Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

55099 readers

227 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

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com

dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Any reliable group making AV1 releases consistently? (lemm.ee)

submitted 4 months ago by iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So...yeah. Looking at file size, it clearly beats older 264 or even 265. I don't mind if my server is going to have to transcode for most clients, I think the size difference in size might be worth it. But not sure which groups I could focus to look for these AV1 releases, seem they're quite scarce still?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ReedReads@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Dolby Digital (e-ac & e-ac3) are lossy codecs. So transcoding a lossy codec to a lossless codec, is not a good idea.

You can read more about it here: https://interviewfor.red/en/transcodes.html

[–] vorpuni@jlai.lu 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Lossy to lossless is fine it's just a waste of space.

[–] aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

It’s extra wasted space because compression artifacts are hard to compress lossless. It’s a shit sandwich, so people advise against it.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I didnt realise* that they were lossy. Makes sense now.