[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/g/ - Technology

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: file.png (139 KB, 1267x743)
139 KB
139 KB PNG
How long until release groups stop using x264? x265 has been out for almost 10 years already, stop pandering to retards with poorfag hardware please.
>>
>>83368502
h264 werks on everything (like xvid did back in the day) and improvements from x265/vp9/av1 are almost non-existent past certain bitrates
extremely slow internet isn't much of a thing nowadays too, if you can spare the time to look for a torrent/ddl you can spare the time for a 10~ GB download
>>
>>83368502
>stop pandering to retards with poorfag hardware please.
>t. first world white boi
>>
>>83368544
If you aren't a first world white person then you are trash that is ruining the internet, so yes
>>
>>83368502
> 1337x
get a load of this lame motherfucker
>How long until release groups stop using x264?
probably when x265 is supported by all consumer gear in hardware, much like what happened with the adoption of x264, however, x265 has been slower to be adopted. x264 just werks. if you weren't poor or stuck using pajeet/commie trackers you should be paying for your shit instead of crying.
>retards with poorfag hardware please.
>as he complains about files he gets for free
kill yourself, poorfag.
>>
>>83368502
Higher compression serves no purpose if you're not a commercial outfit trying to save on bandwidth. I'd rather stream x264 from my NAS with no CPU and GPU overhead wasted decompressing shit so that I use 200 MB of bandwidth instead of 300 MB. My router doesn't give a fuck, it's just moving ones and zeroes between two pieces of hardware.
>>
>>83368539
>h264 werks on everything
Like i said >stop pandering to retards with poorfag hardware please.
>mprovements from x265/vp9/av1 are almost non-existent past certain bitrates
?????????????
>>
>>83368544
I'm "white" (italian/spanish descendance), and live in a south american third world shithole, even I can buy hardware that runs multiple screens and perfectly plays x265 content with MPV.
There is no excuse, it's been almost 10 years already.
>>
>>83368560
>get a load of this lame motherfucker
>paying to pirate
>x265 has been slower to be adopted
Im using a 8yr old CPU with a 4 year old GPU, i run dual 4k screens and play 4k movies perfectly while having an active browser/game on the other screen, there is no excuse for x264.
>>
File: 14.png (18 KB, 200x200)
18 KB
18 KB PNG
>>83368586
>having MUCH better quality with the exact same size serves no purpose
>>
Because lots of people still use shitty phones or set top boxes, or chinkbox media , or rasp/SBC etc... that don't have full support for x265 10bit. Over time HEVC/x265 will come of course, but there's a lot of shit that can't bruteforce x265 the way a major x86-64 CPU can do so and it depends on SOC with specific codec support.
>>
>>83368649
x265 does not have MUCH better quality at the exact same size. And yes, on a local network, it makes ZERO FUCKING DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER. It makes sense for YouTube to format in x265 so they can pay less for bandwidth to deliver content to you. It makes no sense for you to format in x265 to conserve network bandwidth. So the only reason you would choose x265 is to conserve disk space, which is practically free, and the tradeoff is using shit loads more electricity, CPU and GPU time.
>>
Since I'm going to prefer 8-10GB movie files anyways I'd also prefer they be the best quality for the file size.
If a 265 version is available I will always choose it even if I have to wait longer from less seeds.
If the choices are an 8GB 264 or a 5GB 265 I'd pick the 5GB. 265 seems to have a better perceived (to me) image quality even though technically they should score about the same. In that respect, 265 seems to be better for preserving film grain and dark scenes, in an equal size-to-quality scenario.
>>
>>83368502
>pandering to poorfags
>pirates media instead of buying

Sounds like you’re the poorfag with no disposable income lol.
>>
>>83368689
>x265 does not have MUCH better quality at the exact same size
It literally does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbqAS1QVBsU
Shut the fuck up retard, stop talking about things you have no knowledge of, stop coping, it's pretty sad.
>>
>>83368706
>pirates media instead of buying
>paying 60 dollars for a movie
>paying for AT LEAST 3 streaming services to watch what I want to watch that make offline play difficult or impossible
>subsidizing the production of marxist propaganda
>implies that giving money to jewlywood makes you a better person
Yikes.
>>
>>83368586
>>83368689
these, stop wasting cpu/gpu cycles niggers
>>
>>83368747
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbqAS1QVBsU
C O P E
>>
>>83368752
there is this thing called battery life, dont know if youve heard of it
>>
>>83368502
H264 works fine if you have a movie on usb stick and want to play it on any television. It's how I have comfy movie night with my old man when I visit him.
>>
>>83368758
There is this thing called not using hardware from 20 years ago, don't know if you've heard of it.
>>
>>83368777
>using more cpu/gpu doesnt equal worse battery life because hardware is new
can you cope harder anon?
wasting storage > wasting cpu/gpu AND battery life
>>
>>83368791
>can you cope harder anon?
How am I coping? I'm not the one denying x265 superiority just because I'm using a chinkpad with a 720p screen.
COPE.
Maybe when you grow up and get a job you'll be able to buy yourself a 4K TV and truly appreciate film quality.
>>
@83368813
kys
>>
>>83368822
>@83368813
>kys
Go back to twitter, you absolute mongoloid, LMAO.
>>
@83368835
youre not getting another (You) my nigger, keep seething because
>muh storage space
>>
>>83368791
>wasting storage > wasting cpu/gpu AND battery life
trannies arguing against this are hilarious, kek
>>
h.265 took 8 times longer to encode on a ryzen 9 than h.264 of the same quality and saved 5% space over it. Gutter trash.
>>
>>83368502
>XviD
>doesn't fit on a CD

fuck you scenefags, not all of us have the latest tech like DVD discs
>>
>>83368839
>claims that x265 isn't better at the same size
>gets absolutely dunked on with actual proof
>tries to gaslight people into thinking that anyone besides himself mentioned storage space at all
>gets so assblasted that "doesn't want to give (You)
LMAO, chinkpad users are fucking hilarious.
>>
>>83368880
>saved 5% space
I don't think the codec's the problem here retardo
>>
>>83368635
MUST. CONSOOM.
>>
File: 344.png (454 KB, 479x720)
454 KB
454 KB PNG
>>83368880
Imagine being this stupid, just imagine thinking that you are "owning" anyone in this thread by openly admitting how stupid you are.
>>
>>83368933
>has no argument
>vomits meme instead because he is mad that he doesn't have a pc capable of this
>>
83368926
>tries to gaslight people into thinking that anyone besides himself mentioned storage space at all
>while crying about storage space in the same post
kek
>>
>>83368758
>muh battery
mobilefags need to be gassed
>>
>>83368960
It's okay anon, not all of us can have the gift of basic reading comprehension, I understand and sympathize with your retardness, I sincerely hope you get better.
>>
>>83368689
>x265 does not have MUCH better quality at the exact same size
Ye, it does, and it makes a huge difference if you're storing a lot of data.
>>
File: 1631612698140.jpg (105 KB, 458x458)
105 KB
105 KB JPG
>>83368502
>standard that works well for everyone in every application
>lets just fuck it up cause I said so on an anime forum
>>
>>83370017
>cause I said so
It's objectively and demonstrably FAR superior in literally every aspect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbqAS1QVBsU
>have shitty old standard that looks awful on modern screens
>get stuck with shitty old standard because of retards like you
If it were for people like you we would still be using VGA ports.
>>
>>83370017
>no we can't have nice things like better quality:compression ratios we need to support the very small percentage of users who could buy an x265 capable machine for a few hundred dollars.
Normies retarded as usual.
>>
>>83368502
>Daiz saves the anime community
>gets hated
>saves the anime community and introduces superior format
>gets hated

ungrateful fucks. It baffles me why Daiz still helps you ungrafeful fucks
>>
>>83370072
>very small percentage of users who could buy an x265 capable machine
The chinkpad COPE.
>>
>>83368502
???
All of my Chinese cartoons have used HEVC video with FLAC audio in an MKV container for the longest time
>>
>>83370085
>anime community
Go die in your basement, fucking disgusting pedos.
>>
>>83368502
Just download the x264 and convert it to x265 yourself.
>>
>>83370072
bruh, my 5 year old ideapad has hardware decoding; its time to throw your T60 into the trash and get a modern computer
>>
>>83370107
It doesn't work that way, you need to encode a raw.
>>
File: 1581736233_71aoqpPupFL.jpg (118 KB, 728x1072)
118 KB
118 KB JPG
>>83370107
After seeing the "there is no difference at the same size between the formats" comments on this thread, I don't doubt that retards on /g/ actually think this is a good idea.
>>
>>83370132
Welcome to /g/ - technologically illiterate
>>
>>83370098
But i love my 8GB encodes of movies being a blurry mess! Please x264 forever! How else can my 17 yr old laptop run my movies on my 720p screen?!
>>
>>83368931
>>83368938
Could someone explain to me why that guy is retarded? Is it because 265 will look better at roughly the same file size?
>>
>>83370153
Because he doesn't know how to encode videos and blames the codec when there are literal thousands of comparisons on youtube that show just how far ahead x265 is in quality at the exact same bitrate.
If you get a encode in x264 that is in the range of ~5% size than a encode in x265 and it looks the same, then its time to stop doing encodes, just go watch some chink pedo cartoons and leave technology for the grownups.
Or he is just a liar that is purely coping with he fact that he can't play x265 videos and making shit up.
>>
>>83368617
No eres blanco, pelotudo
>>
>>83370208
Depends how you define "white", if white=caucasian(correct usage), then yes, I am.
If white=caucasian from germanic descendance(not what white means), then no.
Try to not act like dirty spic next time, use english.
>>
>>83370141
reddit troons dont count as /g/ no matter how many retarded posts your kind makes
>>
>>83370125
>falling for obvious b8
>>
File: 1628516001630.png (4 KB, 120x118)
4 KB
4 KB PNG
I force youtube to use h.264. Why should I waste electricity decompressing video just to save youtube bandwidth?
>>
>>83370596
Whatever tourist
>>
File: csm_lenovo3_01_7d6aacfcb4.jpg (447 KB, 1800x1200)
447 KB
447 KB JPG
>>83370675
>>
>>83368502
for high quality encodes, it's not worth the extra time to encode an h.265 version, this is why you only see it on low quality encodes or remuxes which were already h.265
>>
>>83370799
i have never seen this page on xp's oobe
>>
>>83370879
Retard alert.
>>
>>83370064
>in literally every aspect
imagine thinking 6Mbps is a useful bitrate at 4K with any codec
yes, h.265 undeniably makes a more watchable video with obscenely low bitrates, but that gap closes fast once you approach high quality output
sure, most people probably don't give a shit about fine detail, and low quality h.265 encodes will do fine there, you can find these all over the place
>>
>>83370947
and yea, i was suckered into this initially as well, did some low bitrate test to see its limits and was pretty amazed, but scaling it up decimated its advantage, encoding several times slower for a handful of percent smaller output, i went back to x264 a couple months later
>>
>>83368544
lool, imagine being brown
>>
>>83370980
unless you actually encode videos like most of us do for trackers, no one will understand this post.
there was a push last year by trackers to try to update their torrents to x265 and some of them started popping up but slowly anons realized it wasnt worth the time at all when they could spend their time encoding another video/series.
>>
>>83371035
that's the thing, i encode a lot of video, so i do consider the cost/benefit of using another codec
h.265 is better or at least as good when you're just looking at an already made video, so i can understand why someone just downloading videos are confused, but someone has to encode that, and a big release group are probably encoding a lot of video, too, they can't spend all day encoding one movie (i did that for a while, but it's not practical), anime isn't so bad since you have maybe a handful of 24min files a week at most to do, plenty of time to blow on fancy encoders
>>
>>83368544
Even poorfags in Venezuela have a computer that can play HEVC, are you talking about people in bumfuck Africa who only have $50 smartphones?
>>
>>83368502
The differences between codecs matter most at high resolutions and low bitrates. A good-looking 1080 encode at h264 will only be 10-30x bigger than a psychovisually comparable h265 one. On top of that, the x265 encoder is significantly more complicated so a lot of people use it wrong and it is very trigger-happy to scrub grain, and lots of groups just don't find it worth the savings. It's even worse with AV1 and VVC, they both have absurd complexity increases and retarded default behavior, for gains that only really matter for crf-51 8k video (as you get on youtube). Also it's not like development on the h264 encoders and decoders ever stopped, and the 5.2 and 5.3 profiles are less than two years old. It's a current technology.
>>
>>83371979
>10-30x bigger
% you mean
>>
>>83371979
these modern codecs shine at low bitrate high res streaming content, this is what they were made for
super sharp and stable pictures... but at the cost of fine detail
for many people including myself, i'll take a detailed 1080p release over a smoothed out 2160p release any day

for those not as familiar with encoder terms, "complexity" doesn't mean it's hard to use, but rather how slowly it encodes, to put it simply
that 10-30% sounds pretty nice at a glance, but when you factor in 300% slower encoding times, it becomes a lot harder to justify, if you have limited time to encode things
>>
>>83371979
>The differences between codecs matter most at high resolutions and low bitrates.
We're talking about release groups here, that's what they use most. Also look at the OP's screenshot, those faggots still use XviD to this day, something that not even 0.1% of people need.
>>
when are we getting hardware av1 encoders, fuck h265
>>
>>83372235
idk who still uses them, but why not, an sd xvid rip can be encoded on a modern system at hundreds of fps
>>
>>83368539
x265 is MUCH better than x264
Basically the file can be twice as small while having better quality.

>>83368689
You're a literal technigger.
>>
>>83368502
Most youtube videos are still in x264, if youtube can't afford to reencode into x265 neither can people literally too poor to pay for 100 streaming services just to watch anime.
>>
>>83372298
youtube is primarily vp9, h.264 versions are there as a fallback
the highest quality versions are not available in h.264 format at all
and it's never used h.265 ever, it probably bought on2 just to avoid mpeg fees
>>
File: terry.thinking.png (474 KB, 633x851)
474 KB
474 KB PNG
>>83371080
okay nigger, now go make another
>[ULTRA-HD] [HEVC] [128-bit] [1440p] [FLAC]
for slice of life highschool anime that's purely flat and the only source for it is in 540p
>>
>>83372322
not my problem
It always baffles me how people call me a poorfag who does not realize that x265 is sooooo much better when their x265 1080p downloads are always bigger than what I download, which is x264 720p
I'm watching anime, not modern movie with proper graphics, kys
>>
File: 0.png (51 KB, 901x505)
51 KB
51 KB PNG
>>83372359
Your point is moot. The only reason why YouTube doesn't encode their videos into H.265 is because they encode them into VP9 and (for popular ones) even AV1 instead because of licensing reason.
>>
>>83372322
>>83372298
There will be widespread support of av1 before that ever happens.
>>
>>83372298
YouTube has been giving every single video the VP9+DASH treatment even if it has 0 views for about a year now. H.264 is a fallback for old bad phones/rpis, and AV1 is given out as needed
>>
>>83372395
>muh licensing
its funny how you pick on "poorfags" but then make excuses like "muh licensing" for a multibilliondollar company
>>83372402
>>83372414
don't care, still using x264 hahahahahhahahahahah
>>
>>83368502
>mock people as poor
>while using torrent
buy your entertainment, you not-poor nigger
>>
>>83368502
Since you're so rich you can afford to download a 200GB RAW and encode it into whatever format you please, should take about half an hour on good hardware.
>>
>>83368502
retard
>>
>>83372431
>hahahahahhahahahahah
t. lockdownfag
>>
>>83372489
>lockdown
I don't live in a 3rd world country lmao
>>
>>83372395
to make videos accessible to anyone, commercial
>>
>>83372431
there are reasons to use h.264, but youtube is not one of them
the only reason to use youtube's h.264 streams is if you computer isn't fast enough for the vp9 streams
and this is coming from someone who encodes videos with x264 still
youtube is low birate/low quality, high efficiency codecs like vp9 actually matter here
>>
>>83372457
not even cinemas get movies in raw format (nor any other uncompressed format)
>>
>>83372542
Stop being poor and encode it yourself.
>>83372532
My hardware can easily play 1080p vp9 but I'm not going to waste my time encoding in x265 anyway.
>>
>>83372542
>>83372457
oh, and not to mention 200GB is laughably small for an uncompressed movie, dvd resolution
>>
why don't you just reencode it after download?
>>
VID encoder here: x265 is only useful for high resolution video (ie 1080p and up) and a good ~50% of all video content on earth is mastered at 720p or 480p.

We're also still at a point where mainstream 4-6 core modern processors heavily struggle encoding 4K x265 video, even single pass at the medium preset (comparable to slowest turing nvenc hevc).

So the good news is GPU video encoding, although exclusively turning nvenc because "muh b frames" can cram down 4K 2 hour long movies to around 10GB but if you want to go lower than that (ie 2 pass slower preset 10-bit + more ref and/or b frames) you're gonna have to wait a few years as CPU tech improves.
>>
>>83372572
100G-200G is a single RAW anime episode, usually, don't care how big the movies are, if I wanted epic quality I'd just go to cinema where the screen isn't some 1440p meme
>>
>>83372605
>encoding a 4K video unironically
you poorfags all own 1440p monitor at best, shut the fuck up
>>
>>83370153
at a guess he was encodig using a really low -crf
>>
>>83372657
4K video on a 1080p display looks dramatically better than 1080p video on a 1080p display due to chroma sub sampling. Of course if you max out the madvr chroma scalers, 4K video will look pretty close to native 4:4:4 video on a 4K display but you need high end hardware for that anyway.

Thus 4K video is still very beneficial to everyone especially on phones/laptops with 1080p displays.
>>
>>83372725
>muh cinema quality on my 2x3cm mini screen that I have to squint at just to see anything
>>
>>83372747
pixel density view distance tho
>>
>>83372759
unless you have a 4K screen its irrelevant you dumb gorilla nigger
>I-I hear voices in my head with FLAC too!!!
kill yourself
>>
>>83372725
things like 4k youtube look better on a 1080p display because youtube's videos are very low quality in both cases, so the benefit is more due to the 4k video being higher bitrate, so the resulting bpp is higher
chroma subsampling rarely makes a visible differences outside of special kinds of videos like computer desktops or video games, there's a reason 4:2:0 is still the 99th percentile, and it's not because it's hard to get rid of, we could switch to 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 tomorrow, but we don't, because it'd be a waste
>>
>>83372725
meds
>>
File: 1630407458829.png (541 KB, 1024x576)
541 KB
541 KB PNG
>>83370879
Encoding using libx265 doesn't take any longer, at least not noticeably
>>83370947
Interesting I'm running an old card biggest b:v I can remember encoding was 4.5 M, I don't like going above 1080p usually though. I find for acceptable quality re-encodes I save about 25-30% in file size.
>>83371064
>h.265 is better or at least as good when you're just looking at an already made video
Yes
>>
>>83372794
retards always make shitty comparisons like these
I have yet to see a movie that's RAW in 4K 144fps or whatever meme you niggers are dreaming about nowadays
>>
>>83372776
>he doesn't hear voices in his head in 24 bit 48kHz lossless
ngmi
>>
>>83372759
This, human vision can discern individual pixels at up to 300 PPI at 12 inches. A 7 inch 1080p display is about 300 PPI.

>>83372794
>>83372796
Depends on the chroma upscaler which if you haven't noticed by now are complete and total dogshit via hardware acceleration. You know like on a laptop, phone, or tablet where the ASIC is using like 0.1W to decode video.
>>
>>83372850
If you can discern individual pixels you're too close to the screen, retarded zoomer
>>
>>83372869
You can discern individual pixels at up to 300 PPI AT 12 inches away, you know the common viewing distance on a phone?
>>
>>83372880
see >>83372869, retarded zoomer, and remove the screen from your face, your sweaty nose is rubbing all over it and your mouthbreathing doesn't help
>>
>>83372725
>dramatically better...due to chroma sub sampling
That makes very little difference for most content types. That's why it was implemented. 4k looks better because the bpp is higher (i.e., it's common to see the same movie be 2GB at 1080 and 20 at 2160 even in SDR, so the bpp is 2.5x higher)
>>83372794
The bpp of youtube videos and twitch streams actually decreases as the resolution increases. Because of how progressive frames work that's not actually that bad, and they're tuned to be approximately the same VMAF (I don't know if twitch uses vmaf but youtube does now), and you can really tell without doing the math because the color banding is exactly the same at all resolutions.
>>
File: dog-psnr.png (151 KB, 908x1512)
151 KB
151 KB PNG
>>83372850
chroma upscaler makes fuck all difference, even dumb hardware bilinear is fine
>>83372901
>The bpp of youtube videos and twitch streams actually decreases as the resolution increases.
i mean after scaling them back down to 1080p, we're talking about oversampling on non-4k monitors
>>
>>83372915
Isn't PSNR on a log scale? This means that krigbilateral is twice as good as bilinear I think
>>
>>83372899
12 inches away, up to 300 PPI

Why is this so hard to comprehend?
>>
>>83372951
move your phone further away nigger
>>
>>83372951
Dude even for a phone that's pretty close to your face
>>
>>83372951
it would be best practice to position your phone at arm's length, for both ocular health and ergonomics
>>
>>83372804
>Encoding using libx265 doesn't take any longer, at least not noticeably
yea sure
> time ffmpeg -i out.webm -map 0:v:0 -c:v libx264 -b:v 8M -f nut -y /dev/null
Executed in 97.35 secs
> time ffmpeg -i out.webm -map 0:v:0 -c:v libx265 -b:v 8M -f nut -y /dev/null
Executed in 281.03 secs
>>
>>83372258
When the retards at the AOM stop hiring pencil pushers and start hiring decent programmers.
Jesus chris, AV1 has been in development for what now? 4 years? In 4 years Elon Musk made an entire new rocket from the ground up and already launched it, and these fucking retards can't make a video codec with literal hundreds of billions of dollars.
>>
>>83372967
>>83372980
>>83372989
You're not going to be placing your phone 10 feet away from your face if you're watching a movie on it, smooth brains.
>>
>>83373026
>default setting
now do this with realistic settings on realistic input and x265 will take at least x100 longer
>>
>>83373034
AV1's in maintenance mode now, the real work right now is on the research2 branch for av2. They just shat out av1 asap so they could get away from patents asap, they know it's bad.
>>
>>83373101
I don't watch movies on my phone
>>
>>83373141
Well I fucking do because the 1080p OLED display is miles ahead of my 4K LCD TV with like 20ms of response time
>>
>>83373133
I don't give a fuck in what mode AV1 is now, IT HAS BEEN 4 YEARS.
FOR A FUCKING CODEC.
THAT HAS COMPANIES VALUED IN THE LITERAL TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS BEHIND IT.
>>
>>83373163
not my problem poorfag
>>
>>83372943
even saying "twice as good" doesn't really say much
putting much work into upscaling something you generally can't even tell is downscaled in the first place is not generally a good use of effort
even if it was impossibly perfect and have an output the same as a 4:4:4 native video, you still wouldn't be able to tell a difference for most kinds of video
>>
>>83373182
The MPEG consortium takes closer to 10 years between codecs I don't understand your grievance. Technology (and math for that matter) don't get better fast enough to shit out a new codec every year
>>
>>83368502
Because it's got the widest adoption rate and largest amount of compatible hardware. If you have a problem with that, stop using garbage trackers that don't let you search for x265 content
>>
>>83373224
>The MPEG consortium takes closer to 10 years between codecs
>its okey because others do it
Do you seriously believe that they do it like for technical reasons? They do one codec every 10 years to squeeze every penny they can from the licenses.
AV1 is basically VP9+, they didn't even have to create it from scratch.
In the time it took (and still counting, AV1 may be "technically" done but it hasn't been officialy released yet) Elon Musk started a new internet company and put a constellation with literal thousands of satellites on space.
There is no fucking excuse.
>>
H265 basically has hardware support almost as good as H264 at this point. Nobody cares about H265 except for UHD shit though. More content is sourced from streaming than physical discs these days. Almost all of those sources are primarily using H264. Higher efficiency appeals more to poorfags that can't afford storage anyway so if anyone is pandering it would be people using less popular codecs to lower the filesize. The quality isn't actually better it's just more efficient.
>>
>>83373365
The industry and consumers don't want constantly changing formats. Content is primarily consumed by hardware accelerated decoding. If there's a new codec every year you need a device every year. Or at least a more expensive one with a more powerful CPU. This isn't practical and it doesn't suit the needs of the streaming industry or most consumers, myself included. I have powerful devices sure, but I prefer to use them for other things and use a dedicated device for streaming video.
>>
>>83368689
I can't horde a million movies if they are unecessarily large, anon. It's not about download speed, it never was.
>>
>>83373182
H264 was also around for years before it was actually useful to me. First I was decoding it with CoreAVC on my laptop. Then I got my first HDTV and my Xbox 360. I had to convert the 5.1 ac3 on most pirated mkv files to 2.0 aac and put it in a mp4 container instead to get it to play but I was happy to finally have it. Consumer/device adoption takes time. None of this tech is going to help you much anyway. It's just going to save companies like Netflix and Google on royalty/bandwidth costs.
>>
>>83373500
If that's your goal stick to downloading remuxes and full discs then do your own encodes.
>>
Because x264 is going to be the defacto standard for a long time. It works on all devices. X266 will be the next big leap.
>>
>>83373565
Nah go duck yourself buddy. I'll download x265 like a Chad
>>
>>83368502
when sanjay stops using his GPU to encode and making low bitrate rips for people to watch on their phones.
>>
>>83373618
Enjoy your shit selection since you're too dumb to make your own encodes.
>>
>>83373462
>constantly changing formats
How old is x264?
>>
>>83373636
Fuck if I know. I was first aware of it being used in piracy back in 2007 I think but it has to be older than that. Back then I was still watching xvids and sometimes even svcds. People were also posting mpeg 2 HDTV stream captures to usenet back then. Some of those guys were dumping their downloads to DVHS.
>>
>>83373636
Wikipedia says 2003
>>
>>83373628
Who are you talking to? I can encode anything I want
>>
>>83373636
it's almost as old as H.264 itself, about 2004
>>
>>83373636
>>83373734
keep in mind this in no way suggests you can play any modern h.264 video on any 2004 hardware decoder, there's a lot of variables, and the format has revisions currently up to 2019
>>
>>83368502
Build your own release group, fucker.
>>
>>83368723
>goes up to 6 Mbps
no one downloads movies or tv shows at bitrates that low.
>>
my MPC-HC doesn't understand 265x.
At least with 264x the audio matches with the picture
>>
File: IMG_20210914_235906.jpg (226 KB, 1080x887)
226 KB
226 KB JPG
Probably the earliest x264 scene encodes, unless there's others of older content. Lol at the wtf is that comment from the nuker.
>>
>>83373815
not at 4k, anyway, at 720p it's alright
>>
>>83373847
Netflix 1080p is lower than that. It's also shit.
>>
>>83373827
2005 was still peak xvid era, x264 was more of a late 00s thing
>>
>>83373867
yes, i've watched netflix at a friends place, as someone who pirates remuxes i find it hilarious how people pay for that
>>
>>83373873
Yeah I know. I was just curious about who was the first to really try it in piracy. I am not sure why these retards didn't put the source in the dir name but oh well. I doubt anybody downloaded that crap. In maybe late 2006 or sometime in 2007 I started seeing HDTV rips of movies mostly from Pay Per View channels or channels like HBO and Showtime encoded with x264. My computer wasn't powerful enough to decode them.
>>
>>83373816
> my MPC-HC doesn't understand 265x
Works on my machine.
Worked for years, even on core2duo.
You are the problem.
>>
>>83373918
i got a new computer in 2006 that would have handled it, but i don't recall when i started getting them
i know i was still getting xvid stuff in 2006 though
>>
File: 1600880340982.png (949 KB, 892x1106)
949 KB
949 KB PNG
>>83368689
>And yes, on a local network, it makes ZERO FUCKING DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER
If it's on a local network, it's on a hard drive, and if it's on a hard drive, having much better quality at the same file size means I can have the same quality at much lower file sizes. Hard drives don't grow on fucking trees, they STILL haven't recovered from the Chia retardation yet. So no, fuck you, fuck your Thinkpad's ancient iGPU, and fuck the janitors, I want my shit in vp9 MINIMUM, and when Intel/AMD stop dragging their feet, av1 everywhere.
>>
>>83373952
probably similar reasons to ones itt actually, combination of lack of players and considerably slower encoding times would have put people off moving to x264 right away
some day x265 will be cheap enough (to encode) that nobody will care, too
>>
i use x265 because i have terrible internet
>>
File: white_supremacy.jpg (71 KB, 800x564)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>83368557
>If you aren't a first world white person then you are trash that is ruining the internet, so yes

sure thing buddy
>>
Anyone here transcoded their entire kino collection to x265? I have like 4 TB of show, movies, and anime and I think it'll take a year of my computer at 100% to transcode that shit on my 3700x. Or do you guys use Nvidia GPU encoder to do it much faster? I have an AMD GPU but it might be worth getting the cheapest novidya GPU if it'll save me months of encoding time
>>
>>83374149
wait? AMD can't even transcode video?

I thought it was shit because it can't do machine learning but this is too much
>>
>>83374026
If you want it make it yourself. You're the only one broke enough to have this problem outside of India. You do have a decent enough CPU to encode this shit don't you anon?
>>
>>83374149
GPU encoding is shit
>>
>>83368502
It's not about you decoding it. It's about how slow it is to encode.
It's quite a bit slower to encode than h264 so many choose to use that.
I still regularly find mpeg4 coded files for older tv shows where a lot of work would be needed to redownload all the dvds to recode to h264.
>>
>>83374200
coping this hard
>>
>>83368502
What shitty trackers do you use that don't provide both codecs? There's no reason not to provide x264 also until most x264 hardware will be dead and x264 won't have hardware support anymore.
>>
My work server I am the sysadmin of has some Intel housefire shit in it with a high core count. I download 4k 60fps porn from torrents on it and transcode it to 1080p crf 18 veryslow with x264 to watch on my phone. Great use of resources someone else is paying for.

>>83374274
It's inferior and you should only use it if you're really trying to save resources. Like live streaming while playing a game or some shit. I make extensive use of it at work but unless you spam high bitrates the only good thing about it is resource usage.
>>
>>83374274
Even nvidias nvenc is shit compared to x265, no gpu can compete
hardware encoding is for speed only, not efficiency
>>
>>83374026
>If it's on a local network, it's on a hard drive, and if it's on a hard drive, having much better quality at the same file size means I can have the same quality at much lower file sizes.
you're talking about downloading but who do you think makes those files for you to download, you leeching nigger?
it's us and "we" are telling you that if you think x265 is so much better, then try encoding HD shit and get back to us because its just plain inefficient, you cocksucking leech
>>
>>83368502
You don't encoder, so you don't have the right to an opinion.
>>
File: 1577233113283.jpg (38 KB, 647x385)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>83374405
If I had the source material, I would. When I have the source material, I do. The only leeching I do is off of my buddys' seedbox where I leave all my shit to seed for as long as their settings allow. I think it's 5.0.
>us
>we
Kill yourself, collectivist.
>>
>>83376040
>When I have the source material, I do.
encoding one movie in a year doesnt count
>>
They can't rip HEVC from netflix because it requires Widevine L1
>>
>>83376518
Do you actually believe that? Lol
>>
>>83376772
Well, some don't want to burn their precious CDM
>>
File: rs-gun2u.png (35 KB, 197x171)
35 KB
35 KB PNG
>>83374122
>no one comes to take it
>no one ever will
wow the left is such cucks, look at this dude. looks beta af, then you see the gun and the flags. turns him into an insta alpha. leftoids are scared of that. only an actual cuck would be. when the fuck are they going to come and take it. never i guess as they are scared af fuck zigma cucks it what they are and will always be.
>>
>>83368502
Bandwidth is cheap these days, so why bother?
>>
>>83377306
I am not going to take something I consider worthless and don't want. I could probably steal more useful and interesting things from his house while he's out doing his little larpity larp.
>>
>>83370153
encoder setting. you need to know insane command line arguments combined with different settings based on what you are encoding. he isnt wrong tho hevc is a meme for all things below 4k. avc just werks/werks better at stock.
>>
>>83377486
>i am nigger
ok cool story
>>
>>83377377
Because it looks better, you absolute mongoloid.
>>
>>83368502
Fuk u consoomer, I'll continue to use my old haswell and to download x264, and since it makes that mad then I'll do something I've never done before, I will seed to help x264 anime to survive longer, just to shit on you.
>>
>x265
We already have AV1 anime releases.
>>
>>83374178
It has GPU encoding but I keep hearing that the Turing and newer video encoder is much better
>>
>>83368502
There are some anime groups that use it and re-encode from a Bluray source to h265 but at this point for normalfag stuff, probably never. Everything is a webrip now, physical media is dying so not everything even gets a bluray release with a high quality source, so any 1080p h265 encode would be a transcode of a streaming rip.
It's a shame because you can get some really good looking h265 stuff at really low bitrates that look great.
>>
>>83368502
>is into public torrents
>you poorfags
i hope you are baiting
>>
>>83368502
I joined a private tracker weeks ago and they still releasing .AVI files of 700 MB and Xvid. Seem release groups still using outdated transcoders because his audience see movies in DVD players or in the default Windows`s video player
>>
>>83368502
I don't understand why X264 is still around. If I can't find a X265 I'll download a lossless rip and encode the X265 myself.
>>
>>83381613
>lossless rip
>>
>>83368689
stop being rational!!
>>
>>83372275
>Basically the file can be twice as small while having better quality.
Yeah, at sub 1 Mbps bitrates
On the top end where you get close to transparent encodes the advantage becomes single digit
>>
>>83381613
>lossless rip
you obviously have no actual encoding experience just like almost everyone itt advocating for x265 as a fix-it-all standard.

H265 and x265 were designed for high bitrate and 4K video. the lower the bitrate of the source, the less of a difference there is between x264 and x265 and with some sources like old DVDs x265 will actually look slightly worse than x264 at the same target bitrate. There is also less difference between two as the difference between the source and target bitrate get smaller when it comes to getting a transparent encode x264 is good because it's more predicable and takes way less power and time.

I think a lot of you guys are just autistic anime shitters so the codec really makes no difference since it's all blotchy over saturated 2D shit anyways.
>>
>>83382595
>the less of a difference there is between x264 and x265
Outside of compression ratio, which is important if you have a sizeable archive of media.
>>
>>83382595
>the lower the bitrate of the source, the less of a difference there is between x264 and x265
It's the complete opposite. At, for example, 10000kbps, they would look identical. At 1000kbps, x265 will look way better every time.
>>
>>83382595
Are you advocating to rip from a lossy source? I'd rather download a 50Gb ts then encode it to X265 than deal with some bloated X264 content. Almost all the content I encode is 1080 and higher in resolution. It's rare for me to encode anything under that since the file sizes are usually small enough I don't care what codec it's in. I have some old BBC shows in AVI since that is what they were originally captured in and are small enough I don't care.
>>
>>83382793
>bitrate of the source
did you read that part?
>>
>>83382878
>Are you advocating to rip from a lossy source
No. I'm saying try taking a DVD vob file with like 3-5k bitrate and then using both x264 and x265 on it. You'll find that x265 looks worse than x264 at the same bitrate.
>>
>>83382878
A 50gb ts is still a lossy source, dumbass. You're here expecting what you know about audio to carry over to video and you sound really stupid.
>>
>>83383363
Are you implying you encode from studio masters?
>>
>>83383583
not him, but studio masters aren't lossless either
you really underestimate how big lossless video is, it's not practical even for the actual masters
>>
>>83383655
I assume you mean uncompressed because lossless ffv1 video is not that big on the scale of blurays
>>
>>83383682
uncompressed obviously makes no sense, since you would mostly certainly spend more time moving the files around than you would save by not lightly encoding them, this isn't tiny audio files
but no, even intermediate uses use things like apple prores, which is a lossy codec
for video where the content doesn't actually have to be lossless, there's really no good reason to do lossless, you're making the files many times larger for no good reason
>>
>>83383777
>>83383682
keep in mind, if your video uses a camera or microphone as a source, then it's already imperfect, since it will be subject to analog noise, there's no reason to need to mathematically preserve that noise exactly
>>
>>83368560
x264 just twerks.
>>
>>83368502
we don't need that shit x264 is based and works everywhere
>>
File: Screenshot (96).png (614 KB, 1920x1080)
614 KB
614 KB PNG
>>83373619
>>83374149
>>83374200
>>83374359
>>83374372
It depends on which GPU encoder you're using. Basically all GPU HEVC encoders are equal roughly to the fast x265 preset except 1: nvenc turing. Mainly because nvidia added the ability to encode B frames which isn't possible on other GPU encoders. This effective makes nvenc turing on par with x265 software encoder on the default medium preset which basically makes most CPU video encoding obsolete assuming RTX 2060 or newer. Of course there's no such thing as free lunch:
A) It can actually be FASTER to encode video on a high-core count CPU using SVT-HEVC compared to NVENC turing on the slow preset.
B) NVENC turing struggles with 10-bit encodes with people reporting WORSE quality than 8-bit encodes
C) 2 pass encodes are not possible with NVENC turing AFAIK
D) Using the slower preset of x265 along with 10-bit and 2-pass mode with turbo first pass disabled it's possible to improve compression by 20-40% compared to NVENC turing

>tl;dr
GPU video encoding has improved greatly with the latest ASIC from nvidia capable of matching medium preset 8-bit x265 in VMAF/quality.
>>
>>83368502
Cause I dont care about formats. I just want something I can throw on a flash drive and plug into my smart tv without modification.
>>
>>83384557
>x264 slow: 22
>x264 medium: 25
what?
>>
>>83374405
>one person encoding a video to x265 is too much work
>all ten thousand people who download the video should encode it themselves
I do reencode a lot of my own content that way, but I don't want to do it for every single thing I download. It's just so wasteful of bandwidth, CPU cycles, and hard drive space.
>>
>>83384701
You read that wrong but diminishing returns with slower presets is a huge headache for encoders because depending on the source, bitrate, motion complexity going from the medium to slow preset might increase encoder efficiency by 20% but sometimes only by 5%. What slower presets actually do is increase the compression efficiency of reference/I-frames which improve the quality of the P/B frames along with more accurate motion estimation but sometimes there's just not a lot more that can be compressed no matter how much time the encoder spends searching.
>>
>>83383843
That noise is a problem for your encoder if you don't give it a high enough bitrate to work with. You want to retain enough of it to make it look somewhat transparent when compared to the original source. Streaming services often seek to eliminate it so their bitstarved encodes still look "good" at lower bitrates.
>>
>>83384711
Usually some is kind enough to do a remux of an x265 encode, I don't mind waiting because I still have a stupidly large backlog at any given point.
>>
>>83385197
it's besides the point, but yes, if you want good looking low bitrate videos, then noise/grain has to go, its random, unpredictable nature means it's not compressible by definition, and even worse it makes it harder to do things like motion estimation, one of the key efficiency features of modern video compression
>>
File: ngnl1.png (98 KB, 973x532)
98 KB
98 KB PNG
>>83371979
>On top of that, the x265 encoder is significantly more complicated so a lot of people use it wrong and it is very trigger-happy to scrub grain
THIS! Even with Grain Tuning, though that's improved since v3.0. Especially with video that had large areas of solid color and adjacent regions of highly brightness differentials (Big Gradients in Luma & Uniform/Fine Chroma). Because it tries to leverage dynamic DCT/DST block sizes for better compression you end up with really ugly regional blocking and microbanding unless you jack up the bitrate by ungodly amounts (more than the x264 equivalent) erasing your filesize savings.
https://kokomins.wordpress.com/2019/10/10/anime-encoding-guide-for-x265-and-why-to-never-use-flac/#x265s-biggest-flaw-grain-micro-banding-and-grain-blocking
Essentially HEVC expect high-res & 4K inputs and looks like garbage using SD content or anything that isn't encoded at settings made to playback on toasters to paper over these "tricks" it uses to achieve such compression levels.
>>
>>83385253
I'll take good old MPEG-based mosquito noise over that shit any day.
>>
>>83368502
Don't be a poorfag and buy more HDD.
>>
>>83368502
HEVC is obsolete.
>>
>>83368502
Why not use your onions bucks to buy the shit instead of pirating it, faggot.
>>
>all the shitters ITT
Why does pirate video always attract so many retards that don't know shit? x264 is still used for various reasons. Mainly, hardware support, the fact most sources are already in it, and the fact that nothing improves upon it enough to justify replacing it yet.

DivX/xvid -> x264 transition isn't even comparable to swapping x264 for something else. Improved quality at lower bitrates wasn't the main reason every dropped xvid in .avi containers. Everyone moved because mkv and mp4 containers provided many benefits. Like the ability to have separate subtitle tracks and support for more audio codecs. In the xvid days you had to put subtitles within the video itself and were limited to the mp3 codec in at most stereo. The new containers (especially mkv) gave us the ability to have real 5.1 audio, multiple subtitle tracks, multiple audio tracks, and whatever else you desire (mkv can hold anything. I pack in Easter eggs all of the time).

If file sizes are really a concern you can do several other things to get them smaller without sacrificing quality or changing to another codec. Stuff like variable frame rates, replacing similar frames, various filters that remove information from the video that the human eye can't see, and lots of other tricks. Most people don't bother now because it isn't worth eeking out a few megabytes savings for things the average viewer won't notice. Or dealing with shitters complaining about the file not working on their hardware. The last is the main reason why VFR never really caught on beyond going from pure animation to cgi scenes. Most anime doesn't even run anywhere near 24fps outside of cgi scenes. Some of my VFR encodes barely get beyond 5-12fps unless there is a pan. Slice of life shit doesn't have a bunch of movement.

As for xvid it's never going away. I can shit out a decent xvid/mp3/avi version in less than a half hour. There is no point in not doing it. People still download them and watch them.
>>
>>83386383
Another reason VFR (variable frame rate) within the container never caught on is the fact the x264 codecs handle it pretty well. Instead of relying on the end user's hardware to repeat a frame for however many fames you just encode at 24fps as normal. The codec will see the repeated frames and do its own magic. The end user's hardware just sees it as a stream of different frames even though the codec is only handing it the same one over and over again.

Noise and various other things can mess with the codec's ability to do this right. So the solution is to go through the video and find similar frames. Whenever possible you replace all of them with the same fame. Very easy to do with the available free filters. You just have to make sure to not go full retard with it.

That's one of many tricks. In the late 90s/early 2000s you had to know them all to get an episode or movie within the desired file sizes. I think most people stopped doing this out of laziness now. Most people seem to go for the largest release no matter how huge the file size is. They'll over look a smaller release with a lot of effort put into it if there is a "lossless" rip available. A good encode will improve upon the source or at the very least not fuck it up. Bad encodes will over filter everything. Or they'll just shit out something in the latest codec. Most of the so-called "experts" I see posting anonymously now don't even know tools outside of ffmpeg exist.

Really the main problem these days is finding good sources. If all the sources are shitty compressed video from streaming websites like netflix and cruncyroll you aren't gaining anything by re-encoding them to another lossy codec no matter how great it is. Most of the time the extra file size is worth it because of compatibility. Sure, all my new hardware can handle these new codecs. Sometimes I just want to watch my collection on a set-top box or view it at my friend's house.
>>
bump
>>
>>83373386
>H265 basically has hardware support almost as good as H264 at this point.
This. Google niggers are artificially holding it back.
>>
>>83368502
fuck you, my telly can't do x265
>>
>>83388566
>This. Google niggers are artificially holding it back.
Millions of
>set-top boxes
>video game consoles
disagree. It doesn't matter how many new devices you shit out when people are still content with an Xbox 360 hooked up to an 1080p display. The content is not there to justify upgrading everything just to suit your particular autism. The average consumer does not care. If you're at a point where you do care get a home server and do whatever the fuck you want. I have plenty of x265 content. The server will transcode it on the fly for devices without native support. No one gives any fucks about it or can tell the difference other than me. Even I don't notice enough difference for it to matter on devices that can take advantage of the codec/increased resolution for 99% of the content that I watch.

The fact is most of the people that complain about x265 not being the standard are the same that demand everything be released in 4k even though the master is in 720p. The one place where most of this shit matters (sports) is typically viewed live or with very little delay. You can make an argument for some movies. But even those are usually a watch once and throw away affair. Because the only movies taking advantage of this stuff are new movies and 99% of new movies are shit.

If you're operating on this level of autism why aren't you just getting a lossless encode? The standard is never going to be good enough for you. It's always going to lag behind the latest and greatest. If you care this much start your own group and prove everyone else wrong.
>>
>>83368586
>stream
>NAS
> no CPU / GPU overhead
How do you think this works? You NAS isn't doing video processing in either case, it's just sending you the file. The receiver is decoding the video. In that case, x265 is definitely superior because it takes less storage. When you have to buy all your own storage, that matters.

Unless your target device doesn't support x265 and you have to transcode, this argument doesn't make sense.
>>
>>83368502
God i fucking hate xvid\avi
>>
>>83390753
why?
>>
>>83382528
>Yeah, at sub 1 Mbps bitrates
No?
Most riped films are encoded at 2000-3000 kbps, the same bitrate in x265 has a far better quality, you can try it yourself.
It's really just a matter of transcoding speed for these guys.
>>
>>83368544
Third worlders aren't stopped by hardware, but their internet speed.
I've seen stats from porn sites, outside of first world countries, they stick to 480p, 1080p is too much for their network to handle, so who cares about x264 vs x265 over there?
>>
>>83368880
>And Jewsen-Huang invented Novideo NVENC
>>
>>83368777
based and checked, h265 is the way
>>
>>83390547
Hes literally talking about transcoding bro..... come on man.

Majority of devices require that H265 be transcoded. This is what I see on my Plex server everyday.

PS4's even use something called "MPEG-TS" and seem to require it.

My Quadro T600 puts in hefty work everyday. Really good buy.
>>
>>83370902
i think it's because it's the europe/international release of xp, need to support different currencies/languages better
>>
>>83368502
sup daiz
>>
>>83371064
anime is great for h.265, both because of the low volume of episodes in most and the relative lower complexity of the video
>>
>>83391140
interesting, i'm not in the US but i generally use the US versions of windows, because i speak english, so it already includes enough localisation for my needs
>>
>>83391115
>PS4's even use something called "MPEG-TS" and seem to require it.
You shouldn't need to transcode for that. You're just remuxing it into that format. It's a fairly simple task without a lot of cpu usage.
>>
>>83391294
well if you have H265 thats whats gonna happen.
>>
all other video encoding is deprecated by the almighty .ass subtitle encoding
https://nyaa.si/view/1096843
>>
>>83391115
mpeg-ts is a container, doofus
>>
>>83391358
Whatever man I just know what Tautulli tells me.
>>
>lol only poorfags want x264
>I need to use x265 to save as much space as possible because I can't afford more drive
>>
I made it my calling to download releases of old shows that are in times 60-120GB in size to encode it from x264 to x265 to reduce it in size.
That shit has low amount of seeders already, around one or two, so I just download those, re-encode and then host them for an indefinitely time in my Deluge Seedbox.
>>
>>83391461
I would like to do this but I can't be bothered to learn how to make good re-encodes or encode BDs
>>
>>83391481
Just learn how to use Handbrake. You won't make the most impressive amazing encodes but that's how most of the obscure ones even on private trackers are getting done these days. Too much content not enough encoders so much of it gets done the easy way and the results are mostly acceptable.
>>
>>83391481
I know fuckall about encoding, I just use the presets in HandBrake, this is one of the shows I re-encoded, don't ask why it shows 0 Seeders, not true.
https://anidex.info/torrent/416158
>>
>>83391461
>I made it my calling to make a bunch of old shows look like trash
>>
File: 12398059812.gif (192 KB, 2000x2000)
192 KB
192 KB GIF
>>83391546
Go ahead and download the first episode of both releases from >>83391514 then.
Show me the instances where the x265 release is trash in comparison to the OG.
>>
>>83368502
Just reencode it yourself if you don't like it.
>>
>>83368586
>>83368747
But if the files are smaller you can hoard more of them.
>>
>>83391610
then buy another drive, what are you poor?
>>
>poorfags can't handle x265!
>t. poorfag whose internet and disk can't handle a 30% bigger x264 file
>>
>>83391627
It doesn't matter how many drives you buy, they will always be full eventually. I would rather buy a drive and then look for 16 more terabytes of data I can download rather than buying a drive because I there are 16 terabytes of date I want to download. There are always (effectively) infinite amounts of data that would be nice to have. Sure, storage isn't expensive but at some point you'll run out of physical space. If you're lucky you just run out of drive bays on your homeserver but at some point you are going to need a bigger apartment. I'd rather try to be efficient.
>>
>>83391658
With that mindset we would still be running systems with 8800 GTX Ultra in 4x SLI because slapping another GPU into it is enough than buying a more efficient, cheaper and performant one.
>>
>>83391715
>I'd rather try to be efficient.
by toasting your cpu/gpu, hoarding is a mental illness btw
>>
>>83391715
Then why aren't you reencoding everything to 240p? It would really help you save on space. The human eye can't see past 120p anyway.
>>
>>83391737
>whole thread rambling about equal res/quality for less size
>unironically suggests to reduce output resolution for size benefit
Damn you're retarded, were you dropped as a child?
>>
File: 1631719623414.jpg (157 KB, 926x642)
157 KB
157 KB JPG
A fucking dual core sandy vag laptop can do H265
Almost any streaming device from the last 5 years can also do it

I'm surprised this is still a debate
>>
>>83391737
720p is pretty much the sweet spot. But when I can get a 1080p episode that's 200MB that's still pretty small. I think a lot of anime is just upscaled from 720p anyway, but who cares when the file is just 200MB?
>>83391736
>by toasting your cpu/gpu
Bullshit. Playing a 1080p H265 file literally uses 4-6% of my GPU's video decoding capbilities. When I don't use the nvidia decoder it uses around 10% of my GPU's normal 3D capabilites. Either way the GPU wont go over 45°C.
>>
>>83391717
if it was 30% smaller with no downsides then i would agree with you
the problem is that it's way more than 30% slower to encode that
sure YOU don't give a shit how long it takes to encode, but tough shit, if nobody wants to do it, then you have nothing to download, make your own h.265 encode
>>
>>83391770
because the issue isn't playback, read the thread
>>
File: file.png (457 KB, 700x760)
457 KB
457 KB PNG
>>83391837
>make your own h.265 encode
I am.

And if SubsPlease or Erai-raws really wanted they could easily do h.265 encodes, it only takes 2 fucking minutes for my 5950x to encode some daily episode that releases there, 5700x would be equally as fast since HandBrake doesn't scale well enough to even utilize my 16c/32t.
There is literally no reason to not do it, imagine 10 episodes get released per day, encoding it into 3 different resolutions would mean you have 30 episodes to encode, if each took 2 minutes it would take you only an hour to do all of that.

x264 should had been dead long ago.
>>
>>83391852
>>83391837
This makes sense, it must be frustrating when another group beats you by one fucking minute.
>>
>>83391912
anime is easy enough, it's most other things
this thread has never been about anime specifically, but video of all kinds
>>
>>83391912
2 minutes to encode an anime episode? is this using quicksync or something? there's no way your output is remotely competitive with an average x264 encode
>>
>>83391944
Sure, but anime is unironically one of the most consumed media, if not the #1 media when it comes to the sheer amount of torrents that get released daily and downloaded by users.

>>83391964
Ah yes sorry, I talked a bit out of my ass, the 2 minutes is from 460p releases, it takes around 5 minutes with 1080p, using the H.265 1080p30 Preset in HandBrake.
>>
>>83392018
anime isn't 30fps
>>
>>83368617
t. Boludito
>>
>>83390825
Old people tend to download full HDD of low quality bdrips in xvid.
Just because of this.
And it should die and take mp3 with it already.
>>
h264 just works on everything, no point using h265 when internet speeds are going up worldwide
>>
>>83374298
>won't have hardware support anymore.
The Snapdragon 888 ships with hardware MPEG-2 support, even though it's so irrelevant not even the Wikipedia tables list it. H.264 hardware support will probably outlive everyone in this thread.
>>
>>83391115
>Majority of devices require that H265 be transcoded.
what ancient pieces of shit do you still use that can't handle h.265 decoding in real time?
>>
>>83388693
>set top box
>console
>when a fucking shield pro does it just fine
Who else here /60gb remux only/
>>
>>83368502
>stop pandering to retards with poorfag hardware please.
you do know that release groups are poorfags in russia, right?



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.