Quality or File Size (Patreon)

Today I am running quality/size tests on our VR files in regards to post work, particularly using a h.264 export versus the custom one I have been using for a while. I'm curious if all of you have a preference on keeping the file size low or not. I'm always up for a quality increase, even if it means a bigger file size, but I want to know what all of you think. I'll post my tests' findings here as well as in my next video post tonight/tomorrow. Mind you, I won't give up playback efficiency for quality, only increasing file size. I still want smooth playback for VR. So, what do you think? 

EDIT: Today I'll be testing a couple different formats to see what works and looks best for file size. I'd planned on waiting until tomorrow, but it seems most of us agree on quality and file size. If it turns out there is no visible difference, then we'll still have the same old file size. I suspect that the h.264 WILL look better, but I need to gauge playback smoothness and file size against it. On the plus side, if there are no issues AND it looks better, this actually cuts down on some steps and simplifies my established workflow. Which means MORE storage space needed, but less steps needed, less time needed, and less chance for mistakes made.RESULTSh.264 no compression (newest way, no compression): Less random noise created and less detail lost, but not smooth enough playback with a massive file size (4X bigger). h.264 with compression (newest way with compression): Less random noise created and less detail lost, with no real difference between the uncompressed version graphically speaking. Differences with the compressed version were at the pixel level (checked side by side) and I believe random due to the nature of the effects I use for post. Without further tests I can't be sure on this, but his tdoesn't matter as no important details are lost and no change in noise was detected. If you're watching my videos in VR at the pixel level then you're not using them for the purpose I'm making them. File size is much, much smaller in comparison to the uncompressed h.264, and comparable in size to the old custom-with-compression versionm, being slightly larger, within tens of kbs.custom with compression (old way with compression): More noise and detail lost, with usual smooth playback. File size comparable to the new h.264-with-compression, being slightly smaller within tens of kbs.

custom without compression (old way without compression: Not tested as I know this DOES NOT play back as smoothly and has a larger file size. I won't go back to this, as there's no point whatsoever.

FINDINGS

Dark Dreams will be moving to h.264 combined with the compression we were already utilizing. File size won't change noticeably, and noise reduction and detail will be a little better. Basically, if you didn't have the original to compare to, you probably wouldn't know the difference unless you examined at either the pixel level or side by side. I CAN rest well knowing that I am putting out the best quality I can.tl;dr We'll be decreasing random noise and increasing small detail quality, and removing a couple steps from my workflow, WHILE maintaining current file size. Everybody wins. FUTURE TESTING

Next I'll be working on better compression in terms of better quality. As is now, we have a pretty good setup for giving you good quality with decent resolution and file size; we're always pushing the limits and I'm curious what else I can improve within my current workflow. I also plan to purchase a drawing tablet to start working on custom textures for models. Lighting has been a focus of mine for a year now, and while I believe I still need to work on improving it, materials in SFM are in need of change and I know I have the skillset to do so. I may release said textures publicly if there is a desire for them.