The 140MB Question

So I have released a few dreams now that are 140MB.  What I have found is that I can pack high resolution and slow moving dreams into this file size.  The latest example is Utopia Prime which is 1792x1120 and 4 minutes long.  It seems to me that this is a very acceptable tradeoff of lower CPU usage with higher memory consumption.   I realize that not all people have 1920x1200 wide-screens, the fastest CPU, plenty of memory and high speed broadband, but the dreams I'm currently making have so much detail that I would hate to take any of it away for the people who do. 

To the point; Good Night Earth currently weighs in 111MB and is 1152x720 with a 2 minute run time.  I'm currently re-rendering it so that I can try and make it 4 minutes and 1792x1120.  However, this means increasing the file size to 140MB.  For those of you who own Good Night Earth, would you mind the 30MB increase to get a higher resolution and slower spinning speed?  I wouldn't think so, but wanted to make sure I'm not off base here and everyone is hating the fact that my dreams have gotten so large and don't want any changes to Good Night Earth.

Does anyone have any comments or opinions on the subject?

6,442 views 18 replies
Reply #1 Top
Personally, i think if you're willing to download a 111MB dream, a 30MB increase is piddle for a nicer view.

I'd download it just to try it out... ... if i had Vista. :P
Reply #2 Top

I'd only consider reducing file sizes as long as quality did not suffer.

If the price of 'good quality' images is size....then so be it...;)

Reply #3 Top
Goodnight Earth is still my favourite dream, and to have it in higher resolution would be great. I don't care if it's 200mb - I would download it...
Reply #4 Top
I don't see the problem why you people don't download the big dreams. Its just a few minutes longer you have to wait.

Or do you guyz have also a downloadlimit of 12gig (up and down together) like here in Belgium. :(
Reply #5 Top
I'd download it just to try it out... ... if i had Vista.
End of quote


Ditto.

But it'd be even better if we could get the use of Dreams without Vista *hint hint* :LOL:
Reply #6 Top
But it'd be even better if we could get the use of Dreams without Vista *hint hint*
End of quote


I'll second that!!
Reply #7 Top
The dreams I created for use at home are 1-2 gigabytes in length, so downloading these is no problem for me. :)
Reply #8 Top
Go for it. I would much rather have the slower version.
Reply #9 Top
Quality every time  :CONGRAT: 
Reply #10 Top
Deifinately Quality. I too would be downloading dreams if I could get them to work on XP..
Reply #11 Top
Yes, go for it man. Love your stuff. Very good artist. Your attention to detail is one of the many reasons I (and I'm sure many others) like your stuff enough to pay for it.
Reply #12 Top
Quality every time
End of quote


Agreed.


Reply #13 Top

Quality is good, but there are probably little bits you could do to reduce file size (and thus memory footprint):

  1. 1280x720 is the generally accepted "high def" resolution.  Reducing your resolution a little bit will result in a much smaller file.  You're still using a resolution large enough that very few people will have to stretch it much (if at all) to get it to fill their screen.
  2. MPEG compression.  If you can get ahold of a good compressor, you could shave off some size without sacrificing much quality or CPU resources.
  3. Shorter loops.  I know you want a very long, slow rotation to the Earth, but it's the length more than anything else that's giving you these huge file sizes.  Shaving 30 seconds could save a lot of size.

All things to experiment with of course, but I'm sure somewhere in there you can find a good middle ground between quality, size, and resource usage.

Reply #14 Top
I think I see a trend :)

What I will do is compare the 1792x1152 version to the 1152x720 version and make a determination if you can really tell the difference. With the slower rotation of the Earth, I suspect you will be able to see a lot more detail at the higher resolution.
Reply #15 Top

I'd say 'screw' the filesize. With todays highspeed interweb connections, downloading 140 mb is nothing.
I just hope for your sake that everything goes ok when uploading.
I'd hate being the one sending you a rejection note;

Dewd..... ya file's stuffed. Please re-submit....
End of quote

;)

Reply #16 Top

Well, I for one would like to have the option of lower resolutions. You can know by my profile that I have purchased all of your Dreamscenes, MasterBaron, and I have bought many others by other designers as well.

However, I have an X61S laptop, which is only a few months old, and while I enjoy running Dreamscenes, they are generally overkill on the resolution, thereby wasting my resources unnecessarily. It would be nice that when we purchase Dreamscenes that we have the option of other resolution modes, like when downloading wallpaper. If the Dreamscene is free, I understand, but if purchased, I am not sure that would be asking too much. I know that encoding to one or two other resolution modes would not be to labor intense.

Since we are on the topic, I would also be willing to downscale the resolution myself, if only I had the option. I have done research and found that some people have renamed certain Dreams to .wmv or .mpeg successfully, dropped the resolution, and then re-created the dream using DreamMaker. I have had no such success though with the dreams I own. I have a good MPEG2 encoder, so I am ready to go...MasterBaron, can you tell me how I might manage this with the Dreams I have purchased from you?

Most appreciative,

Joe (Spasshaber)
Reply #17 Top
I have purchased Utopia and the spin speed and lightning effects is carme and relaxed (VERY IMPORTANT, otherwise it's anoying!) and I must say Utopia is the best one I have seen so far, so don't worry about the 140MB. It's absolutely worth it!

If I see a 300MB file from you that is nice and relaxed I byu it.

Thanks for a great work Baron! ;)