Hmm... @Andre_Galaxy, is there a reason why all frames are two frames at once which creates this ghosting in movement?

mairo said:
Hmm... @Andre_Galaxy, is there a reason why all frames are two frames at once which creates this ghosting in movement?

ask the guy who this cause mine was oke

andre_galaxy said:
ask the guy who this cause mine was oke

The video looks identical to catbox link on twitter source, your looks also the same but just immensily compressed, so it's issue with all of the versions I'm seeing where all are coming from you. Just pause any of the videos at any point and you see two frames at once. This is also kinda odd considering it is still legit 60 FPS video, usually see this kind of stuff when video is accidentally resampled into lower framerate.

Also please don't use such massive compression levels when ing here so there won't be situations like this where posts need to be replaced. When video is immidiately visually more compressed from given source and even gfycat/redgifs copy is somehow higher quality (this service I have told to avoid if posting content to here as they do compress their stuff quite heavily as well), there's something immensily wrong in the workflow. You should even have access to original video file before h264 encoding which should provide much higher quality and efficiency VP9 encode as s would need to convert the h264 encode.

Also the frame blending is partially the reason why these videos are much harder to compress, resulting much more visual quality degradation with lower bitrates as the video format can't use proper math.

mairo said:
The video looks identical to catbox link on twitter source, your looks also the same but just immensily compressed, so it's issue with all of the versions I'm seeing where all are coming from you. Just pause any of the videos at any point and you see two frames at once. This is also kinda odd considering it is still legit 60 FPS video, usually see this kind of stuff when video is accidentally resampled into lower framerate.

Also please don't use such massive compression levels when ing here so there won't be situations like this where posts need to be replaced. When video is immidiately visually more compressed from given source and even gfycat/redgifs copy is somehow higher quality (this service I have told to avoid if posting content to here as they do compress their stuff quite heavily as well), there's something immensily wrong in the workflow. You should even have access to original video file before h264 encoding which should provide much higher quality and efficiency VP9 encode as s would need to convert the h264 encode.

Also the frame blending is partially the reason why these videos are much harder to compress, resulting much more visual quality degradation with lower bitrates as the video format can't use proper math.

do you know a tool that i can use to transform the vids into webms wihtout loosing quality? cause i been using a page for that since i got here

andre_galaxy said:
do you know a tool that i can use to transform the vids into webms wihtout loosing quality? cause i been using a page for that since i got here

What about this? https://convert-video-online.com/
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/video-converter/mcjjnhgakghmggnimjkldjmmpabhnhne?utm_source=chrome-app-launcher-info-dialog

gentlepuppet said:
What about this?

How about no?
I'm actually legit angry about these. Only thing worse I have seen is one instructing renaming file extension.
It would definitely make what I do easier to just forward everyone to random online converter to press one button :V

andre_galaxy said:
do you know a tool that i can use to transform the vids into webms wihtout loosing quality? cause i been using a page for that since i got here

You still didn't exactly answer my question, considering the problem I'm mentioning is also present on MP4 in catbox link on twitter, which in extend means there's possibly other problems than just webm encoding in your workflow which you might want to check upon.

If by page you mean online converters, then for the love of god why is everyone using online converter!?! Stop that! You clearly aren't using that for MP4 so why for WebM?

These sites suck because they are meant to make it so that you can convert that one video file to format which just works on your schools windows XP computer and windows media player and you do not care about quality as long as it plays. Additionally many of these webpages because of this focus, they hide crusial fine tuning options, force specific codecs, are filled with ads and use extremely fast settings so that you get the file ASAP rather than getting a good file. Also because they are online, you are forced to already lossy file like MP4 instead of source file like PNG image sequence or lossless AVI, further decreasing the quality. They can also default to stuff like constant bitrate mode, which means that small and simple videos turn out fine looking, but when you increase resolution, framerate and complexity, suddenly it looks like horrible mess.

Meanwhile e621 tries to host the animations in format that is as close to original quality as possible, which means just because it works and is accepted, doesn't make it good and will be replaced. We can't exactly host the original lossless AVI files here, so there are still some drawbacks, but at least we can do webm now where earlier we were stuck with flash, which meant a lot of 240p flash conversions in past. With images this is easy, use PNG, that's it.

- - - - -

I use ffmpeg for almost everything, because I need to have fine tuning, know exactly what's going on and need to handle all of the formats including WebM, APNG, GIF, MP4, etc.
Extremely good VP9 encoding guide: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/VP9
My default commands, which is two CRF 16 with no audio:

ffmpeg -y -i input.avi - 1 -deadline best -c:v libvpx-vp9 -pix_fmt yuv420p -crf 16 -b:v 0 -an -f webm NUL
ffmpeg -i input.avi - 2 -metadata title="CHANGE THIS" -metadata url="CHANGE THIS" -deadline best -c:v libvpx-vp9 -pix_fmt yuv420p -crf 16 -b:v 0 -an output.webm

You usually want to aim for visually lossless or "transparent" quality, meaning that if regular viewer is normally watching the video, they cannot see any difference even in close watching proximity. This is why constant quality mode is better from constant bitrate as you don't have to redo the encode multiple times to see if it looks good. There are values thrown online what this is, commonly see values around 18-22, my own testing I keep it generally around 12-18 (lower value = better quality, higher bitrate/filesize).

If you already have Adobe CC, that includes media transcoder which you can also utilize. If you don't know how to use command line tools, there are frontends to ffmpeg including WebM for retards and XMedia recode I have seen being used with some other options out there (VLC and HandBrake I have seen breaking stuff though).

very nice~

mairo said:
How about no?
I'm actually legit angry about these. Only thing worse I have seen is one instructing renaming file extension.
It would definitely make what I do easier to just forward everyone to random online converter to press one button :V

You still didn't exactly answer my question, considering the problem I'm mentioning is also present on MP4 in catbox link on twitter, which in extend means there's possibly other problems than just webm encoding in your workflow which you might want to check upon.

If by page you mean online converters, then for the love of god why is everyone using online converter!?! Stop that! You clearly aren't using that for MP4 so why for WebM?

These sites suck because they are meant to make it so that you can convert that one video file to format which just works on your schools windows XP computer and windows media player and you do not care about quality as long as it plays. Additionally many of these webpages because of this focus, they hide crusial fine tuning options, force specific codecs, are filled with ads and use extremely fast settings so that you get the file ASAP rather than getting a good file. Also because they are online, you are forced to already lossy file like MP4 instead of source file like PNG image sequence or lossless AVI, further decreasing the quality. They can also default to stuff like constant bitrate mode, which means that small and simple videos turn out fine looking, but when you increase resolution, framerate and complexity, suddenly it looks like horrible mess.

Meanwhile e621 tries to host the animations in format that is as close to original quality as possible, which means just because it works and is accepted, doesn't make it good and will be replaced. We can't exactly host the original lossless AVI files here, so there are still some drawbacks, but at least we can do webm now where earlier we were stuck with flash, which meant a lot of 240p flash conversions in past. With images this is easy, use PNG, that's it.

- - - - -

I use ffmpeg for almost everything, because I need to have fine tuning, know exactly what's going on and need to handle all of the formats including WebM, APNG, GIF, MP4, etc.
Extremely good VP9 encoding guide: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/VP9
My default commands, which is two CRF 16 with no audio:

ffmpeg -y -i input.avi - 1 -deadline best -c:v libvpx-vp9 -pix_fmt yuv420p -crf 16 -b:v 0 -an -f webm NUL
ffmpeg -i input.avi - 2 -metadata title="CHANGE THIS" -metadata url="CHANGE THIS" -deadline best -c:v libvpx-vp9 -pix_fmt yuv420p -crf 16 -b:v 0 -an output.webm

You usually want to aim for visually lossless or "transparent" quality, meaning that if regular viewer is normally watching the video, they cannot see any difference even in close watching proximity. This is why constant quality mode is better from constant bitrate as you don't have to redo the encode multiple times to see if it looks good. There are values thrown online what this is, commonly see values around 18-22, my own testing I keep it generally around 12-18 (lower value = better quality, higher bitrate/filesize).

If you already have Adobe CC, that includes media transcoder which you can also utilize. If you don't know how to use command line tools, there are frontends to ffmpeg including WebM for retards and XMedia recode I have seen being used with some other options out there (VLC and HandBrake I have seen breaking stuff though).

oke i will give it a try to dat and about the anim i think i clicked on something on adobe dat made the frames blend togheter and dast the issue you say and i didnt notice first time tbh

Does anyone know were i can find that model of Hornet?

i find it funny that alot of comments i see on porn isn't lewd but people arguing or asking something or whatnot

Omg this comments section lol, I’m in the wrong computer science to understand that