File Sizes are becoming Ridiculous

[cranston]

I hate to be the contrarian but I really hate blurry porn, sorry. I only watch something under 720p if it's unfortunately the only option, can't stand it anymore.

 

[dragonscub]

I hate to be the contrarian but I really hate blurry porn, sorry. I only watch something under 720p if it's unfortunately the only option, can't stand it anymore.

I think most would agree with you in theory, but the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, the majority of gigantic so-called "1080p" files look no better than their 720p versions, which often aren't all that much improved over their 480 base versions. Much depends on the studio, the cameras it uses, the locations it uses, and whether their file coders have the slightest clue what they're doing.

Bel Ami and Sean Cody do have a proper notion of how to provide true HDTV-quality files, at somewhat reasonable sizes. Corbin Fisher sometimes matches them, along with KB and a handful of others. The irony here is, if a studio knows how to do a decent 1080p file, almost invariably their 720p file gets within 90% of that quality at more reasonable size. Coding skill filters down to all resolutions: a really great 1080p will downscale beautifully to 720p for large screen TV viewing, and a 480 derivative can look fine on a tablet or laptop screen.

Many other studios have no idea what they're doing, can't shoot or expose worth a damn at any resolution, or can only make a passable file at 1080p at double the size of their rival studios. LE is the worst offender here: their 35-minute 1080p files are as large as an entire Hollywood movie DVD (3+ GB) while barely managing 720p resolution. Anything smaller from LE looks like mud (their 720 files look like old VCD, and their 480 files are dreck).

Titan Media has the worst cameras, worst coders, and worst directors: every damned video is shot 50% outside in the sun in a grove of trees and ferns that turn to unrecognizable block patterns even at 1080p (don't ask about the men: they look like indistinct Nintendo blobs). And for the love of life, somebody please clue Austin Wilde how to make a 1080p file that actually resembles HDTV, instead of being a 3.4GB abortion that looks like VHS-C from 1996.

The huge files are only worthwhile from a handful of studios, and not consistently. The rest? Forget it. No offence to the members posting 1080p files exclusively, but they should be aware they lose a lot of traffic from those of us who don't have the time or drive space to waste on inflated files that resemble 1080p about as much as I resemble Ryan Gosling.

 

[cranston]

Ok so you are complaining about the 1080p files not being good enough. That doesn't change the fact that the lower sized files look even worse.
As far as RG I was noticing a lot more failed downloads from them after they got rid of the captchas around a month ago, it does seem to be getting better though at the moment.

 

[dragonscub]

Ok so you are complaining about the 1080p files not being good enough. That doesn't change the fact that the lower sized files look even worse.

Apparently the studios you enjoy are providing true HDTV quality that meets your high standards: if so, thats fantastic and I'm glad you lucked out. But lots of them don't: a good 60% of the bloated 1080p files I've seen look a lot closer to 540p (IOW, a total waste of excess download time and HDD space).

The quality (or lack of quality) in those "fake" 1080 files does NOT always correlate with their smaller versions, thats the point some of us are trying to make. Often, the 720 files look nearly or exactly the same as the 1080. If the choice is between a 720 file at 960Mb, or the same file in the same quality but tagged 1080p and sized at a ridiculous 2Gb or more, many of us prefer the 720.

That isn't a criticism of your (or anyone's) preference for 1080 quality: its a knock against the studios for not knowing how to code the files properly. No 23-36 minute porn video should suck up 2 GB (never mind 3.2 Gb) of hard drive space unless it looks like 4K off a Hollywood satellite beamed to a movie theater. Sadly, a majority of files promoted as "High Definition" still aren't noticeably better than their smaller 720 variations: if they were, people wouldn't be complaining that they're superseding the 720s for no good reason.

If the vids and studios you like consistently deliver higher quality at larger file sizes, then of course you'll feel those large files are worth your download time and HDD space. I don't think anyone here would disagree with you: some of us just aren't as lucky as you (the vids we like don't earn their 1080 designation and huge file size). So we hope the 720 option sticks around awhile longer.

 

[cranston]

I find the 1080p usually have a much higher bitrate, that's when I notice a jump in quality from 720 to 1080

 

[haiducii]

Many other studios have no idea what they're doing

You said that very well, and I agree.

 

[camyoo]

Ok so you are complaining about the 1080p files not being good enough. That doesn't change the fact that the lower sized files look even worse.
As far as RG I was noticing a lot more failed downloads from them after they got rid of the captchas around a month ago, it does seem to be getting better though at the moment.

I too have experienced numerous failed downloads with RG (free version); unfortunately have not noticed it getting any better. I now always use an alternative host when available.