this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53792 readers
81 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hello just making a poll, which one do you prefer? personally I prefer x265 but since the rarbg falldown i've seen that almost all 1080p rips are in x264, what do you think about that, and do you recommend any place to find more x265 content beside those in the megathread?

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Note that H.264 and H.265 are the video compression standards and x264 and x265 are FOSS video encoding libraries developed by VideoLAN.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because of this post, I reencode a BD rip I made using handbrake to see how small the output file would be. I used the 4k av1 fast profile, but changed the audio tract to passthrough. Holy crap, 44gb down to 1.5gb. what black magic is this?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

AV1 is very efficient (around twice as good as h264), but a filesize that low was almost definitely because the default encoding settings were more conservative than the ones used to encode the blu-ray. The perceptual quality of that 1.5gb file will be noticeably lower than the 44gb one

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I've recoded a bunch of x264 to AV1 and routinely gotten file sizes that are 10-15% of the original file size (a little more than 1/10th the original size)

What I've found is that source content often has a lot of key frames. By dropping key frames down to one per 300 or one per 150 frames (one per 10 or 5 seconds for 30fps) and at scene changes, you can save a LOT of space with no loss of quality. You do give up the ability to skip to an arbitrary point in the content, however. You may have to wait a few seconds for rendering to display if you scroll to an arbitrary point in the content.

If you're just watching the content straight through, no issues. I set CRF to achieve 96 VMAF and I can't tell any difference in quality between the content with that setup.

I had one corpus of content that I reduced from 1.3 TB down to 250 GB after conversion.

Unfortunately, only the most recent TVs have AV1 playback built in, and the current Fire sticks, Chromecast don't have support for playback from a LAN source. I'm hoping the next crop of Chromecast and similar devices get full support, I'm assuming it's just a matter of time until AV1 decoding is included in every hardware decoder since it's royalyy-free.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What happened to RARBG? I'm out of the loop

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

They shut down last month.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

H265 is objectively superior in just about every way UNLESS you're trying to play it on hardware that doesn't support it. The only reason to use H264 is for broad compatibility.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

also its not just pure "compatibility", but I had a time when I played vids to my TV over an old laptop (from around 2015). Worked like a charm. But some x265 vids went into full-on stutter mode in scenes where a lot of stuff was happening... was more a nuisance than a dealbreaker, but still, preferred x264 versions if I could get them

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Sounds like your TV isn't fully compatible with x265. You can get around that by using a modern streaming stick that supports it.