Umm well, it's really big, 77 MB.
Don't have a hosting so I'll need to choose one first and upload... and that's... slow >_<
Anyhow, why not try some heavy compression files yourself?
No offence Mario, but your word doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. Im certainly willing to go through the trouble of verifying her results, but since I posted the files I used, I expect the same courtesy in return.
Not really sure, I have a hosting service that I use, but it doesnt allow anonymous ftp upload. Perhaps you could just find some suitable source already on the net that we could compare results from. I suggest Globat.com if you are looking to get a host. Im switchign to them when my current contract runs out.
You could always use Megaupload:
http://www.megaupload.com
(Though it's over HTTP.)
EDIT: FWIW, I rar:ed a couple of .avi files, the rar's were both 10-15% smaller (with max compression). I could upload them for verification, if requested.
Last edited by Oysterman; 02-11-2008 at 04:10 PM.
I'm not looking for a host right now. I had one that gave 10 or 100 or so webspace, I can't remember, but I let it expire since I just had nothing to put on the hosting.
So, some source of the web, huh? Speedruns maybe?
I'll try. Let me do a test on one of the files I have.
Yeah, I know of that one as well as rapidshare. Only problem is that I don't want to upload via HTTP since I can't see when it's finished and I can't pause/resume and it will take forever, so I can't close the page and I can't resume if it fails, etc. That's why I prefer FTP.
In most cases, people have already compressed the video before it is RAR'd/7zip'd/ZIP'd so the effects of a second compression is negligable, the point of the OP was that no type of compression is much better than typical video compression. That is not to say if you take a near raw feed (such as your video camera, which can not compress as well due to the video streaming in) it wont compress, but once you run a single pass or double pass filter over it, you will get the about as small as it is going to get. (EDIT: without losing quality that is)
Also I don't know much about RAR but 7zip, you have to get the settings right for the type/size of file you are compressing, proper setting you can get a lot better compression than just default.
Maybe wraithan word carries more weight abachler. Will you care to listen to him?
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
I'm using "Best" compression for both, so no problems there.
First test for this file shows 3% compression gain with 7zip (306 MB vs 314 MB).
As for rar, 2% compression gain (308 MB vs 314 MB).
File:
http://ia300134.us.archive.org/1/ite..._HQ_part04.avi
For tomorrow's test, I'll recompress the file (video compression) and recompress using both rar and 7z again.
So it'd be really bad if we, rar'd a video, zipped the rar'd video, 7zipped the zipped rar'd video?
OK, im dling that file, although its not exacly MPEG4, which is what my original claim was, Ill see what I can do with it.
and when we are done with all that lets ARJ it just to be ........heads
OK I finished DLing it and heres the results I got
Original File - 330,127,360
Compressed- 323,773,272
Savings 6,354,088
overall compression ratio 98% (98.07%).
Last edited by abachler; 02-11-2008 at 05:21 PM.
Hehe, well, you should try a more representative video stream and not one minute of unchanged video. I am not surprised that RAR was able to compress that video stream well.
For those interested, the video he used was a view out from a window where nothing was changing except cars in the distance.
Last edited by Sang-drax; 02-11-2008 at 06:08 PM.