Untitled

now that all the SJWs destroyed master & slave processes, the multi processed slave processes have no master to control them so they no longer work together on the same project.. it's pretty bad
in reality it isn't that hard, you get a solid foundation of a program (single process) then make a master scheduler to give each slave process different pieces of it

I would rather compile my own (and I do). But I don't like a program imposing arbitrary restricting on me, so I compile mpv against "unsupported" ffmpeg out of spite.

I can respect that

I already use it, re-encoding my entire library
in 30 years when it's done encoding I'll downsize my drive to 100GB

Just upload all you're vids to youtube and let them transcode it.

Attached: 1512585483596.jpg (512x512, 29K)

fucking christ, I kinda hope this dies or they make it so it fits in a standard .mp4 or mkv container. I stream my content to my TV. Shit's been working fine since 2012. I don't need a new "format" screwing with something that's been working fine for so long. Besides, considering how many titles I got re-doing the lot to work with the new format would take forever, much easier to just expand storage and be done with it. Drives are cheap, my time ain't.

what are you are vids?

obviously it's going to go into an mkv container, retard
you think mkv wouldn't support it?

>transcoding
>2018
You can get a fucking 8TB drive for 150$.

There's no reason to use this at all. x265 is significantly more efficient and CPUs, SOCs all have had HEVC hardware acceleration for years.

Not too long ago people said the same about HEVC.

I use h264 and h265 currently, but I am a consumer. If you don't want to support the jews for no reason as a profitable company, it's smart to not use h26* and switch to something like av1 in the near future when hardware support is available.

I'm getting dropped frames on mpv, but the frame timings look normal.

Attached: s.jpg (1152x648, 174K)

>69.911
pornhub did 9/11

>HEVC hardware acceleration

Attached: 1468620025606.jpg (694x488, 55K)

>8tb
Whoopee, more and bigger drives to sacrifice to the parity gods.
inb4 not a backup / placebo
raid 5 has saved my entire collection twice, I can only afford to backup like 1TB properly which is only my important shit.

im doing a dank hevc dragon ball super encode. ~190 MB per file with great quality. ill upload to nyan cat torrent website in 2-3 weeks

Attached: 15393747202403732.jpg (1920x1080, 231K)

>I kinda hope this dies or they make it so it fits in a standard .mp4 or mkv container.
...it already does.

Call back in 3 years when it's production ready.
Until then I'll keep using HEVC, thank you very much.

in 3 years omaf will already be released and AV1 will be dead

>~190 MB per file
why would you go this far? You'll lose a lot of people who would prefer the quality over the space savings.

Give them a 30-40% reduction in file size. Seasons 1, 2, and 3 which gets you up to ep 46 are available on bluray, with individual episodes being ~6-7GB in size. Why would you want to go down to 190MB per file...? The quality lose would be substantial.

you're all fucking idiots, that's all i wanted to say

you have to be a special kind of stupid to re-encode (which means dragging down your quality significantly)

nope. Only idiots don't re-encode products to their specific encode they use for their entire media library
ALL of my videos are the same codec for video, and audio. all use mkv container, all are Variable bitrate of both video and audio, all cropped the black edges from retardos (like you) who encode them with black bars.
every single one is the same.

that isn't that far.
looks like good quality to me, too.

What costs more electricity: to download and play a video encoded with av1 or with h264, also user's pc and server are 3000km apart?

x265 is finally getting good but no one will support it on the web so fuck it.
Even the weebs who were the traditional early adopters have largely ignored it sticking to 10bit h264.

but user, h264 is dogshit

No it's not, especially not for anime where it's been autistically perfected by most encoding groups who give a shit.

>but user, h264 is dogshit
oh how times have changed

>tfw Jow Forums will never support webms with av1

you type like an idiot and you are ignorant, kill yourself, ESL shitter

>8 bit h264 is dogshit
ftfy

This, performance is abysmal and doesn't scale well with more cores. x265 can efficiently use up to at lest 8. Another good reason to get ryzen cpu (1800x will be $200 soon).

pic related is 1080p video encoding

Attached: x265-NEW.png (600x600, 584K)

x264 scales fine it's biggest problem is its not and never will be NUMA aware. x265 scales, predictably much better on threadripper / dual socket systems.
I used to run x264 on a retired esxi host I was given by my old employer. It was literally slower to run it on 4 cpus than 1. Since I never really encoded anything other than films it just didn't scale unless I was doing more than one film so I could bind each to its own cpu.

unfortunate for you that I'm hundreds of times smarter, eh? must feel like shit..

What does encoding speed have to do with quality and file size?

Not to mention legacy hardware playback support
x264 is supported by pretty much any modern smart TV, bluray player, etc.

x265 isn't.

I'll be keeping my library in x264 until AV1 takes off enough for hardware encode/decode support.

>hardware support
Enjoy your ugly.
The single usecase that justifies hwdec is when battery life is precious, but it's inaccurate by design.

How do you think most devices playback x265?

Hint, it aint with software decode.

No it doesn't, it can't efficiently use more than 4 cpu cores in slow presets.

x264 scales terribly and x265 can use up to 8 cpu cores to give you better quality for half the file size as of version 2.9 compared to x264 which is bananas.

bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/src/169e76b6bbcc9355794cd2bf304c40e2c9b7ee3c/doc/reST/releasenotes.rst?at=stable&fileviewer=file-view-default

Also not our fault you can't afford a cheap $20 wallmart phone with a SD 425 that already has hevc support.

>x264 scales terribly and x265 can use up to 8 cpu cores
Again, who gives a FUCK about encoding speed?

A release group doing encodes for major release should give NO fucks about encoding speed, they should be more concerned about getting the best quality encode for the smallest file size.

Encoding speed should matter not at all. The fact is, x265 is newer and simply not as understood as x264.

Again, i'd rather have x264 in my collection pretty much every single time.

>A release group doing encodes for major release should give NO fucks about encoding speed, they should be more concerned about getting the best quality encode for the smallest file size.
That's the point you didngbat, how is BETTER QUALITY FOR HALF THE FILE SIZE NOT "smallest file size"?

>The fact is, x265 is newer and simply not as understood as x264.
x264 was out 2013 gramps

checkmate atheists

>they should be more concerned about getting the best quality encode for the smallest file size
>i'd rather have x264 in my collection pretty much every single tim

*x265

This is what old people in The Home will be shouting at each other about in 50 years.

But it's not better quality most of the time since pretty much all the major encoding groups have been doing x264 for the past decade and know the best optimizations for the content they're encoding. That's just not the case with x265.

If you're a dumb cunt just using preset settings, then sure, use x265 because you'll end up with smaller file size and similar quality to x264, but if you actually know what you're doing with the software encoder, you can fine tune your encode significantly, most encoding groups just don't have the same level of experience fine tuning for x265. Which is why almost no major encoding group has switch to x265, besides x265 specific release groups who are generally just looking for tiny file sizes not quality.

Re-encoding a lossy codec into another lossy codec is lossy, you mongoloid retard.

>But it's not better quality most of the time since pretty much all the major encoding groups have been doing x264 for the past decade and know the best optimizations for the content they're encoding. That's just not the case with x265.
They both use similar parameters and even IF you stick to default slow preset it will still give you better quality for half the file size compared to fine tuned x264. Prove me wrong using the latest 2.9 x265 encoder.

Attached: 1537238112178.jpg (321x432, 34K)

>190MB
The fuck user? Bluray quality is 5GB+ per episode, normal x264 encodes generally get the file size to around 1GB per episode. Going down to 190MB per episode, even with x265, means you're sacrificing quality somewhere.

You have no idea how much you can compress chink toons. They're 80% still images with 10% movement in the entire frame for a few seconds at a time.

yeah, but i'm watching on a 43" 2160p monitor at 2 feet. I can clearly see the difference in low bitrate content vs high bitrate content of the same resolution.

I admit, it'll probably look fine at 1080p or 720p, and probably near impossible to notice if you're watching it on a phone screen or something.

But if you've got a high res display and you're upscaling the content, you want higher bitrate.

>43" 2160p monitor at 2 feet
nigga u blind?

Nigga, it's the same PPI as a 21" 1080p monitor.

It's like having 4 different 21" 1080p monitors in a 2x2 grid without the bezels.

And realistically I sit closer to 2.5 feet or even 3 feet when I lean back in my chair.

Not with x265 you won't. The most you'll see is temporal artifacts if the QP isn't too high.

I can guarantee i'd be able to spot the difference between a 700MB x265 file and a 200MB x265 file of identical content.

Bitrate matters.

Not when x265 can use it so dam efficiently. Of course settings some arbitrarily low ABR is going to look like ass but doing a 2 pass encoding or CRF CP encoding of 22 or lower is pretty good quality imho.

Chrome and Firefox already ship or will ship a decoder. Youtube already serves videos using it, Netflix will soon follow. But it takes time.

VP9 didn't take off until two to three years after it was finished. AV1 will not take that much seeing it's backed by a dozen big players in the industry, but don't expect it being widespread before late 2019 or early 2020.

yes it is. encode a 264 and a 265 and compare them. its very clear that its a lot worse.

The scene shits out shitty 8 bit h264 that belongs in a toilet. The major groups are militantly incompetent in the name of device support. They have no concept of transparency and they point you toward remuxes if you disagree.
Meanwhile any retard can get decent results from x265 main10 slow.

Yeah, if you're a dumb cunt who just uses preset settings.

I can give you a rick and morty rip that looks almost EXACTLY like the bluray rip, and the file sizes are about the same. hey, in fact, i will post a link right now. if you jelly fishes dont believe that h265 is vastly superior, go download this and convince yourself (cant be played in browser because just hevc things)

koyaanis.com/i/Rick.and.Morty.S03E06.1080p.BluRay.x264-YELLOWBiRD_bla.mkv

btw, I didnt even use bluray as input for season 3, because i couldnt find it anywhere. the input was just standard 1 GB files.

yeah you're so smart for thinking that compression leads to be better quality

ppl who re-encode videos are always going to be stupid fucks, user

I noticed.

If he had said 500-700MB, I might have just let it slide. But 190MB is just retarded.

open your eyes dipshit

>S03E06.1080p.BluRay.x264-YELLOWBiRD_bla.mkv

>btw, I didnt even use bluray as input for season 3

So you're lying in your file names?

>the sheer ignorance in this thread
I thought Jow Forums was supposed to be a tech board

Attached: kaputt_durch_leben.jpg (639x719, 39K)

do you think 1080p stands for bluray? im actually beyond words now

it's probably herkz or some retard from that cartel circlejerk

they love to re-encode and say "best quality ever"

it literally says
>1080p.BluRay

they were 1 GB file, that is not bluray. can you think for yourself for a moment? bluray files are several GB in size and not stored in fucking mkv u dumbass

>bluray files are several GB in size and not stored in fucking mkv u dumbass

how fucking new are you?

Do you know what a remux is?

Don't know what shit remux you're talking about that makes 1 episode 1 GB. Proper movie remuxes are 30-40 GB, proper TV remuxes are multiple gigabytes per episode even if animation.

it says bluray because the initial person who encoded it probably used bluray as input. I then used his NON-BLURAY rip to further encode.

>how fucking new are you?
haha ive been first on Jow Forums like 10 years ago. thats how new i am. I just re-downloaded the "bluray" files, as you claim. they have a bitrate of just 6 Mbit/s. Thats dogshit. Real bluray files have bitrates of 20-50 Mbit/s. Go fuck yourself you stupid nigger. you dont know jack shit.

>re-encoding is bad
Yeah I wish they would just release the unfiltered 7 GiB episodes full of banding and aliasing

I'm not commenting about that being a bluray, it obviously isn't at that file size.

My point is you can 100% have full bit-rate blurays in an MKV. That's LITERALLY what a remux is.

that's not re-encoding, fucking mong

haha this. i re-encode all the time, almost no quality loss, but ~80% smaller file sizes

>full bit-rate
kek
yeah you can save that shit in MKV, but thats not how its usually done

>almost no quality loss

Attached: 1511778291498.png (272x398, 101K)

Haha I posted a link mate, go check yourself. and that rip isnt even the best looking. you have the choice: stay ignorant and keep trolling or actually learn something from ur journey through this thread

Not really a thing anymore, most BDMVs are quite clean these days minus a few edge cases. Main reason they aren't common is because no one in the anime scene uses remuxes - you either have autists saving full discs like me or pajeets who want to compress episodes to 200 MB x265 just because they're blind and can't see the difference on their shit $100 1080p or $300 4K TVs.

the irony in this post heh

H265 encodes faster than H264 on my machine when I let the file size be about the same or only slightly smaller.

I suspect it's because I can select the "faster" encoding settings, which only encode a frame once, whereas H264 still needs that "slower, but better" setting where each frame is being rendered multiple times with slightly altered settings, throwing the results away that differ the most from the original.

>but thats not how its usually done
...lol what?
Remuxes are pretty much ALWAYS done with MKV.

Hell, it'd be more difficult to find a remux that ISNT an MKV.

Retard

Are you using the JP BDs?

mmmm, that high school self esteem training seems to be working.

he is re-encoding, basically took something that has already been encoded, and now he's re-encoding it

If he's getting 190MB file size you can bet he's probably using a web-rip source.