Hello - I need some help understanding something. I’m looking at two WEB-DL files from reputable groups that are identical in nearly all ways (see details below), except one file is noticeably larger than the other (2.8GB vs 3.47GB, for example). I thought WEB-DL’s should be the same size if they’re from the same source (AMZN in this instance), so I’m a little confused as to why there’s such a disparity in size when all else appears equal.

Any idea’s what could explain the difference in file size here? I’m assuming the FLUX file is older based on when it was first uploaded vs the NTb one. Could this have something to do with it?

Bonus question: Which file would you choose in this situation?

(1) 1080p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP2.0.H.264-NTb

  • FileSize…: 2.80 GiB
  • Duration…: 42 min 35 s
  • Video…: High@L4 | 1920x1080 @ 9 197 kb/s
  • Audio…: English Dolby Digital Plus | 2 CH @ 224 kb/s
  • Subtitle…: English / English.

(2) 1080p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP.2.0.H.264-FLUX

  • FileSize…: 3.47 GiB
  • Duration…: 42 min 12 s
  • Video…: High@L4 | 1920x1080 @ 11.3 Mb/s
  • Audio…: English Dolby Digital Plus | 2 CH @ 224 kb/s
  • Subtitle…: English.

Edit: Thanks for all the replies! For anyone who stumbles upon this later on with a similar question, there’s some really great replies in the comments below worth checking out. In my case, the file size difference was due to the difference in bitrate, where the bitrate differential is likely due to either (A) the region where the AMZN WEB-DL occurred (with different regions having different bitrates), or (B) the release group modifying the bitrate to fit a specific need (like limiting the file size). Knowing both release groups here tend to prioritize quality, I’m guessing the region is likely the main driver in the difference in bitrate size.

  • godless@latte.isnot.coffee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    The date of the upload doesn’t matter. What matters is the bitrate given.

    9 197 kb/s vs. 11.3 Mb/s means that the FLUX release is packing >20% more image data into the file, so the picture will look crisper, contains more visual information, and is less compressed in general.

    Depending on your display you might not actually notice the difference, but on a good, large HD panel you will be able to spot differences here and there, particularly when it comes to fast change of scenes, swift light/dark changes, and rapid movements.

    • blixo@lemmy.fmhy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That makes sense and helps to conceptualize the impact of the bitrate difference. I guess I was under the impression that bitrate would be set at the source and not by the release group, but seems I may have been wrong in that assumption. Thanks for the info!

      • godless@latte.isnot.coffee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The source defines the bitrate at which it is streaming, which sets the theoretical maximum. The release group then decides if and how much they want to compress the file.

        Theoretical maximum because the release group could go above spec, but that wouldn’t add any benefits.

        • mammut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unless the meaning of the term has changed, WEB-DL are not re-encoded by the group. WEB-DL is meant to indicate a “lossless” copy of the stream. (Obviously not literally lossless, since no video streaming service is streaming lossless, but lossless relative to the original stream).