Image Compression

[seekermeister]

I haven't been backing up my video collection, due to it's size (~1565GBs), because I didn't want to dedicate that much hard drive space to that task, but after looking at the compression options in TI, that could be reduced to ~898GBs, so that it would fit on a 1TB drive, with some room to spare. The question is whether compressing them would effect the quality of the videos after restoring them?

 

[SIW2]

No, It doesn't with my imaging apps. - pretty sure the same would be true of Acronis.

That is a pretty good compression level for video files.

What will you do if they turn out to be a lot larger?

 

[seekermeister]

At this point, all that I can do is to go by what TI has given as figures for the estimated compressed size at maximum compression. I wouldn't be surprised if that estimate is based on typical data compression, such as with backing up the OS, and may not be valid for video files. However, if it won't fit on a 1TB drive, I will probably continue as I am now, with only a partial backup formed by having only part of the videos on an uncompressed drive on my secondary rig.

I think that what I have now is relatively secure, but considering the amount of time that I've spent encoding and collecting the videos, I wouldn't be happy losing them.

EDIT: Are you suggesting that the video files will not compress much?

 

[SIW2]

I wouldn't be surprised to find they don't compress to half original size as Acronis suggests.

TBH I only have a couple which have been backed up as part of a much larger image - so can't give you a figure.

I don't think they compress much, tho - a bit like jpg's.

 

[seekermeister]

I won't be able to experiment with this, until my 1TB returns from RMA, but I have a feeling that you are right about the compression ratio. If that is the case, then my only option would be to get another 2TB drive for backup, but if I did that, there wouldn't really be a need for compression anyway...at least until my collection grows a lot bigger.

It would be nice if BD drives and media were much cheaper than they are. I did find an new LG BD burner for ~$100, but the cost of media still makes it prohibitive to use them for such a large image.

 

[SIW2]

Yep bd would be a bit pricey for that amount of data.

 

[GeneO]

I haven't been backing up my video collection, due to it's size (~1565GBs), because I didn't want to dedicate that much hard drive space to that task, but after looking at the compression options in TI, that could be reduced to ~898GBs, so that it would fit on a 1TB drive, with some room to spare. The question is whether compressing them would effect the quality of the videos after restoring them?

As mentioned, they are already pretty well compressed and, depending on the compression algorithm, could take up more space.

TI compression won't do much better than zip compression, so why don't you try compressing one inti a zip folder with windows and see what you get?

 

[pparks1]

Don't count on those compressing. But if they do, you aren't going to lose any quality when you extract them back out.

 

[GeneO]

btw, dye based BD or any kind of dye based discs are not that reliable. I would not count on them as a sole copy for my precious files.

 

[pparks1]

I keep multiple USB drives with my critical data, keep them offsite.

 

[seekermeister]

I haven't been backing up my video collection, due to it's size (~1565GBs), because I didn't want to dedicate that much hard drive space to that task, but after looking at the compression options in TI, that could be reduced to ~898GBs, so that it would fit on a 1TB drive, with some room to spare. The question is whether compressing them would effect the quality of the videos after restoring them?

As mentioned, they are already pretty well compressed and, depending on the compression algorithm, could take up more space.

TI compression won't do much better than zip compression, so why don't you try compressing one inti a zip folder with windows and see what you get?

I took your suggestion, and instead of one, I tried 3. One .mpg, one .mkv and one .flv. The .flv had the best result, by compressing to 0.7447465429637659 of it's original size, but the majority of my files are of the other two kinds. Even if they all compressed as well as the .flvs, it wouldn't be enough for my purposes.

I then used TI to create an image of the same .flv, and the difference in size between the original and backup was almost nil. So it appears that using TI for this purpose is out of the question.

I suspect that I will just keep things as they are.

 

[seekermeister]

I keep multiple USB drives with my critical data, keep them offsite.

That would take a lot of thumbdrives to accomplish my purpose, and that would not be cheap, considering how many it would take.
I understand that you are referring to things more precious than video files, but that is my concern presently.

 

[pparks1]

I wasn't talking about thumb drives, I was talking about actual physical hard drives attached via a USB interface. I keep 2 x 2TB external drives that I keep offsite that are for backups of my videos.

 

[seekermeister]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Somehow I seem to always think of thumb drives, when linked to the term USB. However, if I were going to get another hard drive for this purpose, it would probably be an internal SATA, so that I could slide it into my external case, which I imagine would be faster on transfers than USB.

 

[mjf]

I found zip type data compression on my video files not worth bothering with.

 

[Sardonicus]

I think that you probably need to encode the video to a smaller size, or transcode to another format, with a dedicated video program. I too wouldn't bother with zip type compression on any mpeg files.

 

[seekermeister]

No, the files are about as small as they can be. In fact, I need to reencode some of them to a larger size for the purpose of increasing quality. However, none of my files are in DVD format, so I would estimate the average size at ~.5GBs. Of course, some are much smaller, and some are much larger than that.

 

[pparks1]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Somehow I seem to always think of thumb drives, when linked to the term USB. However, if I were going to get another hard drive for this purpose, it would probably be an internal SATA, so that I could slide it into my external case, which I imagine would be faster on transfers than USB.

Yes, I use internal SATA drives, in a USB/eSATA dock from Thermaltake. I use eSATA as it's the fastest of the interfaces.
This is the dock I use: Newegg.com - Thermaltake BlacX ST0005U External Hard Drive SATA Enclosure Docking Station 2.5” & 3.5” USB 2.0 & eSATA

It sometimes goes on sale for about $23.99 with free shipping. I've got 3 of them and they are great.

 

[seekermeister]

Your's has more versatility than mine, but I still prefer them. This case is now discontinued, and I had a heck of a time find a second one. Now I can move drives back and forth between computers with ease.

Newegg.com - StarTech ESATCASE2 Aluminum Dual 3.5" Drive Enclosure eSATA Dual HD Enclosure

 

[mjf]

I think that you probably need to encode the video to a smaller size, or transcode to another format, with a dedicated video program. I too wouldn't bother with zip type compression on any mpeg files.

I've been using H.264 and audio passthrough in an MKV container and find near BD/Blu Ray equivalent in the 5-10GB range. Processing takes a LONG time.
The backup method is a tradeoff between disk space, processing power and how much of an absolute perfectionist you are.