>>1329373
>exports in the most retarded formats so every video is like 100x the size it needs to be. you can shrink the entire 1TB pack down to 300GB with literally zero measurable quality loss
Tweetney's vids are compressed fine. Any more would be detrimental to the quality.
Actual raw 8 bit uncompressed video would be around 45GB per minute for 30FPS 4K.
Whining over a multi gigabyte 30 minute video is poorfag cope. All those bits? They improve the quality. You can't compress them down to 1/3 size without losing detail, they're already compressed over 90%. You just need glasses or are too used to "hub" quality trash.

This whole argument is essentially you seething at 1MB PNG files and demanding they be converted into 100kb JPEGs because the artifacts are not visible. They are but you just have a fetish for compression artifacts and a hard time accepting that.

>>1329383
>re-encoding is always a good idea for porn because the people releasing the videos are non-technical and don't know wtf they're doing.
No. They know what they're doing.
They're actually smarter than you, you think that's not the case, but it is.

They just know that the people paying for porn aren't too poor to buy hard drives. Storage is cheap.
Porn is just literally higher quality than Hollywood films. Blu-Ray is the best you get there, but pornstars can upload in whatever formats they want and have no restrictions.
Only poorfags complain about video filesizes.

>>1329409
That's literally in line with what blu-ray bitrates are. That's not extreme, that's already highly compressed. They understand everything you're just endlessly chasing smaller file sizes at the expense of visual fidelity. They're more or less at the sweet spot for bitrate and you want to go lower.

You're the one doing it wrong.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/t/

Thread:

Tweetney thread 19Stiff amounts of silicone editionPrevious:>>1257564OP vid:Tweetney - Feb…

Tweetney thread 19
Stiff amounts of silicone edition
Previous:
>>1257564
OP vid:
Tweetney - Feb…