As I stated, video is not always compressed using the highest settigns for various reasons of quality/speed. Therefor it is prudent to at least TRY to compress the video first. Once the RAR ( or zip etc) compression has been performed, there is no reason not to use the smaller of the compressed or uncompressed versions. 2% may not seem like much, but its enough to save on the upload time which is realyl what most distributers are worried about.
For quality reasons? The only argument against heavy video compression is decoding speed and encoding time.Originally Posted by abachler
Still, if you encode using MPEG4 ASP/AVC, it's hardly worth the time compressing it. For other sources, perhaps... but 90% of the material is MPEG4 ASP/AVC.
Squeezing 2% of the file size seems like an argument. But it isn't. They rar the thing and split the rar because that's how they do it. Period.
It's the stupid habit idea. Nothing wrong with it. Files were being RARed and split long before video files had such an high rate of compression. They just do it this way because that's what they have been doing for years.
The 2% used to be important. Not anymore on non centralized p2p networks. So yeah, again, it's an habit. Sheesh!
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.
You seem to think that p2p == infinite bandwidth, it does not. The file is still going over finite connection speeds and the smaller the overall file, the faster it will transfer. Perhaps 2% doesnt matter on a 1MB file where the difference woudl mean only a second or two, but particularly on large files, 2% of a 4 hour download means it finishes several minutes earlier.
You have taken the stance that 'oh its stupid they have no reason to do it' and simply refuse to accept any of the reasons presented because they disagree with your notion that they do it because they are stupid.
Yes. I think it's (today) a stupid and annoying habit that got popular probably from the earlier days of usenet sharing.
I presented my reasons, too. 2% of a 4GB file is ~80Mb. This is nothing on today's broadband networks. You get that much from just surfing the web. On my ADSL 12Mbps, 80Mb takes me 5 minutes on a bad day.
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.
