Me and Randil was talking yesterday on irc, then switched to MSN, about buying a 320GB harddrive and re-encode ALL of the published submissions and host them on a large file server.
Probably we will make it avalible through a regular http access. However I have some sort of queue-system in mind coded in PHP.
I just wanted to hear the general oppinion about this idea.
Also.. Would there be interests in help funding the harddrive that will be bought in order to make this real?
Also I want to know Bisqwits oppinion on this. Will you link to an alternative download mirror which provides http download instead of torrent? No profit will be made out of this of course.
Most likley the harddrive will be at my place since I got a good upstream and unlimited bandwidth.
I want more ideas and POV's of this.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Why not just help fund Bisqwit instead?
If you think downloads are too slow, then setup a second dedicated server with a dedicated high speed line which has all the movies, and run Bisqwit's btfriend.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Distributedness builds robustry.
Highness: re-encode, why?
Yes, we already have a means of linking to arbitrary HTTP mirror sites.
See the Metroid runs for example, they've mirrored on a few sites.
More mirrors are welcomed. (Though they skew the download counts.)
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
On a sidenote, I plan on uploading a lot of videos to the Internet Archive. I tried to upload low and high quality versions of Xaphan's Mega Man Zero 3 run, but the program kept crashing, however. Until I can get it to work, it's just not going to happen, I guess. :)
He means specifically re-encoding the old famtasia files and old runs who has not been encoded with H/X .264. You would benefit by this procedure getting much lower filesize runs, better graphic etc you know the rest.
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
There's one argument I can think against re-encoding the 20fps Famtasia movies. It shows exactly the same precision as was present when the movie was made.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
Nach wrote:
Why not just help fund Bisqwit instead?
Distributedness builds robustry.
That's what the second part of my statement refers to.
It also irks me to see Bisqwit is doing the community a service, and buys hardware to that end which was only 8% sponsered, and the next day there's talk of creating another server without recompensating Bisqwit at all.
As for the Famtasia runs, those games really should be done, I bet most of them can be beaten. My Wish List: http://tasvideos.org/Nach.html#wish_list_
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Err.. I think you have misunderstood me.
I am not taking away Bisqwits job or site or wishes to create something that is better etc. I just want to help to share the material by putting a large harddrive on my bandwidth so that more people can download faster!
But if you all feel that Bisqwit should have the large harddrive with http access to it or something similar, we can all just go ahead and donate some money to him. But I already thought that the site is lacking bandwidth right? As far as I know Bisqwit is on DSL, while I am on 100mbit currently. You do the math.
And about the statistics Bisqwit... We could use some sort of redirect thingie right? So that the stats will be shown on your webpage, but the download will go from my connection. Should be that hard.
And yes, the old movies look like crap.
I wanted to do this to help out generally. But it seems like people are more against it?
Here is another aspect for HTTP download... Perhaps a user should need to do something in order to get the previligue to download from direct http? Like you have to submit a movie that get's published or something? Well.. That can be hard. But I'm just juggling ideas here. Perhaps it can evolve into something more exclusive and better?
It needs to have some sort of queue system anyways, since it would be pretty tough to have many users download at the same time. And the speeds would be worse for them as well..
If you can encode movies, I think you should become an encoder for the site (that way the judges could accept more movies than they can encode) instead of just re-encoding already published movies. Or is there a reason why not?
Here is another aspect for HTTP download... Perhaps a user should need to do something in order to get the previligue to download from direct http? Like you have to submit a movie that get's published or something? Well.. That can be hard. But I'm just juggling ideas here. Perhaps it can evolve into something more exclusive and better?
People would probably create crap movies just to try and get access to them. Of course they'd be rejected but there would still be a few people wasting their time by looking at them.
I guess uploading some more movies to archive.org might be good. I don't think they have any bandwidth restrictions or anything.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Highness wrote:
Err.. I think you have misunderstood me.
I am not taking away Bisqwits job or site or wishes to create something that is better etc. I just want to help to share the material by putting a large harddrive on my bandwidth so that more people can download faster!
But if you all feel that Bisqwit should have the large harddrive with http access to it or something similar, we can all just go ahead and donate some money to him. But I already thought that the site is lacking bandwidth right? As far as I know Bisqwit is on DSL, while I am on 100mbit currently. You do the math.
Okay... But if you want to start collecting donations, I don't think that's fair for Bisqwit, see this: http://tasvideos.org/donate.cgi
Your timing couldn't have been worse.
However, as for helping Bisqwit, if you could get a hard drive loaded with all the movies, and run btfriend, on a fast connection, that would be great.
As for reencoding, there's no reason why we shouldn't all be distributing the highest quality video. All the recent encodes are quite fantastic, it's just the movies encoded before we found out about x264 codec aren't so great.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
As Highness pointed out, I don't have disk space problems, but I do have limited bandwidth, as do our users (except a small minority such as Highness).
I aim to (and do) provide good-looking files that don't take eternity to download, and thus, I make a compromise between perfect quality and tiny filesize. The exact guidelines we (I and the other encoders) follow in the AVI publications are readable here.
HTTP mirrors are welcome. But I see little to no point in re-encoding existing movies.
Here is another aspect for HTTP download... Perhaps a user should need to do something in order to get the previligue to download from direct http? Like you have to submit a movie that get's published or something? Well.. That can be hard. But I'm just juggling ideas here. Perhaps it can evolve into something more exclusive and better?
That's kind of odd. If you're going to provide a HTTP download, it should be available to everyone. Especially since the people who make the movies probably already have whatever they want (the FCM, SMV, etc.), and don't need a faster download.
It needs to have some sort of queue system anyways, since it would be pretty tough to have many users download at the same time. And the speeds would be worse for them as well..
Maybe you could put the AVIs up on your server a week or two after the submission is published. That way, anyone who wants it immediately can get it through the torrent while there are lots of seeds (if the movie is popular). Then, after a period of time where the downloads begin to slow, you could make it available through HTTP instead of torrent, and seeding won't be a problem (if I'm correctly understanding what you're trying to do with this server). I think it's a good idea if it will eliminate the problem of no/little seeding. SDA occasionally does the same kind of thing with runs they know will be popular, and will yield many downloads in a short period of time.
Well.. It's not only for the fast bandwidth thing, but also because many of the movies are not alive on the torrent network. It would help situations where people have been trying to download an avi for a month without success!
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
With enough people running btfriend, it's rare for someone to need a month.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
With enough people running btfriend, it's rare for someone to need a month.
Ok, this site hosts something less than 300 movies, do you expect all of them to have enough seeders? I don't think so. People also delete those movies sometimes, yeah.
Though 320 GB is an overkill, the maximum you need is about ~60 GBs, no more (and that is about two to four times current movie collection, estimating from the average movie size).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
moozooh wrote:
Nach wrote:
With enough people running btfriend, it's rare for someone to need a month.
Ok, this site hosts something less than 300 movies, do you expect all of them to have enough seeders? I don't think so. People also delete those movies sometimes, yeah.
Something tells me you're not exactly familiar with btfriend.
Yes I expect with enough people running btfriend whatever movies are being downloaded at the time will have enough seeders. And if you're running btfriend and you're deleting movies; to my understanding you're being mutually exclusive.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Though 320 GB is an overkill, the maximum you need is about ~60 GBs, no more (and that is about two to four times current movie collection, estimating from the average movie size).
I wanted to buy the 320GB disk because it's the most price worthy right now. It only costs 1208kr, while a 40GB right now costs 535kr.
You do the rest of the math. ;)
