Watermarks You Hate

[Inertia]

It's highly likely the studios themselves release those annoyingly watermarked versions.
First of all releasing the thing for free but pretending it's just some chinese will make it unlikely anybody else is going to buy the video just to put it online again without a watermark.
Second, the watermark is made to be that annoying on purpose, to make those that really want it more likely to actually pay.
Third, the watermark isn't completely ruining it but also the video is not HD quality either, so they get people to slowly get used to and enjoy their JAVs until they eventually consider buying those they want in better quality without watermark.

When you think about the production cost of a Video... just making 1 video takes time and you have to buy the equipment. But they make thousands of videos and they have experience and reuse the equipment, so the cost for a single video will be reduced dramatically to the point where they already make a profit if the average consumer watches 99 of them for free and just buy 1. Thanks to digital releases they don't even have any distribution cost.

So ultimately it makes perfect sense for them to follow a strategy that literally throws out 99% of their content for free while also giving the potential customers an incentive to actually buy something.

No.

 

[Supmop]

It's highly likely the studios themselves release those annoyingly watermarked versions.
First of all releasing the thing for free but pretending it's just some chinese will make it unlikely anybody else is going to buy the video just to put it online again without a watermark.
Second, the watermark is made to be that annoying on purpose, to make those that really want it more likely to actually pay.
Third, the watermark isn't completely ruining it but also the video is not HD quality either, so they get people to slowly get used to and enjoy their JAVs until they eventually consider buying those they want in better quality without watermark.

When you think about the production cost of a Video... just making 1 video takes time and you have to buy the equipment. But they make thousands of videos and they have experience and reuse the equipment, so the cost for a single video will be reduced dramatically to the point where they already make a profit if the average consumer watches 99 of them for free and just buy 1. Thanks to digital releases they don't even have any distribution cost.

So ultimately it makes perfect sense for them to follow a strategy that literally throws out 99% of their content for free while also giving the potential customers an incentive to actually buy something.

bullshit

a lot of people out there doesn't care about watermarks, as long they got free porn, they don't bother to buy clean without watermark vids

selling porn vids doesn't same like drugs

 

[nmercer]

Who's the idiots doing the purple flower watermarks + the big Letupia ones, although the new Letupia ones have a smaller font which is ok.

 

[nmercer]

Now those stupid Chinese yellow watermark guys are degrading their releases to 500mb size so you can barely even watch it, it ends up being totally pixelated and poor quality. WTF is the point of this?

 

[pikuseru]

Now those stupid Chinese yellow watermark guys are degrading their releases to 500mb size so you can barely even watch it, it ends up being totally pixelated and poor quality. WTF is the point of this?

Others have said, that's actually people uploading the videos to tube sites, then other people taking those tube versions and converting them and reuploading them yet again. So basically those files are 3 generations removed from the original video file. You have first conversion to mp4 where the watermark was placed, then you have another conversion to flv for tube site, and then yet another conversion from flv to back to mp4 for people to download. With each conversion the video is recompressed and the quality degrades, and it was done 3 times.

 

[nmercer]

They were always around the 1gb - 1.4gb size mark, then days later you'd get the good HD versions, sometimes FHD.

Who's chopping them down to 500mb bs?, the first guys uploading them to tube sites or what?

 

[Muz1234]

Any updates of the watermark issue?

 

[Casshern2]

Well, there's been no concerted effort to do away with them if that's what you mean. Other than that I guess they're just streaming along nicely?

 

[ding73ding]

Well, there's been no concerted effort to do away with them if that's what you mean. Other than that I guess they're just streaming along nicely?

I would give you a -1 if I could, for responding to @Muz1234

There's been no posts to this thread because watermarks have pretty much become a non-issue. A great number of new release FHD rips have zero watermark, and most of the rest have nearly invisible watermarks. It leaves only a tiny tiny fraction that has any watermark that ppl hate. In fact I encounter one such yellow watermark vid yesterday and it's the first one in a long long time. RCTD-298, not a fringe vid I'd think, but the only rip I found was the yellow watermark 480p. But even the most notorious of watermarker seems to have gotten the message, as JaponX and others who release no-watermark 1080P rips. The new yellow now occupy a much smaller percentage of the frame, it's still annoying but I'd say it's tolerable now.

 

[Electromog]

This may be true for the 1080p stuff, but I prefer the smaller files and there's still plenty of yellow watermarks on the lower resolution files.

 

[ding73ding]

This may be true for the 1080p stuff, but I prefer the smaller files and there's still plenty of yellow watermarks on the lower resolution files.

~shrug~
For a few months now... since I found even burning Bluray disc isn't catching up with the GB's I'm downloading each month, I've been re-encoding those overbloated 6000kpbs rips into H265. I set a bitrate that's higher than what I hope for, and let the encoder figure out how low it could get. In some case, it give me an output bitrate of sub-1000 kbps, that means a full length 120 mins 1080p vid compress to a 840MB file!! But more typical output is 1400 kbps. At first I didn't like the unpredictable file size, but then I understand it to mean the H265 algorithm is being smart about compression. When the scene is not very dynamic, it compresses much more, so you get equally fine enjoyment for a much smaller file.

It seems every month I have to make a download that's over 10GB. Painful, but then it compress down to~3GB it's great.

The down side is that .H265 takes a hot rod to encode (on my home rig it takes 16 hours to encode a 2 hr vid, but I could run 4 vids in parallel on one machine). And it takes a not-totally-antique PC to playback, most PC that I own can playback fine, but I do still have a very low-end set-top box (with CPU of a tablet) that chokes on .H265.

Anyway, there are also plenty of 720p watermark-free rips out there, it seems (I have been almost exclusively 1080p for a long long time now).

 

[Electromog]

Can you tell me what software to use with which settings? This would help me a lot. My gaming computer shouldn't have too much of a problem doing the encoding.

 

[ding73ding]

The software, there are many choices out there. The actual encoding is done by ffmpeg which is open source. But ffmpeg is not user-friendly, so you need to pick a GUI for it. I happen to use Bigasoft Total Video Converter, which is pretty good but I do wish it has a few more features. Anyway which GUI you choose doesn't matter. Just look for any freeware/shareware video converter which uses ffmpeg underneath. Most of them would install ffmpeg for you if you don't already have it installed.

The settings is important, but it's easy! The GUI most likely come with presets, start with HD HEVC/H.265, on Bigasoft, the preset is called "HD HEVC/H.265 4K Video" but any preset that says HEVC and/or H.265 should be fine. You could try that right away and see if it's making the quality/size you want (I'd recommend you do a 10-20 mins clip instead of a full length vid for the test).

You might also try my settings:
start with "H.265 4K video" as starting point, then modify the following:
Video Size: 1920x1080 or original video frame size, whichever is smaller
Frame Rate: 29.97 (should be same as original, but all JAV are 29.97)
Bitrate: 2500K (the output file is never as high as 2500K, so setting to 2500 is probably meaningless )
x265_preset: medium (I started with Slower, because I'm anal, then I set it to medium now and the video quality seems fine, but probably even setting to Very Fast is good enough)
Aspect Ratio: set according to original vid
Other important settings (which is default) : VBR, 2-Pass: NO, pixel: yuv420p
Audio codec: MPEG-4 AAC
Bitrate: 128K
Channels: Stereo (but remember to set it to 5.1 or whatever for non-JAV)

And I always rename the output to like SSNI-123.H265.mp4

 

[Porni]

265 is almost no better compared to 264 if do visual lossless, but if need to make a blurry shit then yes, 265 is better.

 

[ding73ding]

265 is almost no better compared to 264 if do visual lossless, but if need to make a blurry shit then yes, 265 is better.

O...er... kay... Moving along...

 

[SamKook]

h264 can also encode with smart compression, you just have to set the CRF option and it'll try to keep the same appearance of compression toward the whole vid. It's just that nobody uses it when they recompress those huge 1080p video because they set it to the same bitrate as the original which has to be static because of streaming since most have little experience with encoding.

BTW, the difference with the slower presets when you're using variable bitrate is that the file will be smaller for the same appearance. It'll look about as good with faster preset but the file size is bigger and crazy huge for no reason if you set it to the fastest(at least it was that way for h264).

Haven't done many h265 encoding since it was still early when I last played with it but it is indeed pretty easy to get a much blurrier result than h264 which tends to be noisy instead so gotta pick your poison or carefully pick your settings.

Edit: Found the tests I did long ago about file size vs preset for h264:

Edit: Since I was curious, I tried every presets on the same video to see what the file size would be and here's the result:
Original video: 2.1GB
ultrafast: 1.97GB
superfast: 1.10GB
veryfast: 845MB(that one is really odd since it took about as much time to encode as the veryslow preset. Not sure why)
faster: 951MB
fast: 979MB
medium: 947MB
slow: 927MB
slower: 888MB
veryslow: 818MB
placebo: 839MB

You should give CRF a try instead of VBR since I'm pretty sure h265 has it too. VBR is a lot more limited at keeping the same visual quality than CRF since it won't go over the bitrate you're setting and CRF doesn't have that limitation so you're sure to not get a scene that looks absolutely horrible because it's starved for bitrate.