447
Even in this poorly made comparison shot I made you can tell the difference between streaming and "self hosting"
(lemmy.world)
Jack Ryan S3 E3
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
447 points (94.4% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54772 readers
434 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, if the streaming providers ever switch over to AV1 that would be an interesting comparison.
AV1? that's a codec, right? I see in the preferences section for Piped. Is better than AVC (h.2640)?
Yes, AV1 is the next big deal. You can compress the hell out of the video and it still looks near original. I've re-encode some of my locally ripped movies for fun to see how it looks and it's really impressive.
Presumably you know, but for anyone else: the word for this is "transparent." It's when the codec leaves no noticeable artifacts.
How would you use that in a sentence? Like "You can compress the hell out of the video and it's transparent"?
You'd describe the encoding, not the source. The fun part is that it also applies to audio. "At 256 kbps, MP3 is transparent."
It only applies to lossy codecs. Lossless codecs, by definition, have no error. "Error" itself being a borrowed term. Good encodings don't have fewer errors... they have less error. For example, measured as mean squared error, where an individual sample being very wrong counts more than many samples being slightly wrong.
"the encode is transparent"
Yeah, from the re-encodes I've done, I only noticed artifacts in clouds and the New Line Cinema intro to lord of the Rings
I wonder if the apple vision pro is able to play AV1 files 🤔 i guess, would be really bad if not
Can you tell me more about reencoding to save space?
There is a trade off between just getting more storage and reencoding. I enjoy seeing the results of the re-encodes, but it's more cost effective to just get a larger hard drive.
I don't know anything about this new one they're talking about, but here is a comparison between h.264 (the current industry standard) and h.265.
https://www.epiphan.com/blog/h264-vs-h265/
The short version: Basically the same quality but half the file size, but it takes much longer to encode.
I wouldn’t call h.264 the current industry standard. It’s the smallest common denominator since more or less every device that’s capable of streaming video can decode h.264. However h.265 is pretty much standard for resolutions above 1080p. AV1 is nowhere near standard yet, though.
If you reencode to a more efficient codec, you can save ridiculous amounts of space. If you're interested in reencoding and are willing to play with self hosting, look into Tdarr, it's an app that can reencode your whole library. Been using it for a while after switching from my personal solution has been wonderful. I just put files into my media directories and it picks it up, reencodes the file and replaces the original if everything checks out.
I wonder if it's possible to re-encode from H.265/HEVC to AV1
You can play in handbrake with AV1 encoding to see how it goes. I think I set the compression to 36 or something.
Thanks I will give it a shot and see how it goes. The biggest thing holding me back is older hardware like the Nvidia Shield for example not supporting AV1.
Ahh, yeah that could be an issue. It takes my laptop like 11 hours to encode one of the Lord of the Rings Blu-ray. I also change the audio to eAC3 while I'm in there for better client support.