Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 12/1/2007
Posts: 425
Encoded.
Before someone asks about the seemingly weird x264 settings: I configured them after advice from x264 dev Dark Shikari; not using bframes cripples encoding efficiency, allowing more bframes in a row does not make playback more CPU demanding, threads don't hurt quality unless you use a LOT of them, increasing me_range does nothing good for a video with a res as low as 256x224.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 12/1/2007
Posts: 425
Silent_Slayers wrote:
Everything.
Edit: Well not really. I don't even know why I hate him, but I do. Of course, that is other than the things he has done to me, such as spoil our first 0 star run to everyone and such.
As well as being rude to us on every possible occasion.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 12/1/2007
Posts: 425
Could anyone show me where to get a good NTSC-ROM
www.google.com
and a savestate for all cars/tracks?
You don't need a savestate. At the mode select, press L, Z, R, C-Up, C-Down, C-Left, C-Right, Start, to unlock all tracks/ships/difficulties. I think Comicalflop has an m64 that does this optimally, so you should ask him.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 12/1/2007
Posts: 425
ZeXr0 wrote:
i would prefer to see a 120 run with every possible glitch than a 70 star run that you have to limit yourself to "the way it was intended to be played". With all the glitch possible, I would really prefer a 120 stars run.
I agree. In my opinion, 70 stars is an arbitrary and useless category. For that category to make any sense, you would have to restrain from using a single BLJ, which means 2-5 extra minutes would be spent walking around in the castle and opening doors.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 12/1/2007
Posts: 425
ShinyDoofy wrote:
You used B-frames in an AVI container. I can't quite judge the encode because of this and can't give you an exact source, but afaik it's discouraged as MKV works far better with B frames. Maybe an experienced encoder can give you a more detailed explanation.
For B-frames to be more effective, you have to compress directly to MKV. Making an AVI with B-frames and muxing to MKV does not shave off any more bytes or have any other advantages over muxing an AVI without B-frames to MKV. (From what I've experienced with MEncoder, anyway. Maybe an experienced encoder can give us a more detailed explanation and possibly a way to make B-frames effective when compressing to AVI and muxing to MKV.)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 12/1/2007
Posts: 425
duksandfish wrote:
Like Bloob commented on the youtube video, the room at 7:30 was awesome.
petrie911 wrote:
Awesome; can't wait to see it. Also, love that you're using Jabo's 1.6. Hopefully I can get it to sync on my computer with it.
I never found your Youtube encodes to be too bad; if you watch in high-quality it actually looks pretty good. Unless, of course, you're doing what I sometimes do and have h264 or xvid capture at maximum bitrate and then upload it directly to YouTube. Even at 10000kbps, a 10:00 video is still less than YouTube's 1GB limit. OK for YouTube, less good for distributing the actual file.
After doing quite a bit of testing, I found that the video has to be at least 640*480/464 (for 4:3 videos) @ 1500-2000kbps with x264 to get hq on youtube. They also look much better if you capture at a higher resolution and downscale to 640*480 with lanczos (or 640*464 if you crop the black bars off)
I encoded this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRzsZdcSDCQ with these settings, and IMO is one of the best looking videos on YT when watched in HQ (though it does lag slightly in BitS)
This is the best quality I've seen on YouTube. However, DeHackEd himself uploaded what I assume is the same file to his channel (here), and the quality is a lot worse, so YouTube is really random.
For OoT/MM, I suggest compressing to xvid using 24 fps - the lower the framerate, the sharper the video will be, but YouTube needs at least 24 fps to prepare a HQ version, I've heard. It should give better results than uploading the raw 60 fps file and have it converted to 29.97 by YouTube.
