What video encoding method would you /g/entoomen personally choose

>>57037892

It depends man. How about you just describe your exact scenario?

if you can afford the space you'd be dumb to not just dump the file and put it somewhere safe. But if you're pressed for space, H265 or VP9 is the way to go. Almost all of the new chipsets going forward will have hardware decoding for them-- from your Laptop to a Chromebook to cell phones.

Just be prepared to spend a lot of time encoding.

>>57037946
>describe your exact scenario
Various 1080p@60fps recordings eating up terabytes of space currently, aiming to convert it all into a form that doesn't hog ~1GB for every sec of video...

>if you're pressed for space, H265 or VP9 is the way to go
Haven't looked into those yet, I wonder if Avidemux and/or FFmpeg can handle them.

>Just be prepared to spend a lot of time encoding.
Not really a problem, I guess.

Just curious how /g/ prefers to do proper video encoding of this sort.

>>57038077
I usually throw terabytes through the nvenc extension on FFMPEG to do h.265. Hardware encoding is a significant quality loss, but the space savings are amazing. A slight blurriness is worth 70% space savings imo.

>>57038077
Forgot to mention, most of it is recorded using h.264 with qp=0 setting, the reason for the huge files.

>>57038118
Significant quality loss is what I'm trying to avoid mainly. I'd like the videos to stay at near raw quality level, so that I couldn't easily tell the difference.

I'll have to find out how much the available lossless codecs reduce file size, or how high bitrate is needed for lossy codecs to achieve similar results.

>>57037892
Generally all video is already compressed. Leave it in whatever format it was created.

>>57037892
Just save everything as a mjpeg

>>57038226
Sure, but re-encoding it with a lossless codec means that the quality won't change, but the file size may get reduced by a lot.
That's kind of the idea behind lossless codecs, isn't it? Decoding something that was encoded losslessly will give the same result mathematically as the original encoding.

>>57038285
He already has it saved in h.264 lossless quality. MJPEG is absolute dogshit when not using lossless compression.

>>57038317
It depends. If you're going from lossless to lossless, yes. If you're going from lossy to lossless, it's just going to increase file size and quality will still be the same.

>>57037892
.avi

Thanks guys, I'll experiment around with both lossless and lossy codecs (at different bitrates) and compare the results. It really depends on the original video what works best.

I'll look into H.265 and VP9 too, and probably others I haven't yet heard of.
(MJPEG sounds interesting too, even if not suited for this task.)

I also have to take into consideration which codecs are going to be well supported in the future.
The encodes might end up sitting unused for many years.

Or I might really just dump it all on some cloud storage as it is. Probably not.

I think lossless H264 do not save HDR information
But future monitors will be HDR
Compress it with WinRAR and add restore information

>>57037892
I'd recommend VP9.

It's a shame that VP10's development halted, but at least its making its way to the first AOMedia codec that'll be released next year.

thanks YIFI A10/V10

I have hundreds of DVDs that are MPEG2 remuxed to mkv, should I keep them as is or is there a different lossless format I can convert them to?