So I've been re-encoding everything to 265 and trying to find more trackers with 265 uploads...

So I've been re-encoding everything to 265 and trying to find more trackers with 265 uploads. But why does PTP not allow 265 encodes for 1080p and below? Whats the reason? Any good places with a large library of 265s? tho I don't have tons of things I can rip that would be new or unknown

Attached: 517582488_72db7fd027_o.jpg (2000x1125, 1.03M)

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/xiph/rav1e
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>re-encoding
You shouldn't be re-encoding already re-encoded material. Just leave it as is unless it was a really decent encoding for whatever reason, or you still have the source material.

A lot of people see H.265 as "for 4K". I don't know why.

Personally I don't really like any existing implementations of h265, they look blurry and the quality doesn't justify the decoding complexity. Maybe x265 has improved since I tried it.

Well actually, maybe the thing I ought to be asking is how the quality turned out.

the "quality loss" from a re-encode is minimal for the size reduction. I'm not such a sperg that I need to keep "original pngs" or some shit on my hdd, just jpeg that shit and toss it. Like hell im gonna waste hdd space on 15+gb movies in x264.

>quality doesn't justify the decoding complexity
Is that what people think? I don't understand I'll admit I dont have a quality 4k display for me to sbs compare pixels on a 4k video under different codecs, but I see no perceivable quality loss even side by side on my 1080 conversions. The only noticeable difference usually is a reduction in film grain on b&w movies because of the better 265 filters.

But to say a 3.5x (my estimate) more efficient codec isnt worth the "decoding complexity" is baffling to me, you cant all seriously be watching rips on your flip phones and ps2s right?

honestly id like to see a rip comparison between 65 and 64 for old films, im sure if anything that would be 265's weakness, but its hard to argue with the compression ratio so for now i just want a 265 library cause im gonna run out of sata ports.

>But to say a 3.5x (my estimate) more efficient codec
"More efficient" by what metric? The ideal is to generate output relatively close to the source, at a much lower bitrate. If your filtering and psychovisual methods amount to removing regions of sharp contrast or high frequency (grain) to the point where it looks like the camera had oil on its lens, that's not efficiency or performance.

I work a lot with lossless compression, but I can appreciate clever lossy schemes. h265 has yet to impress at SD-1080p resolutions.

my metric is file size to quality ratio. by the assumption that your average movie will lose a negligible amount of detail (indiscernible in a normal viewing between the 2 formats at the intended resolution) then the "equivalent" video in 264 will be on average more than 3 times larger than the 265 file. This is just what ive observed thus far playing with this codec.

x265 is slow and can't even compete with x264 in terms of quality. It's only useful for HDR and bitrate-starved re-encodes.

slow? to encode? We'll good thing that only has to be done once.
>and can't even compete with x264 in terms of quality
So this is bait.

and honestly 90% of my confusion on this shit is the fact people still download yify. Getting the least lossy video doesnt appear to be the first thing on most peoples minds. a 1.5gb yify encode looks like a 1.9gb average encode. a 1.5gb 265 looks like a 8gb encode.

So nobody gets the wrong idea, if source footage is encoded in x264 and x265, x265 will always be objectively better. They will either look the same or x265 will look better, but x265 will be smaller.

>the absolute state of Jow Forums
x265 is broken trash developed by a bunch of pajeets. Just look at the x265 bug tracker. x265 can't into retaining detail and still has broken psychovisual optimizations that will cause banding.

TRANSCODING X264 TO X265 IS HOT CANCER AND LITERALLY YIFY TIER

THERE ARE GROUPS LIKE QXR THAT DO QUITE PASSABLE MINIMALLY-BITSTARVED X265 ENCODES USING REMUX AS SOURCE

I only download as close to the source as possible.

There are rare cases where someone (or me) has made substantial improvements, and thus re-encoded, but otherwise I just get the source and remux if necessary.

What encoders have you found to work well? Most benchmarks I've seen have shown x265 to work well, in objective metrics. Subjectively I haven't tested it for a long time. I watched it heavily for ~1 year after it was available.

Is vp9 any good Jow Forums or should I be waiting for av1™ like everyone else?

AV1 is intended to be free of patent encumbrance. Why the TM?

The whole patent matter is irritating. The underlying logic driving the universe affords only finite possibility, that is what we live in. To some problems there simply are only a few good approaches.

Working around that doesn't drive innovation, it ensures mediocrity despite continued discovery.

av1 is literally vp10 + some other shit. so, yes, you should wait.

Unless your Google vp9 is basically unusable.

YES WAIT FOR AV1

HARDWARE DECODE SOON(TM)

BTW HEVC HARDWARE DECODE HAS BEEN OUT FOR YEARS LMAO

The ™ was a play on "waiting for vega™"

Okay I'll wait then.

I re-encode all my 8-12GB x264 bluray rips to 4.7GB DVD sized with nvidia hevc 265, I have yet to notice a quality loss on a 1080p Tv

Congrats you do not have autism

get your eyes checked lmao

t. YIFY

>TRANSCODING
>EVEN ONCE
BEING AN EYELET IS NO EXCUSE

I doubt AV1 will go anywhere but willingly embracing the mpeg kikery is some next-level retardation

>Transcoding already bitrate-starved encodes with a broken encoder
Thank you based yify

Yify would go down to 1GB for the 4K video stream and have 7.1 AAC at 256 kb/s

>265
>not AV1
github.com/xiph/rav1e

Neck yourself my man. Downloading trash encodes is one thing but transcoding them with a fucking hardware encoder should be a crime.

>IMPLYING ROYALTIES MATTER WHEN SCENE IS ALL WAREZ ANYWAY

AV1 IS SOON(TM), HEVC HAS THE HARDWARE INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY WIDELY DEPLOYED
ITS GONNA BE AROUND FOR ANOTHER DECADE E-Z

looks good to me, also how are 10GB Bluray rips trash encodes, post your remux collection or gtfo.

Attached: PotPlayerMini64_2018-07-23_12-28-59.jpg (1920x816, 108K)

Got any proof that transcoding has lower image quality than encoding from source with the same settings in both encodes? This is something everyone says but I've never seen anyone back it up with tests and evidence. Genuine question. Also not gonna defend that guy because nvidia hvec is shit.

Attached: PotPlayerMini64_2018-07-23_12-27-46.jpg (1920x800, 283K)

>got any proof that applying a lossy process twice is worse than applying it only once
uhh... user...

Attached: 1508615548561.png (1011x720, 284K)

still better than being an anime watching faggot

rude

i've found this as well, i did plenty of my own testing, and found it difficult to retain fine detail with x265 at all, letalone with a reduction in bitrate (compared to x264), and all the while encoding far slower than x264
the only times x265 pulled ahead was when both were already staved as hell, making the x265 look simply "less shit"
i used to believe better at low bitrate = better at high bitrate, but i was mistaken

unless you're making low quality rips, don't bother with x265

I don't care if it is worse but if it has noticeably lower image quality. Say you have a source BDrip and encode it once to x264 targeting 15 GB and then transcoding it to x265 10 GB and comparing it with a x265 encode directly targeting 10 GB from the source. Would the difference really be that discernible?

>found it difficult to retain fine detail with x265 at all
Interesting. Do you have any comparison screenshot/clips left?

i didn't keep them

>good thing that only has to be done once.
yea, that's my motto, except when you drop below 1fps and end up downloading more than you can possibly encode

The same was true with its lossless encoding. Was incredibly slow and produced much larger output than x264.

>muh 'movie collection'
What the fuck is even the point of archiving so many movies, that you need to re-encode them?
When do you ever rewatch a movie?
How hard is it to just download it again if you want to?

Not to mention that a large percentage of films will be re-released in future, in higher quality. It's like if you had archived dvdrips.

Sure, there are a small number of films and tv shows that end up with whack grades and cropping and music that goes out of licensing and bad remasters but do you even care about that stuff?
I'm willing to bet that your 'movie collection' is mostly mainstream films that will always be available and will be remastered and re-released in higher quality, or films that aren't worth rewatching or even watching to begin with.

Attached: straya.webm (1280x720, 2.94M)

>just download it again
if nobody archived them, you wouldn't be able to do this
you're downloading from archivists, don't shit where you sleep

>How hard is it to just download it again if you want to?
Thinking you're going to redownload a BDMV reliably is probably a mistake.

Content downloaded via Share or Perfect Dark even moreso. It took several weeks to download a series with Share. Which was neat because it downloaded in order, but if I had to do it again the complete file probably wouldn't be available.

what series lad?

>don't shit where you sleep
that doesn't really make sense in this context but yeah i see your point, my bad

Ergo Proxy.

>there are people using Share/Perfect Dark in 2018

Attached: 15109331939270.jpg (1080x1331, 66K)

>via Share
what is this and why wouldn't you just get it off nyaa?

well thats the thing- its still not yiffy tier thank god.

id be posting samples of different shit on here, but my cpu will be busy encoding for another 16 hours.

This was ~2015. My AB / bakabt accounts have probably been pruned by now anyway.

Not available anywhere else at the time. People that rip discs when they're released in Japan often put it on Perfect Dark / Share.

VP9 a shit. Only get it back out when gookmoot allows VP9 webms (never)

Used to do this all the time.
I moved onto Baidu DDL but then my HDD died and I can't find what I downloaded ever again.

What codec should I re-encode my WMV HD JAV collection to? They're not the highest quality files out there.

Attached: [ANON#SHARP] Patlabor New OVA 04 [BD 1080p x264 8bit FLAC] [1AF15BEF].mkv.png (1440x1080, 1.61M)

divx

Attached: [GrainyNigs]Lalahs_Cunterattack_BigD(1024i_8but)[SW4G0Li5HU5].jpg (1830x988, 2.78M)

kek
theyre right tho, u r a moron

i think that would look noticeably worse, cause a 15gb 264 is more like 5gb 265.

realmedia video

i really dont even have that many movies, i just also have other shit on my hdd too so.
i regularly rewatch scenes from films i like, so all the time, and it is pretty often impossible to redownload shit, thats not reliable in the least. plus having access to it for taking with me is something i do often as well. I dont spend my whole life infront of my computer plugged into my router.

>reencodes to x265
>a year before everyone uses av1
you goofed OP

>re-encoding everything to 265

Attached: 1510866092312.png (645x729, 62K)

ABE CAN READ ALL THE ENCRYPTED NIP P2P

BETTER INTEND ON PROCREATING WITH THAT HENTAI SHINJI

Attached: 1529003207176.jpg (719x982, 184K)

here is before

Attached: Commando.1985.BluRay.1080p.DTS.x264-LoNeWoLf.mkv_20180723_172631.456.png (1920x1040, 3.1M)

and after, half the size and I can burn that shit to a single DVD instead of buying hard disks, works for me. Sure there is some loss of quality but it's not like I plan on sharing this shit again and it's barely noticeable when I watch on my TV.

Attached: Commando.1985.BluRay.1080p.DTS.x264-LoNeWoLf_new.mkv_20180723_173758.775.png (1920x1040, 2.38M)

Jesus christ. Noa deserves softer lines.

Crappy quality and this encode ruined "muh grain".

>works for me
colors are noticeably more washed out and everything looks slightly more blurry
This looks like garbage. If this works for you then you're better off downloading YIFY

>then you're better off downloading YIFY
hello no, YIFY looks like trash. as usual opinions on this board are shit

Attached: Commando.1985.1080p.BrRip.x264.BOKUTOX.YIFY.mp4_20180723_215715.913.png (1920x1040, 2.35M)