Curious about what you pick in regards to file size/quality when downloading

[fl0w]

I generally pick the larger file size because because disk space and bandwidth are less of a concern and I figure bigger file size should lead to better quality... But... I must admit that this notion for me is unfounded. As in, I'm not sure I even perceive those improvements in visual quality. Not nearly enough as I wish I would. Furthermore when I attempt a blind test I always fail Unless of course there's a definitive gap, like between resolutions - 720p vs 1080p etc. But for differently encoded files with the same resolution I don't think I personally notice as much difference as I thought I would've.

So rationally and statistically I should download compressed versions, but then there's always the risk of getting a version of a release in which there actually _is_ a difference. And since I don't want to download both versions for every release I pay for this fear of missing out with my disk space. So I'm curious, which file size do you generally pick and why? Given the differences aren't in resolution or staggering.

[A Ghoul Editor]

I always choose the highest quality original render whenever possible, whatever the size.

But big size does not always mean better image quality.

What some times happens on Milovana is that beginner Cock Hero artists with no experience in video editing encode with unnecessarily high quality settings when most of their source material is already very compressed, ending up with a 30 minute video taking up 8GB when it should be more like 4GB for 1080p with x254.

So, I can't really answer your poll because it's not clear what you're asking. If a CH artist releases a 1080p render and a 720p render, the difference in image quality is perfectly clear to anybody who's not blind, and I will choose the 1080p.

But if someone releases a 30m 1080p 8GB render, I'll look at it and most likely the image quality doesn't justify the size, so I'll get the properly re-encoded version that someone will post later or I'll re-encode it myself.

[fl0w]

If a CH artist releases a 1080p render and a 720p render, the difference in image quality is perfectly clear to anybody who's not blind, and I will choose the 1080p.

Unless of course there's a definitive gap, like between resolutions - 720p vs 1080p etc.

I'm glad I'm not totally blind, yet.

But if someone releases a 30m 1080p 8GB render, I'll look at it and most likely the image quality doesn't justify the size.

Well yeah, I agree, sometimes the numbers alone can give you a hint and push the decision over to not justifiable.
But there are plenty of videos here released by non-beginners where it's not as clear cut.

Just pulled up a random release page, 1 hour at 2gb compressed vs 6gb. I'd pick the bigger just... well, because. But would you say that there's a good chance you would notice an improved quality based on those numbers?

If we also factor in that it's easier to notice those slight differences in a side-by-side eye-straining squint exercise rather than in a live setting it makes me curious to why I still feel I would pick the bigger version just because.

[3xTripleXXX]

It also depends on what the higher and lower quality are. Like, I generally never bother with the 4k versions, since the highest resolution screen I have is 1440p. So if there's a 1080p version, that's typically what I go for, since I don't notice much difference above that, and while a single file at high res doesn't make a huge difference on my drive, it adds up when there are many.

On the other hand, I'll only grab 720p if it's the highest version available, because there is such a quality leap between 720 and 1080 unless the compression is really over the top.

The studios also vary greatly in quality, depending on what kind of compression they use and such. Some studios produce 1080p content that's crisper and nicer to look at than other studios' supercompressed 4k content, just so they can say they release in 4k. So when I'm making videos, I still go for 1080p source video whenever I can, and never anything less, and very rarely anything more.

So I find the general terms of the poll hard to answer, since the answer is, "it depends." :)

[PlayfulGuy]

If all else is equal I go for smaller file size, because disk space matters. I always seem to be buying a new larger drive every two or three years (because I have trouble letting go and deleting stuff ).

Even if both a 720p and 1080p version are available, I will often start with the 720p version if it's a significantly smaller file size, because for a lot of stuff I find 720p good enough, and if I really like the video then I will go download the 1080p version.

There's one publisher whose works I've never tried simply because the file sizes they post are always ridiculously large (like 3Gb and higher). Even a 1 gig file I think twice about and read the reviews first.

PG

[Megusta187]

Most of the people uploading here know how to compress videos without significant loss in quality. Since my monitor is 1080p, I don't see a reason to download lossless or 1080p files. There's only marginal improvement, if bitrate and Codec is correctly picked.

The biggest difference, which is also noticable is on online streams. There's significant amount of noise in the image due to the severe compression during web streaming. For these instances I always use the highest quality possible when downloading from lets say Spankbang for example.

[verynicekojak]

I always try to download 1080p. I aim for files about 5GB in size (for 1h-2h movie). I don't download bigger files because I would see the difference. I also don't have 4k monitor, so I don't go over full HD.

[fbn02]

if its not for the handy i grab the highest res video, i have a server with 30 tb and 20 free.
if its for the handy i grab no higher than 1080p as i have issues with handy feeling video player not playing 4k stuff

Dave

[JakofClubs]

I have 4k monitors but go for the 1080p or equivalent files. Usually between 2GB and 5GB for one to two hours. I don't see a huge quality difference with 4k files but they take up x4 the space (raw), so not worth it. I think a lot of it is codecs and compression. Hot girls and sexiness are more important than highest possible quality. 1080 is fine, if done right.

I saw a few videos where, if shown 1080p and 4k side by side, most people could tell the difference. But shown separately most people couldn't tell the difference (IIRC).

[zebbg69]

I am always looking for 1080p, but I am not interested in extra-large files that claim a high quality level at the same resolution. These rarely make a discernible improvement. The default settings in tools like ffmpeg are based on perceptual metrics and so are hard to improve on unless you have very high quality source material or a special situation like a specific style of lighting.

[froog]

I will always go for the bigger file, unless it's obvious that the person making the file has just not bothered compressing it at all. e.g. 10GB for 1hr video.

But I may just download it anyway, because if it turns out I really like the video, I may be able to do something with it later on. Bandwidth and storage are not really a consideration for me, as far as videos I like.

[Helequin]

In general I will look for 1080p at a reasonable file size. 1080p vs 720p makes an easily detected difference on a computer monitor or a TV somewhere near optimal viewing range. 1440p is fantastic for a computer monitor, but really not necessary for video (we tend to lean back more when watching than when say, playing a game or working on stuff). 4K is generally only useful if for some reason the screen is closer than normal or I want to focus on just one part of the screen.

Resolutions aside, as long as the encoding size is reasonable for the resolution (so generally average file sizes) I usually won't see a difference by ramping up the quality higher and higher.

For long videos and large files, a small or streamable preview is very nice thing to have. This lets me take a glance at the video's style to better know if I want to download the full file or not. Not so much a question of bandwidth or space as time though

[book_guy]

FYI: as of the moment immediately after my vote, I'm the ONE and only vote for "smaller because of bandwidth / file-size concerns" (bottom option) and I almost voted "smaller because I don't notice improvement in quality" (the next option up). So sue me.