the sake of the topic.

If used correctly the 47Mb will make a little difference, BUT I can see it being filled with crap, just for the sake of it (like director's commentaries / ac3 soundtracks where they're not warranted etc), also oversized rips will have MUCH more of an impact as overburning is MUCH more hassle on DVD (and much less likely to work)

Also if you aim at a 650 rip, you can fit in a director commentary with easy on a 746 rip.

Exactly, and THAT'S the exact wast of space I was talking about, seems to me this proposal is about filling a DVD and NOT about any quality issues.

I REALLY do not want to waste 47mb of bandwidth on a director's commentary

your putting weight into the choice of 700mb in the first place. I don't understand your point. Nor do i understand the reasoning behind the extra space not making a difference.

It does, it really does help.

Your argument only works for short movies that won't get anything out of the extra space. If you've got a 60min movie then you probably shouldn't be ripping to 700mb in the first place.

No, I'm looking at people perception of getting an "extra" 47Mb compared to what the current standard is, and comments like this

Just makes me think that that is exactly how people will see it, and then fill it with crap, no offence Jynks

how's that any different to people putting the crap in NOW? it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference imo.

Abuse of standards, is not a fault of the standards.

The difference between now and then will be that at least the abusers won't - the space from the video. The abuses are abusing now, they probably will then too.

I mean look at the rips with spanish, french and english AND at 700mb now. That problem seems very academic, i don't think it will increase the liklihood at all.

I'd probably guess jynks would already include commentry but with a higher filesize he'll spend more on video, is that right jynks?

There's less space for it so it's put in less often - simple as that, I worry that with a "free" 47Mb or so the crap will INCREASE

I'm still not convinced and all I think it will do is loosen the quality control.

It would be interesting to see which way it goes though, and in fairness it's REALLY not a big enough issue to get particularily bothered about.

edit: forgot to say, correct me if i got your wrong, short is you think it will increase abuses?

I can see a bit about what your trying to say, that people will suddenly abandon all logic and staple crap to the extra space because they suddenly have the space, I just don't think its the case, its a simple matter of entering the cd size as 747mb in the box, or choosing DVD and doing "1/6th DVD" then doing everything exactly as usual in gknot.

Its kind of like mkv (lets put standalone compatability aside, because standalones are a problem likened to the TDX in keeping a primitive gene pool, as it were), there's absolutely nothing wrong with mkv, its far, far, superior to avi... its just lots of people abuse it. The fact is these people would and did abuse avi too and muxed in all the streams anyway, its just mkvs popularity seems to make it appear as if these people weren't doing it before. MKV is great if used correctly, just not many people outside of anime use it. That doesn't mean the mkv container is in anyway bad, what is bad is the people using it. If everyone adopted mkv, then there wouldn't be this problem. Your just narrowing down on a tiny subset of possible abuses, and using that to negate correct usage, or so it seems to me.

I really, really, doubt it will result in any increase at all, and furthermore encode bloat is already rampant, and the space will lessen its impact. I don't think its "put in less often" because of the 'less space'. I think you'll find that rippers that cram everything in start out with the intention to release a fat file, mostly foreign language rippers that want to bung the audio in to start off with.

You'll notice that several rippers bung in the audio commentries anyway, irrespective of quality of the track. This is applicable to one cds and 2 cds, totally independant of 'free' space.

MKV container is exploited and if you search through this site you'll find umpteen examples of a dub track muxed in as the primary track.

The adjustment is merely to fit DVDr standards, if you look at the examples of the 2cd replacement, I have yet to see a single example of what you describe so I'm having trouble finding any evidence to suggest it would increase.

Everything is suspeptable to abuse, but i don't think that should reflect negatively on an improvement when its not abused.

If i got the gist of your argument, we should stay with 1996 standards because someone may possibly abuse a more applicable standard and no other reason?

Yes they can abuse the standards, but people already do... a lot. That's simply because they don't follow any standards in the first place, so therefore what does it matter, they'll probably continue to follow their own standard whilst everyone else uses it correctly.

That's the logic behind it, firstly they don't care and shove the tracks in anyway and secondly, people not following standards shouldn't effect the updating of standards for people who actually follow them. ie. bloat abusers are noise.


Just out of curiosity... Why are you against 747mb and susceptible to the 1/3rd DVD size? Is it because of the examples where it hasn't been abused or something else?

One last thing, I'm adopting a wait and see policy regarding 700mb vs 747mb.

Academically and personally I can find absolutely no fault in it at all (increasing to 747mb)*, I just don't know what amount of people will grab it or not if i were to do a rip like that.

*except dvdr burner less people, but its more devolved than toning down whilst catering to standalone people these days imo. We've already established its cheaper, the media is higher quality and all tests seem to indicate it lasts longer (or so i was led to believe) and that using overburn it can be burnt to cdr anyway.

747Mb overburn on CD????

You're having a laugh

I'm more susceptible to the 2 CD idea because there is significantly more room and the quality / length of the movie to warrant a 2 CD rip will be higher / longer and there will be more than enough room for all your commentary shite as well without significantly affecting video.

It's VERY rare for people to include commentary or innapropriate audio on 1CD rips as to do so would be at the expense of the video, also alot of movies (especially ones released here) wouldn't significantly benefit from another 47mb!

What's with the notion that people will start including commentary tracks to "fill" 747/1493/2239 MB? No, they won't. Most of the movies encoded at full dvd res+AC3+image enhancing filters yields only just about decent compressibility to fill a 1493 dvd-r sized file itself. Then where does the dir.comm come in? I have seen only very few cases where even after everything, there was plenty of space left over that I added another audio.

Anyway, since I started the dvdr-sized rlses, I have pushed out 7-8 so far and from the feedback on forums and the length of the emule queue, I have realized that there is quite a clientele for them now itself. These are informed people who recognized the meaning of the file sizes right away. More leechers will come later, when the word spreads.

Bottomline: I won't be going back to CD-R sizes ever. Period. Not until the day when I get zero leechers at least, which is like never?

No, i'm not actually, buy some of this:
http://svp.co.uk/products-list.php?cid=70

You need to use overburn to burn to media over 80mins, or i did anyway last time i tried. However, i can easily fit 747mb on a 90min cd, 90min cd is 800mb.

As for the rest, well i've said my piece on that but i don't agree obviously I think you'd have a point if you have the view that rippers don't know what they are doing or don't make the right choices, either way there's a large amount of people who actively 'abuse' standards and containers as is.

@USB yeah but your rips look great whatever the filesize, so people tend to not really care since its probably the best rip out anyway Maybe they would have prefered cdr... then again, the only way to bring about change is to embrace it

We'll see

I'm sticking with 700mb for the time being

I'm aware of 90minute media, but that's a total rip off, NO-ONE buys it

@PC_Arcade

I just do not understand your argument..... .. I mean any increase in video size wil reduce comression wouldn't it?

That's fine - I'm not asking anyone to agree with me

hehe... now i get to do one of those "but..." comments...

But... (:googley:) if it were about money in the first place, they'd have upgraded to DVDr wouldn't they? It is cheaper than cdr altogether remember.
If they are unwilling to buy dvdr which will ultimately save costs, i don't think money is that much of an object, therefore they are probably likely to spend more on 90min media surely?

I've bought it before in the past for large files before DVDr was affordable, it doesn't exactly break the bank.