What are we talking about? For 16:9 titles we're talking about:
1920x1080...1280x720...1024x576....856x480...640x360
640x360 is just below what is considered Standard Definition and is probably as small as you'd want to get. Anything below that and you'd be really trying to figure out what is going on in those hard to reach places. That's just my opinion. Depending on your monitor resolution, smaller than (what I call) Mini-SD might work for you but my experience caps my video specs right there. Now, I am completely guilty of hoarding 1080p and 720p titles for some time. And I also have quite a few 480p HQ titles. But as I've said in the past the Mini-SD format is growing on me. They are bite-sized versions of titles but are just as viewable.
Firstly, there seems to be a lot lately. Most titles coming out now that make the rounds are the infamous watermarked titles. Those are obviously taken from sites that offer streaming titles. Just go to AV9.cc like you've seen on the watermarks. It is a site using Silverlight for delivery and someone has figured out how to capture titles from them and then post them on Ryushare for the masses. Either that or they have an account and are being extremely generous. Take your pick, but the point is most are 640x360. I highly doubt they are getting SD or higher versions from the site and encoding them down to offer them up.
Before I get to Secondly, it isn't hard to notice how many of those titles are offered up DAILY. And I hesitate to use the word "offered". It's more like throwing crumbs on the sidewalk in the dark section of the park where the dirty old men sit and watching the pigeons scramble for them. They just post and post and post and see how many downloads they get, like a conveyor belt. They don't ask for thanks or rep or any acknowledgement at all, have you noticed? That tells me they aren't posting to share but to get the clicks. There seems to be an audience, however. To each their own. And before you ask, no it doesn't bother me I just notice it. And no, I don't partake in their uploads. I'm allergic to watermarks. Okay, done with that.
Secondly, (back to talking about Mini-SD titles) their file sizes are decent. 1080p versions would be around 4.5GB or MORE for a full 2-hour title. Yes, you would get that FHD feel but honestly not the look. They can get away with labeling things as Full High Definition because there are, believe it or not, bottom levels of what can be considered such. Basically if the dimensions are between 720p and 1080p it can be considered HD and FHD, respectively. Take a standard Blu-ray title. They encode the bitrate to around 24Mbps and more, but a JAV title uploaded as FHD is usually around 6Mbps.
At any rate (no pun intended) they can look slightly better than SD titles just larger. There isn't an increase in quality or crispness of picture only an increase in frame size. But they are GREAT for use as a Master to encode to 60fps (down to 720p and below). JAV60 looks nice. Back to the point! A decent looking Mini-JAV encode would be around 1000-1200Kbps making most titles under 1GB in size. Not bad for a 2-hour title. And to be sure, decent is subjective. If I have bad eyes so be it. One man's trash...you know the rest. I have many Mini-JAV titles, and since I am not a fanatic about what I get, even though I'm a JAV fanatic, they suit me just fine. I guess I'm a little Stalinesque in that manner. Quantity has a quality all its own. Think about it. 5GB for one FHD title or five Min-JAV titles for roughly the same size.
Of course I do grab FHD and HQ titles if it is something I really want to see in that type of presentation. Especially things from my favorite performers. But for the most part Mini-JAV is what I'm getting accustomed to.
For discussion:
Have you acquired 640x360 titles?
If so, are you happy with them or were you disappointed?
Were they watermarked?
Fellow member iConsume was more than a bit irked about the watermarks. He believes it was an individual applying them. Or was that someone else? Perhaps the owner of the AV9.cc site? I wonder if the users he wanted banned were just victims of ripping/grabbing from a site that already had the watermarks. Not sure, don't care, just curious.
1920x1080...1280x720...1024x576....856x480...640x360
640x360 is just below what is considered Standard Definition and is probably as small as you'd want to get. Anything below that and you'd be really trying to figure out what is going on in those hard to reach places. That's just my opinion. Depending on your monitor resolution, smaller than (what I call) Mini-SD might work for you but my experience caps my video specs right there. Now, I am completely guilty of hoarding 1080p and 720p titles for some time. And I also have quite a few 480p HQ titles. But as I've said in the past the Mini-SD format is growing on me. They are bite-sized versions of titles but are just as viewable.
Firstly, there seems to be a lot lately. Most titles coming out now that make the rounds are the infamous watermarked titles. Those are obviously taken from sites that offer streaming titles. Just go to AV9.cc like you've seen on the watermarks. It is a site using Silverlight for delivery and someone has figured out how to capture titles from them and then post them on Ryushare for the masses. Either that or they have an account and are being extremely generous. Take your pick, but the point is most are 640x360. I highly doubt they are getting SD or higher versions from the site and encoding them down to offer them up.
Before I get to Secondly, it isn't hard to notice how many of those titles are offered up DAILY. And I hesitate to use the word "offered". It's more like throwing crumbs on the sidewalk in the dark section of the park where the dirty old men sit and watching the pigeons scramble for them. They just post and post and post and see how many downloads they get, like a conveyor belt. They don't ask for thanks or rep or any acknowledgement at all, have you noticed? That tells me they aren't posting to share but to get the clicks. There seems to be an audience, however. To each their own. And before you ask, no it doesn't bother me I just notice it. And no, I don't partake in their uploads. I'm allergic to watermarks. Okay, done with that.
Secondly, (back to talking about Mini-SD titles) their file sizes are decent. 1080p versions would be around 4.5GB or MORE for a full 2-hour title. Yes, you would get that FHD feel but honestly not the look. They can get away with labeling things as Full High Definition because there are, believe it or not, bottom levels of what can be considered such. Basically if the dimensions are between 720p and 1080p it can be considered HD and FHD, respectively. Take a standard Blu-ray title. They encode the bitrate to around 24Mbps and more, but a JAV title uploaded as FHD is usually around 6Mbps.
At any rate (no pun intended) they can look slightly better than SD titles just larger. There isn't an increase in quality or crispness of picture only an increase in frame size. But they are GREAT for use as a Master to encode to 60fps (down to 720p and below). JAV60 looks nice. Back to the point! A decent looking Mini-JAV encode would be around 1000-1200Kbps making most titles under 1GB in size. Not bad for a 2-hour title. And to be sure, decent is subjective. If I have bad eyes so be it. One man's trash...you know the rest. I have many Mini-JAV titles, and since I am not a fanatic about what I get, even though I'm a JAV fanatic, they suit me just fine. I guess I'm a little Stalinesque in that manner. Quantity has a quality all its own. Think about it. 5GB for one FHD title or five Min-JAV titles for roughly the same size.
Of course I do grab FHD and HQ titles if it is something I really want to see in that type of presentation. Especially things from my favorite performers. But for the most part Mini-JAV is what I'm getting accustomed to.
For discussion:
Have you acquired 640x360 titles?
If so, are you happy with them or were you disappointed?
Were they watermarked?
Fellow member iConsume was more than a bit irked about the watermarks. He believes it was an individual applying them. Or was that someone else? Perhaps the owner of the AV9.cc site? I wonder if the users he wanted banned were just victims of ripping/grabbing from a site that already had the watermarks. Not sure, don't care, just curious.
