this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
261 points (96.1% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

55110 readers
595 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

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years 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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CCatMan@lemmy.one 20 points 2 years ago (2 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?

[–] maximus@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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

[–] obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years 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.

[–] obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

AV1 is the shit. Still doesn't have broad support on consumer devices yet, but it will come.

[–] CCatMan@lemmy.one 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah doesn't work on my Roku lol so back to x265