What the fuck. >take random episode of random shot >its

babbys first experience with a video compression algorithm

>>56275988
Something like that, I have real processing power now and decided to play around.
So whats the fucking catch to this shit?

>>56275907
The catch is 265 is much more CPU intensive.

You won't notice the extra power needed on any cpu from the past 10 years while trying to play 720p, past 5 years for 1080p.

Thing is, if you try running it on a laptop, it might start chugging unless you're running it on a more powerful machine (your moms 3 year old lenovo $300 laptop won't do very well).
And if you try doing 4k, especially at 60 fps, even the latest and greatest CPU's which cost upwards of $1k will start chugging.

Also, unless you're carrying a high end phone from the past 2 years, you won't be able to run it without either chugging like crazy or burning your hands.

>>56275907
>Ive tried compressing it in 7z

Compressing media files in 7z? Damn I thought the rest of your post was retarded but this is gold.

>>56276062
So the image and audio are actually the same quality?
>moms 3 year old lenovo $300
>smart phone movies
>other peoples laptop
fuck plebs. I cant believe this is a thing now.
what else do I need to know about? Ive been under a rock for the last 10 years..

>>56276062
In other words, it's never getting adopted?

>>56276069
so is there something better than 7z now or is it because modern media files are not really compressible?

>>56276130
Sometimes you have to leave everyone else in the dust.
I think Im going to convert everything over to 265. 4gb episodes have been pissing me off.

>>56276159
Storage is impossibly cheap now, though. And processor speed is plateauing.

>>56276219
Im trying to shrink my data hoard. I was coming up on 5tb used. Ive been deleting shit and archiving stuff for the last week.

>>56276120
Yeah, it's the same quality, also note that those numbers are based on a test thread where someone posted a 4k 60fps 265 k pop vid, I don't remember if it was 8bit or 10bit, so mileage may vary.
>>56276130
Sort of, at the high end, when you have hardware which supports 4k at 60fps, you won't be caring about storage and download times, since money.

At midrange though it makes quite a bit of sense, going from 500mb an episode to 100mb an episode with the same quality, and with not a whole lot of difficulty running it, does make sense.

>>56276245
Hope you have a GPU and a good FFmpeg script.

>>56276139
nice b8 m8

>>56276251
noted.

>500mb an episode
I fucking wish, the files in the op image are an episode.

>>56276139
It's because they're already compressed to the point that you can't compress them further without losing data. Thus, 7zip won't compress those media files further.

>>56276159
>2016
>storing media locally

Get Netflix, slum dweller

>>56276289
Is this post for real?

>>56276256
It only took a few minutes to reencode that file. Coming from an old core 2 duo that took 10 hours per episode, this is more than manageable.

>>56276276
I just lack knowledge about good compression and file formats that are newer than 15 years.

>>56276245
Shrinking an existing library would be pants on head retarded.
Unless you have a dedicated server for this kind of work, it would be less cost efficient than just getting a new drive, when considering both personal hours lost, and power draw.
(running your CPU at 100% for weeks will make a dent in your bill nigga).
I'd take a look here if I was you (literally a 5 second google search) https://edwardbetts.com/price_per_tb/internal_hdd/

>>56276285
oh ok. Yea, I learned that after I only saved a about 10 mb. I was just surprised that 265 was able to shave that much off of the file size. its starting to sink in now though.

>>56276331
>https://edwardbetts.com/price_per_tb/internal_hdd/
Nice list.
>refurb drives
plz no

I don't really trust new drives at first though. I have bad luck. I know if I did get that and moved all my media over the drive would die as soon as the originals got deleted even if I tested it.
Good point about the power usage. My library isnt that large and I dont rewatch movies that often so having them be 6x larger really doesn't make too much sense.

>>56276319
>It only took a few minutes to reencode that file.

5TB / 3.5GB * 3min / 60 = 72hrs of full CPU usage.
maybe five bucks of electricity, and an added cost of annoyance in fan noise.

>>56276430
>implying I have extra fans
My computer is pretty quiet, and the data hoard is mostly random shit, defiantly less than 1 tb of movies.
That isn't as bad as I thought.
I'm going to have to look into a way to check the integrity of the new files though, make sure there wasn't corruption or anything. Do you know anything about that?

>>56276430
If you can really encode a 3.5gb file into a 1gb file in 3 minutes then all the power to you.
Though if you can afford a CPU which is capable of doing that, you can definitely afford another HDD, and save yourself the hassle of not being able to use your PC for half a week.

>>56276493
He replied to me.
I didnt mean "few" to be literally, I started it and forgot about it for like 10 minutes until I moved firefox and it was done.

I just started it again, Ill time it now

>>56276488
ffmpeg error logs. you should use an ffmpeg script like I said, and maybe have it log to a file. There shouldn't be anything that it doesn't catch, if it encodes everything.

>>56276586
>>56276493
Think I have the speed setting slower, but it should compress better. It just hit 30%, so it seems to be going slower now that I'm paying attention.
Ill let it finish just to see the output size.

>>56276659
Yea, I plan on using ffmpeg. I came across handbrake while looking for some shit last night, think I was looking for video editing software.

File: fraps bitrate.png (3KB, 249x135px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 249x135px

>>56275907
You probably recorded uncompressed or with an extremely high bitrate that wouldn't look different to say a reduced bitrate video.

Fraps does this, example in pic.

>>56276821
Its a tv show, came from one from one of those uploaders that posts stuff all the time

>>56276842
Can you show us the mediainfo of the original mkv?

File: Screenshot_2016-08-26_14-28-01.png (397KB, 995x720px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 995x720px

>>56276862
Sure, how do I do that?
Also that file is done now. The longer time resulted in even better compression. That was only one notch slower. Im interested in how well the slowest setting will perform.

>>56276130
>In other words, it's never getting adopted?
H.265 decoders will soon be ubiquitous.
Germany for instance is just about to upgrade their terrestrial TV infrastructure to H.265.

>>56276916
Is that to make more room for the muslims?

>>56276895
It should have the info in the media player's info/properties window. That's for MPC-HC though, not sure if yours has it.

>>56276319
>I just lack knowledge about good compression and file formats

What you need to understand here is that 7zip offers lossless compression, and h264 and h265 are lossy compression algorithms.

>>56276965
>h264 and h265 are lossy compression algorithms
fug

fug what?

>>56276895
just ffmpeg -i %filename
should work.

>>56276004
>whats the fucking catch
nothing, really
H.265 is just much newer, and more efficient
i suppose one catch is that it takes more resources to encode/decode it

don't forget, the H.264 standard was finalized in /2003/, there's been a lot of time and effort put into H.265 since then

>>56276943
I found something in vlc but it only shoed the resolution and framerate. The new video is 2 pixels shorter for some reason, same framerate.

>>56277033
I dont like lossy

>>56277038
Will do, thanks.

>>56277101
been a while

>>56277147
>I dont like lossy
of course h.264 > h.265 will reduce the quality (except when using a lossless mode, which both codecs support, but are rarely used)
but if the loss isn't noticeable, does it really matter?

>>56277221
>does it really matter?
it does to my crippling ocd and autism.

>>56277260
Then get a raw releases, and enjoy 5gb 25 min episodes.

>>56277260
then your only option is to leave them all as-is

>>56276430
encoding h264 to h265 using just CPU power with a 1080p test file:

4 minutes 30 seconds

encoding h264 to h265 with GPU acceleration on the same 1080p test file:

24 seconds

Why the fuck are you doing this on a CPU. You have a video card, use it.

>>56276821
This.

The guy encoding it was an autist that used three times the necessary bitrate. If you had re-encoded it with the same codec but default, non-autistic settings, you'd see the same thing.

File: Ume BaiBai vector2.png (687KB, 3745x2394px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 3745x2394px

>>56276289
Nice mate. Can I report you?

File: lyanap-mexican.jpg (63KB, 348x473px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 348x473px

>>56278643
how did you do it? share the code

>>56275907
>Whats the fucking catch?

processing power on the encoding and decoding ends.

My laptop is absolutely shitty when it comes to h265. But the same file as h264 works fine.

File: 6c29b9bd7c41ca6002481de72f85072e.jpg (36KB, 680x578px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 680x578px

>>56278643
>encoding video on a gpu

>>56278776
Yes. It's called a GRAPHICS Processing Unit

>x265
>not vp9

>>56278784
yea, not "video encoding unit"
gpu's are good at highly parallel workloads, but when it comes to video encoding, the more you do in parallel, the less efficient the process as a whole becomes, as there's less information that can be correlated
for quick-and-dirty video such as for livestreaming, sure, go ahead. but for anything else, stay well away

>>56275907
>Whats the fucking catch?

The catch is that others can tell the difference in quality right off hand. Especially when they view it on a 200cm screen with a projector in their home cinema.

File: inxi_partitions_Screenshot_2016-08-10_22-03-56.png (74KB, 983x171px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 983x171px

>>56278643
>Why the fuck are you doing this on a CPU. You have a video card, use it.
NVENC is fast, but it's sometimes leaves a piece of unholy bloated shit. That, but it's probably me being a moron. I think CPU encoding is superior in every way except speed. Also, the support is coming albeit a little slow. Hardware decoders are starting to be more accessible. It's only a matter of time until HEVC starts replacing shit.

I've been thinking of doing the same thing, but I don't' want to leave all those torrents behind. Also, specializing every encode seems like a lot work with ffmpeg, maybe handbrake might be a better choice. I wouldn't start this now, however. I'd rather wait for Zen or Skylake-E for that.

>>56276245
You can easily get 4TB for under $150 now, I really dont see the need in downsizing.

I'm up to almost 40TB total storage in my house.

>>56278811
-- and yes, this affects cpu encoding as well, if the cpu has multiple cores
if you have a bunch of videos to encode, it's better to encode one on each core than to do one at a time on all cores

>>56278827
If it takes too long for HEVC to start getting adopted AV1 is going to come in and steal the show.

AV1 is being created by the industry and has huge support from all aspects of the industry, it has software partners among google, Mozilla, Adobe, etc. Harware partners among ARM, AMD, Nvidia, Intel, Cisco, etc. And content distributors youtube/google, netflix, amazon, etc.

And to top it off AV1 is royalty free (unlike HEVC which costs a lot of $ in royalties to use).
If AV1 is finalized in Q1 2017 as expected and we get good hardware encode/decode in the next gen of GPU and iGPUs, AV1 could certainly replace HEVC, at least for big players such as youtube, netflix, and amazon. They don't want to pay the HEVC fees.

>>56276062
My baytrail atom tablet manages to play 720p h.265 fine using the CPU
1080p is harder but sill works

>>56278920
>AV1
literally who?

>>56278940
>literally who?
Adobe
Amazon
AMD
ARM
Ateme
Cisco
Google
Intel
Ittiam
Microsoft
Mozilla
Netflix
NVIDIA
Vidyo

>>56278948
i'm inquiring about the codec, not the companies
or is "AV1" a group, like MPEG?

>>56278940
>AV1
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/What-Is-.../What-is-AV1-111497.aspx

>>56278963
The group is AOMedia, their first codec is AV1

AV1 is basically google's VP10 work with Mozilla's Dalla and Cisco's Thor adding some tweaks and techniques.

Reminder to archive untouched DVDs and Blu-Ray
If you only store H.264, you're fucked when AV1 comes along

>>56278948
So basically noone.

>>56278920
By all means I hope that they do. Here's hoping it isn't a piece of shit that implodes like a certain codec.

>>56279036
explain?

>>56279036
>you're fucked when AV1 comes along
What's that supposed to mean?

>>56279036
>Reminder to archive untouched DVDs and Blu-Ray
That's just impossible for me nigga. I have about 8TB of anime, having all of that uncompressed would be way too much storage space.

>>56276130
It already is, some new phones and graphics cards support it now

>>56279064
>>56279069
Anon means you should encode from source, not reencode.

File: FnFgoLs.jpg (134KB, 778x1018px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 778x1018px

>>56278948
>no Apple

>>56279083
This. Wasn't it the same with x264 when it came out?

>>56275907
>Whats the fucking catch?

If you're running a Pentium 4 you're fuck.

Seriously, that's pretty much it. Most new phones can handle H.265 now, it's free file size saving at the cost of a much longer encoding time currently.

Welcome to people making an efficient codec.

>>56279088
Oh, yea I agree but how the fuck do you source?
Just download the retardedly large version or is there a certain format extension I need to look for?

>>56279103
>If you're running a Pentium 4 you're fuck.
Its ok, Im future now.
>Welcome to people making an efficient codec.
I like the future.

>>56279113
VC-1 (Blu-Ray)
VOB (DVD)

>>56279102
yes but x264 was cheaper, we dont even have a final price for HEVC royalties I dont think.

MPEG royalties were $0.20 per unit and you were capped at $25M annual royalty fees.

HEVC royalties start at $0.80 per device and go up to over $2.00 for some UHD TVs with additional tech besides the Main profiles. Not to mention there is NO annual cap AND you must give 0.5% of ALL revenue that is attributable to your using HEVC.


HEVC is fucking dead if AV1 manages to take off, royalty free will always win when the royalties are fucking insane like they are with HEVC

>>56279073
At least keep untouched copies of rarities.
I keep the DVDs of rare documentaries and films that are sometimes hard to find, or only in inferior quality.

>>56278967
Damn, there are a lot of big names in there. They have a long road ahead of them, HEVC is already on the hardware level.

>>56279174
>we dont even have a final price for HEVC royalties I dont think.

4K Blurays use HEVC, so obviously royalties are already happening.

>>56279193
They have Nvidia, Intel, ARM, and AMD as hardware partners.

Shouldnt be long to see hardware AV1 support once we get a finalized spec.

>>56279171
thanks m8

>>56279174
>HEVC is fucking dead if AV1 manages to take off

HEVC is already being used today for UHD blurays and they are not going to switch codec mid life cycle of the format, fucking over everyone who bought a 4K Bluray player.

AV1 is never going to touch 4K blurays, they can try again when 8K comes.

>>56279196
Yes but I dont think it's been finalized, there are drafts as I said later on in the post what current prices are, but i'm pretty sure even those are subject to change if the HEVC consortium decided to.

>>56279216
as if anyone is actually going to buy UHD bluray discs

>>56279216
Well duh, I never said it would, HEVC will have TV and Bluray.

AV1 will be the streaming codec of choice, and likely be used by the pirating community.

>Beyond deployment cost and complexity, if the Alliance meets its goals, AV1 should also have a significant quality advantage over HEVC, though this may be offset by higher CPU playback requirements and/or longer encoding times.
Shit, HEVC already takes quite a while to encode with good quality and lower filesizes.

>>56279187
That sounds nice anon, what kinda rares do you have?

>>56279236

>Going to

They're already begin sold, I have 11.

Only buy the HDR ones, resolution isn't as amazing a jump as SD->HD but the fucking color depth on HDR is indescribable.

>>56279237
>likely be used by the pirating community.
Unfortunately the copyright infringement community has a lot of luddites who hate change and take 10 years to adopt a new standard.
The "Scene" took several years to finally release music in FLAC format.
Just ask about HEVC on any private tracker. "It's not ready" bla bla. In reality they're just too lazy to learn.

>>56279248
>I have 11.

How does it feel being the goyest?

>>56279236

People are already buying them. No one who cares about 4K is going to fucking stream that shit where the bitrate is 1/8th of a bluray. No fucking point to even bother with 4K if you're streaming.

>>56279248
>They're already begin sold
as far as i was aware, it was still on a drawing board

>>56279236
if the file sizes get manageable again blueray could be kill. We could start putting everything back on dvds

>>56279259
Feels like not being a contrarian, do you still use a CRT as well?

File: 1443548095098.jpg (6KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 200x200px

>>56279248
>HDR is indescribable
>implying you have an HDR capable display

oh okay

>>56279263
>No one who cares about 1080p is going to fucking stream that shit where the bitrate is 1/8th of a bluray. No fucking point to even bother with 1080p if you're streaming.
newsflash: people don't give a shit about video quality, just look at how well-seeded 350M tv shows and YIFY-tier movies are

>>56279287
-- ps. i actually know someone who plays downloaded SD media (the same as mentioned) on a 4K tv

>>56279285

Are you out of touch with the industry? There's quite a number HDR TVs now.

http://4k.com/tv/

I have a KS8000

>>56279287
>newsflash: people don't give a shit about video quality

Which part of "people who care about 4K" did you have trouble reading?

>>56275907
>Whats the fucking catch?
No hardware decoding yet.

>>56279274
dts-hd alone takes up 24.5 MB/s

ɕ

>>56279341

Do you mean Mb and not MB?

Because that would be like over 100GB for 2 hours.

>>56279333
m8, almost everyone i've seen assumes "1080p/4k = quality"
you shouldn't say "4K" if you mean quality, they're not the same thing

>>56279320
wew, you bought fake HDR good job.

Real HDR is what you get with an OLED panel, local backlight dimming you get on that samsung LCD is just an attempt to mimic what an OLED does naturally.

>>56276351
>>56276139
>>56276069
>>56275907
Also, you're a fucking retard for using 7z in the first place. The only reason why anyone installs it is because it's the only program that supports 7z and there's the occasional autist that uses that dumb compression scheme to shave a few KB off of a 1GB file.

>>56279240
>That sounds nice anon, what kinda rares do you have?
They're not that rare but pristine copies of documentaries aren't that popular on trackers. Often you only find XviD and YouTube often only has terrible encodes
>unlicensed HyperCam

Favorite documentaries:

* The Day After Trinity (1981)
... strong character study. Calm narrative. Good minimalistic music.
... Won the Peabody Awards

* Eric Hebborn - Portrait of a master forger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jKbbajb5pE
^^^ still looking for a HQ copy

* Alone In The Wilderness (DVD)
...highly recommended! Comfiest documentary ever made.

* Kevorkian (2010)
... recommended in combination with the film "You Don't Know Jack", Al Pacino's best role

* CNN Cold War
* CNN World At War
... most comprehensive WW2 and CW docs

* The Machine That Changed The World
... best documentary on computing ever made. Everyone on /g/ should watch it. It's on YouTube I think.

>>56276289
>Netflix
no, thanx, i will stay with my movie server

>>56279360
yes padawan

>>56279410
P.S.
Eric Hebborn - Portrait of a master forger
and
Kevorkian

are not extraordinary in terms of film making. They're just solid, not great, but portray interesting people.

The others however are top tier in terms of narrative and presentation IMHO.

>>56279398
>The only reason why anyone installs it is because it's the only program that supports 7z
...and zip and rar and gz and iso and tar...
shall I go on, you fucking aspie?

>>56276289

You probably think YIFY torrents are all fine. That is, if you knew what a torrent is.

>>56279340
>implying
Nvidia had the 960 on Maxwell and I think the 1000 series has 10bit HEVC. I think Polaris is on the same boat with AMD.

>>56279506
lol windows by default supports all those

>>56279576
>big fucking desktop GPU
Wew. Wake me up when you don't need a fucking desktop to watch h265 videos with hardware acceleration.

>>56279650
Literally any skylake CPU with integrated graphics will do HEVC.

10bit HEVC is coming with Kabylake.

>>56279398
Whats with your autistic hate of compression?

>>56279650
Nice that you're moving your goalposts. Be more precise next time. Even the cheaper Polaris 11 and soon to be released 1050 will have it.

>>56279669
>10bit HEVC is coming with Kabylake.
Meanwhile I'm busy sleeping over here. It's probably not even going to fucking be in there. If it is I'll buy a SP5 and a surface 4.

>>56279694
>It's probably not even going to fucking be in there
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10570/intel-teases-mobile-kaby-lake-hevc-main10-profile-support-coming-this-autumn

it's already been shown, get your wallet ready.

>I tried compressing lossy video
This should be a felony

>>56279714
And then Nvidia releases shit like the 970 that they claim has 4 GB of memory and lose a lawsuit for only having 3.5.

>>56279410
Nice. Im guessing most of your collection is somewhat political?

>>56279248
>10-bit capable displays are now called "HDR screens"
That's not how HDR photography works, at all.

>>56279742
It's HEVC main10, not magic. Hardware decoders have existed for awhile now, I am fully confident intel will manage it without issue.

>>56279775
He stopped replying after I called him out
>>56279388

>>56279360
Bluray supports up to 128GB

>>56279731
uncompressed AVI + WAV master race

>>56279731
>I tried compressing lossy video
Pretty much every video you will ever get your hands on is compressed using a lossy codec. Lossless video is so large it's not actually used in any consumer application that I know of. There's software that can capture what you see on your screen in a lossless format, but that's about it.

>>56279388
>fake HDR
is this the new "dynamic contrast"?

>>56279867
HDR photography works by taking 3 photos, one normal and the other two under- and overexposed. Then you combine them with software. No video camera can do this, so everything "HDR" is fake. All it seems to mean is that the TV supports 10-bit colorspace or that it's oled

>>56279931
i know what HDR photography is
i'm only referring to the use as a marketing term
"dynamic contrast" also doesn't make sense (oh, the screen is darker when the backlight is off? how useful)

>>56279931
>HDR photography works by taking 3 photos
Cheap cell phone cameras do that.

Professional cameras actually deliver 12 bits of color depth and more in one take.

>>56279993
>Professional cameras actually deliver 12 bits of color depth and more in one take.
Sure, but that's not HDR

The catch is that it takes more processing power to decode, and there isn't any hardware decoding for it yet.

So basically if your computer is really really bad, or you're trying to get a rpi to play it, it will be jittery and bad.

Compression algorithms are usually like that (I think) even without the developments in media type specialisation, where you can compress something way way more if you're prepared to wait 5 hours for it to encode/decode

>>56280084
>there isn't any hardware decoding for it yet.
There is, though

>>56280101
>muh 4k usd desktop supercomputer

File: HDR_rocket_footage.webm (2MB, 640x172px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x172px

>>56279931
>No video camera can do this
What about that new NASA camera they used to film the rocket test the other werk?

>>56275907
All I know is that h.265 took my 18tb media collection down to just over 5 TB and ot saved me a TON of money on replacing all the drives in my full storage array. No real catch if not on pleb hardware.

>>56280128
Skylake iGPUs support it to some extent, as do Pascal and Polaris. I'm pretty sure something like a RX 460 goes for like $100, so there's no reason that I can see for you to act like a retard, unless you're actually retarded that is.

I hope HEVC and the whole MPEG work group die in a fire

>>56280136
Space Tech doesnt count anon.

>>56280259
>RX 460 goes for like $100
Let me just stick that in my tablet, oh wait.

>>56280398
Snapdragon 820 has hardware HEVC Main10 decoding.

Exynos 8890 might as well.

>>56280398
That's just too bad for your tablet, the post I replied to was about desktop computers though.

>>56277147
>I dont like lossy

Holy shit. You realize there is no place for lossless video outside of studio production? Unless you want a 300GB 10 minute video.

>>56280209
How long did it take you to convert your library? On what hardware?

>>56280961
It took me about 2 months using 2 PC's, each processing about 12 hours a day. Computer 1 has an i7 6700k @4.6 GHz, and computer 2 has an i5 6600k also @ 4.6 GHz.

>>56281047
Two months? Fucking hell wouldn't it have been cheaper to just buy an extra drive?

>>56281089
Well, I use a few year old Dell MD fiber storage SAN, and the MD appliance is physically full of drives so I can't add in. It's saved me hundreds potentially since the freed up space should last me the usable lifespan of the device without having to replace any of them with larger capacity spindles. So, no.