#1
|
|||
|
|||
[Pornhub.com/PornhubPremium.com] Technical Question On Video Quality
Hello guys. Say, i was wondering whether the downloaded content via JD 2 is the exact same that we would get if we paid for the content. Has anyone in here ever bought a watchable clip or one from the modelhub? Maybe even via sharing, to make comparisons.
The quality is far too degraded for me on a vast amount of them. I deal with amateur models over there, mostly. My tally is already over 60k. I am used to dealing with originals from major studios and custom stores, i don't even want that watermarked stuff from cyberlockers. Sure, in most cases the fault is from the amateur producer who sucks at making movies with proper lighting and stuff, but... So, it is the same compressed garbage adapted for streaming, or is it the exact original that was uploaded in the first place? There are a couple of Modelhub clips on PL and it looks like the same garbage. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I have another question on the subject if you guys don't mind. Would it be possible to further improve the quality of the captured stream? Something on the advanced settings, or a plugin tweak?
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
?
We do not capture anything from your screen. We download the content exactly like it is on their servers. Regarding pornhub: As far as I know, some videos will only be available in lower quality for non-premium members and some are not available at all to non-premium. These are the differences I can tell so far ... -psp-
__________________
JD Supporter, Plugin Dev. & Community Manager
Erste Schritte & Tutorials || JDownloader 2 Setup Download |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm, thanks for the clarification. I only use one chunk to avoid data corruption. The problem is with their conversion process. Affects all videos, including modelhub stuff, i checked. I find it appalling that they don't even sell the originals to buyers when charging prices as high as custom stores like MV and C4S. If models don't make proper use of light it gets a lot worse, or use stupid color filters. Black people often look better on camera, perhaps because the skin absorbs the light? lool
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
i once thought about this too. No there isn't any difference, you still get the original quality
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
depends on the website, some websites create there own qualities that fall into there own standards. aka youtube. The original can not be found/provided for download. Depending on the output format/codec quality can diminish. so you have to think of these constraints of how specific platforms work to the content that you might watch/download. JD just grabs what the website provides, outside of that its out of our control.
__________________
raztoki @ jDownloader reporter/developer http://svn.jdownloader.org/users/170 Don't fight the system, use it to your advantage. :] |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Try uploading something of your own and see the difference. Lot's of complaints on their feedback forum as well. With one of them claiming Pornhub has the second worst re-encode of all major tubes (which i doubt). I only use PH, the rest is garbage. Have you ever wondered why so many models shot outside when there is sunlight? Some only film outside. I was never one for outdoors porn, but in PH that means quality above average. Bitrate is not a reliable indicator of quality. You can go to ManyVids, and download some crappy video with a bitrate superior to 20000 kbps. 5000 kbps can be enough for studio quality.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|