Nearing the filling of my 14.5TB hard drive and wanting to wait a bit longer before shelling out for a 60TB raid array, I've been trying to replace as many x264 releases in my collection with x265 releases of equivalent quality. While popular movies are usually available in x265, less popular ones and TV shows usually have fewer x265 options available, with low quality MeGusta encodes often being the only x265 option.

While x265 playback is more demanding than x264 playback, its compatibility is much closer to x264 than the new x266 codec. Is there a reason many release groups still opt for x264 over x265?

  • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    A lot of TV shows are direct rips from streaming services and they don't use H.265 because of the ridiculous licensing it comes with.

    I suspect AV1 will become much more popular for streaming in a few years when the hardware support becomes more common. It's an open source codec, so licensing shouldn't be an issue. Then we will see a lot more AV1 releases.

      • Shimitar@feddit.it
        ·
        4 months ago

        In my experience, you always gain space savings going av1 from 264 and 265 as well. For me its always been significant savings at the same quality level.

        Ofc YMMV and use a very recent ffmpeg with the best av1 libraries.

  • Shimitar@feddit.it
    ·
    4 months ago

    Go AV1... In my direct experience the space saving is simply amazing at the same quality.

    265 doesn't seems to be the future since all Android are going to support AV1 by mandatory from A14.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      cake
      ·
      4 months ago

      It doesn't play well on older kit though. Even the Nvidia Shield Pro won't play them unless they're really low resolution.

      265 is ideal for me, even if it's hamstrung on open source browsers.

  • nintendiator@feddit.cl
    ·
    4 months ago

    There's always the chance that compatibility / breadth can be a factor. I don't know how much more demanding 265 is than 264 but if it is "noticeable" / "enough", if it means someone can't play the content in their (smart) TV set or on their phone, it makes sense then to release for the more compatible option / avoid a dual release.

  • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    ·
    4 months ago

    RARBG was so good for this, their releases were of such good consistent quality

    If you search for ORARBG on therarbg site you can still find some OG releases and not random YIFY crap

  • Shimitar@feddit.it
    ·
    4 months ago

    Some notes: Don't use GPU to reencode you will lose quality.

    Don't worry for long encoding times, specially if the objective is long term storage.

    Power consumption might be significant. I run mine what the sun shine and my photovoltaic picks up the tab.

    And go AV1, open source and seems pretty committed to by the big players. Much more than h265.

    • Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      hexagon
      ·
      4 months ago

      In order to encode to a specific format without unintentionally losing quality, doesn't the initial file have to be a remux?

      • Shimitar@feddit.it
        ·
        4 months ago

        Indeed, but YMMV and to me quality is still good if source was not a remix but a top quality encoding

    • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Yep, gpu de- and encoding is high-speed but often lower quality and with old codec versions. Common mistake to think that gpu = better.