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?

  • BermudaHighball@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Note that H.264 and H.265 are the video compression standards and x264 and x265 are FOSS video encoding libraries developed by VideoLAN.

  • LemmyThrowawayAfterDark@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just finished moving all my media to x265 and saved 7TB in the process. Quality looks plenty good to me but I always start from a remux if I can. Totally Worth it for the extra space.

  • CCatMan@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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.

  • CanOpener@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Neither. AV1 if available, if not I download a high quality x264 copy and do my own transcode. AV1 is high quality with smaller file sizes, but isn’t very common right now.

    • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where have you ever found AV1? I’ve literally never once seen it in the wild. It seems awesome though, I would definitely choose that over anything else

      • Loki123@pathfinder.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It really is awesome. Lots of leaps forward for AV1 recently. It encodes faster than x265 in some situations with so much space saved. It’s still in the early stages, really, and the compression isn’t perfect, but for video streaming purposes, I’ll take it over x265 any day.

        • TheYang@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It encodes faster than x265 in some situations with so much space saved

          on ffmpeg?
          I tested it like 6months to a year ago I think, and it had similar storage requirement at similar visual fidelity but transcoding took what seemed 5x to 10x the time

          /e: for future reference, I’m testing a transfer to transcoding to AV1 instead of hevc

          ffmpeg -i /path/to/infile -c:v libsvtav1 -preset 9 -svtav1-params tune=0:enable-overlays=1:scd=1:scm=0:fast-decode=1 -crf 50 -g 240 -pix_fmt yuv420p10le /path/to/outfile

          These are a mix of what I read here:
          https://gist.github.com/BlueSwordM/86dfcb6ab38a93a524472a0cbe4c4100
          and here:
          https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/AV1

          general gist:
          preset is encoding speed, higher is faster, this setting gets me a bit faster than what i had my hevc encode set up
          tune=0 tunes for being good looking
          fast-decode lessens cpu use on decode
          crf 50 seems fine for my use
          -g 240 changes keyframe insertion to every 240 frames
          -pix_fmt yuv420p10le gives 10bit color depth which helps with dark scenes and doesn’T cost much space

  • geomusicmaker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A lot of comments suggesting AV1 has better compatibility than h265. In my experience the opposite is true. H265 is supported by all of my devices including Plex on my smart TV without transcoding, whereas AV1 makes everything have a fit trying to play it. Am I doing something wrong?

    • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      AV1 seems like a more open successor to HEVC/x265 and since it’s quite new compared to that only new devices are just starting to support it through hardware decoding/encoding

  • pacoboyd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    All my content is converted to CPU encoded x265. Size is MUCH smaller and quality better than GPU encoded x265. My preference is to get remux copies of the content and then encode it myself.

  • Loki123@pathfinder.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have a personal Jellyfin server, and I usually reencode from x264 to AV1. Though if it’s a matter of choosing a source, I always go for x264 for the least compression.

    • Gellis12@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The trouble with AV1 is that it’s about a decade behind h.265 in terms of hardware support. Most people aren’t upgrading their gpus every single generation, so by the time AV1-compatible hardware starts to see significant market share, it’s pretty likely that h.266-compatible hardware will be on the market as well.

      Of course, there’s also software encoders; but benchmarks of current software encoders put av1 anywhere between 50-1000x slower than x265 for comparable quality and bitrate.

      It’s definitely cool that people are working on a royalty-free video codec, but h.265 is the undeniable king for the time being.

      • fiah@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d agree with you except that my LG CX already supports AV1. Now I don’t know the numbers, but I do know these LG OLED TVs are pretty popular

  • SaintLunatic@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe something isn’t right in my setup but I see a noticeable difference in quality between the two. If I have two different files of one movie, one H265 and one H264, I find the H264 picture looks better most of the time

    • Spaceman Spiff@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not really a measure of the codec, but rather a measure of the encoder. A lot of x265 encoders are awful. They go with x265 for the smaller file sizes and over-compress it, similar to the old YIFY. Groups that use x264 already aren’t as concerned with file size (if they were, they’d use x265), and choose settings that optimize for quality.

  • PeachMan@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    H265 is objectively superior in just about every way UNLESS you’re trying to play it on hardware that doesn’t support it. The only reason to use H264 is for broad compatibility.

    • IceSea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      also its not just pure “compatibility”, but I had a time when I played vids to my TV over an old laptop (from around 2015). Worked like a charm. But some x265 vids went into full-on stutter mode in scenes where a lot of stuff was happening… was more a nuisance than a dealbreaker, but still, preferred x264 versions if I could get them

      • PeachMan@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sounds like your TV isn’t fully compatible with x265. You can get around that by using a modern streaming stick that supports it.

      • PeachMan@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Pretty sure it’s just more of a hardware age issue. Smart TV makers don’t put much effort into their firmware, so if they don’t support a codec now they probably won’t support it ever. Devices made before a certain year probably won’t ever support H265. I suspect we’ll run into the same thing with AV1, unfortunately. It’s another objectively superior codec that will have compatible issues. 🤷

  • haych@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d like to have the hard drive space for x264, but as I don’t I prioritise 265. If I do download 264 I then use tdarr to convert it to 265 myself.

    • eelynn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Curious, Im pretty new to with encoding, but wouldnt going from 264->265 (lossy to lossy) cause further quality loss? I know you arent supposed to do that with audio, did it hurt your video quality at all?

      • haych@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, but I prioritise hard drive space over quality. There’s occasionally artifacting and whatnot, but I don’t have the space to download everything in super high quality.

  • fades@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Shit, I like HEVC in theory for the compression especially but it’s copyrighted bullshit or whatever.

    I use Plex with lifetime pass on my QNAP NAS and it has to hardware transcode HEVC to a playable format because of said copyrighted bullshit.

    It doesn’t affect me that much unless I’m trying to jump around on the media as it will need to load. The other thing is that you can have Plex save transcodes but that obviously gobbles up disk space.

    tl;dr 264 = 👑