So I haven't been paying attention until I got my 4K TV,

Don't tell me what to do

>>58311114

like you have anything else to do, anon

>>58311068

> He doesn't know about BITRATE

>>58311305

I'm watching this stuff and I can't tell a difference from the 1GB shit I usually download.

>>58311340

as compared to the HVC1 1920x1072 23.976fps coming in at under 300mb

>>58311068
> shitty license
> requires an octa core cpu to decode on the fly fast enough to play without glitches

>>58311457
>> requires an octa core cpu to decode on the fly fast enough to play without glitches
Which is why new hardware has HEVC hardware acceleration.

>>58311340

Bigger the bitrate, bigger the file size. No matter the res or the FPS ;)

If you don't give a shit about quality, i'ts OK. You'll only notice diferences if you are closer to the screen.

>>58311457
>> requires an octa core cpu to decode on the fly fast enough to play without glitches
i-is that why I can watch it just fine? I thought it was because we future now

>>58311340
>only 1GB

what the fuck are you downloading? 20min tbbt episodes?

>>58311457
My laptop C2D can almost play Blu-ray remuxes, I have a hard time imagining modern hardware struggles that much.

>>58311068
x265 is still shit and HEVC will become obsolete once AV1 is ready :^)

>>58311457
>> requires an octa core cpu to decode on the fly fast enough to play without glitches
wat
false as fuck, my shitty ipad air 2 runs HEVC purr-fect

>>58312296
kep dreaming

>>58312700
>false as fuck, my shitty ipad air 2 runs HEVC purr-fect
No it doesn't

>>58313355
yes, it does.

use the VLC app.

>>58313527

> app

>>58311068
>So I haven't been paying attention until I got my 4K TV, but is HEVC x265 fucking witchcraft or some shit?
No, you're just downloading shitty quality releases

I can compress your 2 hour movie into 50 MB if you want me to

>>58311457
> requires an octa core cpu to decode on the fly fast enough to play without glitches
I need all 32 cores to fully decode 10-bit 4K HEVC in realtime, and even then it just barely manages to do it. I can't play it in realtime without glitches either, because of inter-node access latencies.

For the current generation, there's absolutely no way around hardware decoding if you want to watch HEVC in realtime. If I can't do it with my 32-core machine, neither can you.

>>58311457
False af. My phenom ii x4 965 can play just fine (struggles beyond 45mb/s bitrate)

>>58311992

Video: MPEG4 Video (H264) 1280x716 23.976fps [V: h264 high L4.1, yuv420p, 1280x716 [default]]

>HVC1
not a thing, bro

anyway, HEVC EOL anyway with VP9 and AV1

it will never see widespread adoption --- ever :^)

>>58314605
>4K Blu-ray

>>58314605

That's what MPC-HC says in the details. In any case, I don't care, I've read there is royalties and shit but I pirate everything, it's not like the scene is going to give a shit or pay it.

Still, the compression ability I'm seeing is impressive and I don't feel so shitty about net neutrality going to shit.

>>58314636
most of the scene uses H264 these days still
at any rate, the scene may not give a shit about royalties, but they do give a shit about producing higher quality videos, which they will do with AV1 within the next few years

>>58314660
>producing higher quality videos
whoops, meant to say producing smaller videos with equal or higher perceived quality
scene does not care too much about quality lel

>>58311457
My cheap 150$ chinkphone (lenovo k3 note) runs 1080p h.265 without any problem on hardware acceleration

>>58314660
>>58314668
though it is doubtful that the speed of encoding H264 with x264 will be surpassed by the reference AV1 encoder so we will have to see

>>58314782
>without any problem on hardware acceleration
>hardware acceleration
invalidated

H.265 is not a codec with a wide spread future.

It has been rejected by the tech industry for good reasons (IP became toxic) and the Alliance for Open Media will be releasing their new AV1 codec in late 2017 or 2018. AV1 will replace H.264, H.265 and VP9 for all internet streaming media so there is going to be a ton of new hardware rolling out to support that.

H.265 will only be used in 4K Blu-ray, some TV services perhaps and personal video encoders, essentially it's going to be the DivX of out time which is ironic as it was some of the same companies that torpedoed MPEG4/DivX from becoming a standard internet media codec did the exact same thing to H.265.

Any support for H.265 in a web browser is highly dubious as that would undermine AV1 and pretty much everyone in the industry is behind AV1 (bar Apple but even they backed off H.265 and are sitting on the fence).

So just keep that in mind that H.265 support is no longer guaranteed on future media devices.

>>58311068
x265 is goat god tier future
people need to get off of the x264 meme asap.

File: hqdefault.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>58316460

>>58311457
My i3 is fine unless I try to play something crazy (4K60 or >4K).

>>58317790
My cheap Surface-clone gets insanely hot when playing x265 files.

Also my TV doesn't support the HEVC, so I use Emby to transcode files on the fly when watching movies on the TV.

>>58311457
>requires an octa core cpu to decode
Nigga I can decode it fine with a 3570k. If you're talking 4h 60fps shit, then that's an entirely different problem.

File: It can't be helped - Ako.jpg (64KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 554x439px

I'd like to re-encode everything and save more or less 30% of my storage. The thing is that x265 is very resource intensive and takes a fuckload to encode properly.
If anything, I'm more excited about AV1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOMedia_Video_1

>>58311457
nigger my 1070 has HW h265 decoding

>>58317893
nobody is gonna adopt any open shit

>>58317950
970 can do it too.

No 10-bit though.

>>58317893
There is no AV1 HW decoding devices yet so it's pointless to even use it

>>58317964
>nobody but huge companies are going to adopt it
Nigger at least use proper grammar.

>>58317978
>pointless
It's not even fully out yet. HW decoding is good when you have underpowered devices or want to save power. I give no shits about that on the desktop. HEVC will be replaced in the next 5 years, the support has been incredibly slow and it's still too costly to encode in the first place.

>>58317893
>It aims for state of the art performance with a noticeable compression efficiency advantage at only slightly increased coding complexity. The performance target is about 50% efficiency improvement over HEVC and VP9. At the beginning of June 2016 its performance was already comparable to HEVC as measured using the objective metric PSNR-HVS-M.[4]
>50% efficiency improvement over HEVC and VP9
So, half the time to encode? That's still a lot.

>>58312700
it just needs hardware support
just like 264 got

calm down kids

Does anyone have encoding tips for x265? Everything I compress looks blurry.

>>58313615
you know anon

thanks for this

i've been considering htpc box for my tv

and this convinced me to just stick with x264 sources, m2ts remux etc. and buy something like a gigabyte brix

>>58314660
easy kiddo
scene isn't about quality

>>58318071
>Does anyone have encoding tips for x265? Everything I compress looks blurry.
Well you're probably bitstarving the damn video to hell. x265 is only good for things with small filesize like HDTV episodes anyways, x264 still achieves much better quality on higher filesizes cause the algorithm has been studied for years.

>>58318071

Decoding x265 is also problematic since most devices don't have a hardware decoder so it's mainly a PC likely that could decode it in software.

Prettygreat pls fix Bibliotik ;_;

>>58318129
Daiz already confirmed it's false that x264 is better quality as of late 2015

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=1VK-004K-00003
install kodi
enjoy forever?

>>58318161
>Daiz
sure you bald drone, also did you actually read what i said? anime episodes are small as shit.

Prettygreat pls come back to /ptg/ I miss you senpai ;~;

Times may change but true love is forever.

File: IMG_1472 (1).jpg (590KB, 2016x1512px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 2016x1512px

>>58318170
No, no really

Kaby Lake has 8K HEVC Main10 hardware decoding

If you don't have HEVC Main10 hardware decoding, GTFO

>>58318213
nah i was just kidding

but forreal tho: if i'm just playing m2ts files, or ~50GB x264 files averaging like 40MBps at worst... what can i get to be /set4lyfe/ that's cheap?

intel nuc should do it, seems like. storage is on a nas

>>58318216
I have HEVC Main12 hardware decoding

File: umi_tilt.jpg (17KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 200x200px

With NetVC right around the corner (spring), I can't help but ignore HEVC.

>>58318241
NUC should do it.

But why, oh why it doesn't have HDMI-CEC support?

Personally, I move away from kodibox to separate Emby server with various client devices.

>>58318200

underrated post, so deep

>>58318312
>Emby server
only the one client, lot of work for just the one tv

>>58318200
love is a chemical reaction you dumdum

nothing is forever :ˆ)

File: 1472877533336.jpg (115KB, 1152x563px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1152x563px

>>58318216

yeah, kaby is mainly for 4K playback

>>58316460
What is wrong with H265 ?

i'm sorry, i'm just ignorant on the subject

>>58318344
If there is only one client, then just stick with Kodi. It just works My only issue is with the scrapper, if it has issues with recognizing files named like this:
>X-Men - Apocalypse (2016 [1280x536_x265_AAC].mkv
then we have an issue.

>>58318393
yeah, but i'm not bringing in shit labeled like that. i know what you mean with the scrapper, but i generally catch those early

need to find a refurb nuc. need to do this on an ullllllllllllllltra budget

>>58318393
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16856102140

>what was it like when you were young grandpa?

these were uncertain times, full of adventures and international debates

>>58318414
>shit labeled like that
I don't think that was a shit-tier name.

If you need to do it on really tight budget, you might do as my friend has done.

>attach HDD to router
>using router software create an only local network accessible FTP server
>add folders with movies and tv shows to the server
>buy cheap chink 20$ android based kodibox
>add FTP location as a library in Kodi

File: dxvachecker.png (79KB, 649x699px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 649x699px

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit-nuc6cayh.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHa10EbyKTk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjXbAPXf_Vo

>Not buy Intel Apollo Lake NUC with 8K HEVC Main10 hardware decoding

>>58318562
>http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit-nuc6cayh.html
not seeing this on the market yet? at least the nuc itself. bummer. seems like a great futureproof purchase

>>58318535
"shit" is often used in place of words such as "stuff."

>>58318586
following up: preproduction engineering youtube unboxing from 5 december

i'll keep an eye, thanks anon

>>58317893
>re-encoding
nigger stop

>>58317868
>hurrrr I can decode HEVC at 480p24
durrrr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI-a4WZWwZc

Kaby Lake handles HEVC Main10 120Mbps effortlessly while Skylake cries

HEVC is deprecated.
AV1 is futureproof, wait to the end of the year and buy products with hardware support for that instead.

>>58318562
>http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit-nuc6cayh.html
where do I buy that?

File: REDLINE_[BSS]_[1080p][HEVC][207485B6]_0001_00:03:17_[2016_02_20_01].jpg (319KB, 1864x1048px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1864x1048px

>>58318650
Why, yes I can decode 1080p 7 years hand drawn just fine. I can't, however, decode 60 fps Korean sluts at 4k. I'm not in the mood for shitposting, anon.

>>58318650
Not him but again, my laptop C2D can almost handle FullHD HEVC Blu-ray remuxes, I have a hard time imagining it's that bad with modern hardware.

>>58318643
What's so wrong with reencoding? Yeah you lose a small bit of quality each time, but with the correct settings, it's negligible.

>>58318643
My mistake anon. I mean re-encoding some BDs from source. Even then, I've re-encoded some chinese cartoon episodes and compared them side by side, with practically no difference in quality, but much lower filesizes.

>>58318713
Here's one, but it's sadly just one episode.
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/162200
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/162199
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/162201
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/162202
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/162203

>>58318366
It's mainly down to the cost of patent licensing and royalties.

>>58318691
>HEVC Blu-ray remuxes

>>58317972
No, only GTX 960
>no 10-bit though
that's definitely possible for the later GPUs, not sure about the 960

>>58317978
AV1 hardware decoders will be implemented in all intel, amd and nvidia devices as soon as the bitstream becomes final

(nvidia, intel and AMD are part of the team working on AV1)

>>58318051
>So, half the time to encode?
Were you dropped on the head as a kid? A 50% improvement does not mean “double”. That would be a 100% improvement

Also, they're talking about efficiency, not performance.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook-pro-core-i7-2.6-15-mid-2012-retina-display-specs.html

if i either 1. clean install os x on here or 2. some kind of linux + kodi

am i good for huge BD files? 50GB m2ts, or encoded 30MBps, 30GB x264

>>58318692
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mES3CHEnVyI

>there's no problem at all, trust me!

>>58318808
>pointless greentext

>>58318129
>x265 is only good for things with small filesize like HDTV episodes anyways, x264 still achieves much better quality on higher filesizes cause the algorithm has been studied for years.
What the _actual_ fuck are you smoking

>>58318216
>he actually bought into the botnet
yes, yes, goy; go get your 1% ipc improvement for $500

>>58314378
>▶>>58311542 >>58311955 >>58312000 >>58312700 >>58313615 >>58314378 >>58314782 >>58317790 >>58317868 >>58317950
>>>58311068 (OP)
All has to do with your CPU's instruction and GPU (if applicable).

>>58318848
Digital to digital generation is much less destructive.

>>58318848
How does copying a VHS onto another VHS compare at all with reencoding a video?

My last few reencodes have actually introduced quality because I know what I'm doing.

>>58318118
christ, dad, can't you read the comment i made immediately after?

>>58318366
MPEG-LA

>>58318681
>120 Mbps
I can decode 110 Mbps HEVC samples at 1080p on my sand bridge processor just fine, too

bitrate doesn't matter as much as the frame spec (resolution/bit depth)

>>58318689
virtually all HEVC content is UltraHD, so saying you can decode HEVC as long as it's not 4K is basically like saying you can't decode HEVC

>>58319055
doesn't such a high bitrate generally imply a low complexity compression?

>>58318739
>blurred the fuck out
>artifacts up the ass
>source is unwatchable to begin with
>practically no difference in quality :^^^^^)

well yeah, they're both completely unwatchable

>>58319055
This is 4K 120Mbps, faggot

No one cares about 1080P

Either put up or shut up

http://jell.yfish.us/

>>58318848
>notice how the colours are starting to bleed
if it takes you 4 generations to notice that insane color bleed, you're probably not literate to begin with, so this remark is pointless

>>58318691
>FullHD HEVC Blu-ray remuxes
but something like this doesn't even exist

>>58318981
>My last few reencodes have actually introduced quality because I know what I'm doing.
Translation: I applied [whatever meme NN filter is currently trending on doom9], now the source is improved!1

>>58318981
>introduced quality
that's not how it works

>>58319156
>>58319143
You've never dealt with blurry grainy mess? Some denoise, smart sharpen and 10bit encoding goes a long way.

>>58318691
>HEVC Blu-ray
kek

>that's not how it works
not totally true, DSP can be used to reduce quantization noise from a bad transfer
you can also apply debanding filters
aggregate multiple sources to create a `hybrid' encode

File: mpv-shot0005.jpg (1MB, 4096x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4096x2160px

>>58319101
works fine for me?

>>58319166
that's not what I would call introducing quality

>>58319166
>You've never dealt with blurry grainy mess?
No, I download blu-ray remuxes

>Some denoise
Denoise is universally shit, also grain is generally a good thing since it masks actual artifacts like banding and blocking. Speaking of which, I use realtime debanding which is basically a strict improvement (it's essentially non-destructive and pretty much only gets rid of banding)

>smart sharpen
Yeah, good idea - enhance all those quantization artifacts! Seriously, sharpen filters are the dumbest fucking thing ever for video quality. I mean, I literally use a blur filter (11%) for all content I watch because it improves the result. (Masks aliasing, which is important because 99% of sources are aliased to fucking hell and back)

>10 bit enconding
Yes, pulling 8 bit sources up to 10 bit will surely improve the quality

>>58319166
Looks like my translation was accurate >>58319143

>>58319140
>>58319180
>>58318691
>completely missing the point
It was still a FullHD HEVC video.

>>58319187
this is on sandy bridge btw

>>58319226
>No, I download blu-ray remuxes
>implying every blu-ray is sourced from a good transfer

>>58319243
>implying I watch shitty q-tec garbage or whatever
Have you considered just not watching crap

>>58319166
>denoise
>sharpening
disgusting

>>58319166
>10bit encoding

>let's encode 128 kbps mp3 to 320 kbps mp3, it'll improve the quality!

>>58319248
>Have you considered just not watching crap
you _clearly_ don't watch a lot of films >>>/out/

>>58319272
>you _clearly_ don't watch a lot of films
yes, I don't. This is not >>>/tv/, in case you haven't noticed. Maybe YOU're the one who needs to go >>>/out/

>>58319277
>yes, I don't.
then why did you imply only bad films get bad transfers
why make a claim you can't support?
anyway, the board we're on is irrelevant as the thread is about digital video which i was trying to discuss civily

>>58319226
>Yes, pulling 8 bit sources up to 10 bit will surely improve the quality

8bit source stored as 10bit is more efficient and also properly preserves gradients on sources that do not have noise to begin with.

>I literally use a blur filter (11%)

Now that's a dumb thing to do, maybe you should get better sources first that haven't been scaled using lanczos. As for sharpening, it's only an artifact when used lazily across the whole picture.

>Denoise is universally shit
Yet it helps to save bitrate as compressing grain won't yield good results again.

>>58319306
>then why did you imply only bad films get bad transfers
That's not what I implied

I just said you should consider not watching crap

>>58319311
>8bit source stored as 10bit is more efficient and also properly preserves gradients on sources that do not have noise to begin with.
Anon was trying to make the claim that re-encoding his 8 bit files as 10 bit will improve the quality

There's a big difference between improving quality and losing less quality.

>>58319311
>Yet it helps to save bitrate as compressing grain won't yield good results again.
>voluntarily removing grain

>>58319315
>I just said you should consider not watching crap
niga were you referring to the content of the film or the picture quality lmao bc i thought you were referring to the former

>>58319311
>Yet it helps to save bitrate as compressing grain won't yield good results again.
Again, you already HAVE the file, which already HAS grain. Removing the grain and re-encoding it isn't going to do shit but make things worse.

Get this into your head: re-encoding ALWAYS loses quality. All you are doing is describing techniques of losing less quality. But no matter what you do, the best thing you can do is a 100% perfect reproduction of the file you downloaded to begin with (e.g. by transcoding it to a lossless codec, which would be retarded as fuck). Anything else will be a quality loss compared to what you already had.

Re-encoding will NEVER improve quality

>>58319344
>niga were you referring to the content of the film or the picture quality lmao bc i thought you were referring to the former
I was referring to the combination

If it's unwatchable, it's unwatchable. Doesn't matter whether it's due to horrific encoding or horrific content. Just don't watch crap

>>58319359
>Re-encoding will NEVER improve quality

What about dynamic range extension or mapping for high dynamic range screens? I would assume that's a quality increase with some minimal banding but if processed with a 16bit denoise and saved as 10bit could be all good.

>>58319359
>re-encoding ALWAYS loses quality
please gtfo, i'm a different person and i still disagree with you
debanding filter is a prime counterexample

also: what if it's a lossless re-encode kek

>>58319366
gotcha brah. desu very few blu-rays are a ``noisy mess,'' i just wanted to point out that some blu-rays are suboptimal and can benefit from some filters

>>58319388
>What about dynamic range extension or mapping for high dynamic range screens? I would assume that's a quality increase with some minimal banding but if processed with a 16bit denoise and saved as 10bit could be all good.
Can all be done in realtime, so there's no point in wasting generation loss if that's your only goal

>>58319421
Not on all devices not at all times.

>>58319421
>Can all be done in realtime, so there's no point in wasting generation loss if that's your only goal
i would like to point out that you can apply the filtering on the source and encode it to a reasonable bitrate for distribution
many encoding groups do this in fact

>>58319393
>debanding filter is a prime counterexample
You can apply debanding filters after decoding on the original clip just fine; hell mpv even does it by default (for the HQ profile at least)

You're still degrading the quality by re-encoding in this case

>>58319427
All HDR-capable devices do tone mapping in realtime, otherwise they would not be fucking HDR-capable devices

>>58319442
>i would like to point out that you can apply the filtering on the source and encode it to a reasonable bitrate for distribution
That's a very different thing from what anon was suggestion (downloading releases then re-encoding them to improve the quality)

File: nnVFfwf.jpg (97KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1440x1080px

>>58319143
>>58319156
If you say so.

>>58319456
The sources I'm talking about are not prepared for HDR but the way they were shot could be modified for proper HDR support and use of the available dynamic range that's present in the picture.

>>58319443
>You're still degrading the quality by re-encoding in this case
then do it in the conversion blu-ray -> encode retard

>>58319456
>all devices are HDR-capable
lel

>>58319465
very true, i've lost track of the reply chain desu and wanted to point out that it is not always a stupid filter to apply

>>58319442
>>58319465
Also, it still doesn't improve the quality in that case

It just reduces the file size at the cost of quality. And they do their best to keep the quality loss at a minimum, by using filters.

The primary motivation is file size, nothing else. Same for people re-encoding their releases. (Well, except for those people dumb enough to think they can “improve” their MP3s by reencoding them as FLAC). It's all just done to save file size - because otherwise, you would be watching blu-ray remuxes

>>58319470
jesus christ the artifacts on that image, are you trying to blind me?

>>58319476
>>all devices are HDR-capable
>lel
Yeah, it's pretty clear you're having difficulties following the reply chain

The original comment was assuming a HDR screen: >>58319421

>>58319476
>>You're still degrading the quality by re-encoding in this case
>then do it in the conversion blu-ray -> encode retard
dat reading comprehension

>>58319480
>And they do their best to keep the quality loss at a minimum, by using filters.
this is the point i was trying to make; an encode of the filtered blu-ray is (typically) superior to an encode of the unfiltered blu-ray
at any rate, the debanding filter i described can definitely improve the quality in shots with excessive banding

>>58319496
:3

>>58319512
the person was referring to re-encoding like this
blu-ray -> encode -> encode
not
blu-ray -> encode

>>58319486
Meh, I stole that from imgur. The actual release doesn't have artifacts.

>>58311068

fuck this piece of shit

it drains battery life of laptops faster downloading said movies at high speed while watching videos on youtube in hd

>>58319552
please break up your last sentence into smaller components
also, youtube doesn't use hevc but im not sure if you were even implying that :^)

>>58319520
>at any rate, the debanding filter i described can definitely improve the quality in shots with excessive banding
Debanding is probably the only exception I can think of, and it only applies to shit blu-rays; but debanding is also sort of an exception because it's really cheap to compute in realtime on the GPU, and players like mpv/MPDN/madVR/etc. are all capable of it

>>58319520
>the person was referring to re-encoding like this
Yeah but this entire topic was about a guy re-encoding all of this downloaded anime to HEVC. Unless he downloaded literally all blu-ray remuxes, in which case he almost surely does not give a fuck about filesize, this means he's doing a third-generation encode (1st gen is blu-ray, 2nd gen is release)

>>58319589
oh shi lol

>>58319569
>>58319552

oh shit meant to write ''faster than downloading...''

>>58319470
>1080p
Wait what? is it time for a rewatch?

I founded any videos in AOMedia AV1 on the AOMedia site:
https://awesome.nwgat.ninja/aomedia/webm/
I need to play it on my PC.
Any ideas?

>>58319744
pipe the output of aomdec to your video player

it is inferior visual wise to h.264 avc just like that was inferior to mpeg-2 in turn
it will end up looking worse at same resolution

however as the algorithm ends up saving space you can get a higher resolution video footage on the same physical bluray media

>>58319671
looks like a shitty waifu2x upscale

>>58319671
It's always time for a rewatch. There's a few threads on reddit but the torrent is on thepiratebay.

Release 2 is coming sometime in 2017 that will fix the major issues with some of the episodes.

Please don't base the quality of the entire release on the first four episodes. That's a source problem. Check out ep05 before you bitch.

I'd post a link but 4chan spam filter is shit. r/RemasteringATLA

>>58319802
Best upscale ever

>>58319830
>There's a few threads on reddit
Post disregarded.

>>58319849
Your loss. Sorry about the head injury.

File: black man with interrogation marks.jpg (25KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x512px

>>58319798
>it is inferior visual wise to h.264 avc just like that was inferior to mpeg-2 in turn
>h.264 inferior to mpeg-2
that whole sentence is wrong anyway

>however as the algorithm ends up saving space
new coding scheme saves space, who woulda known
anyway, it saves space while retaining an equivalent perceived quality :O)

>>58319861
>>58319881
>redditfag can't use apostrophes properly

File: head injury.png (15KB, 470x178px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 470x178px

>>58319881

>>58313592
yes, you do know that app is short for application, don't you?

>>58319885
nothing I said was wrong
and it wasnt worded wrong

>>58319893
>>58319910
We all make mistakes anons. I apologize for my grammar. I hope 2017 goes well for you.

>>58319885
retaining an equivalent perceived quality

maybe in your anime cartoons

>>58319957
h.265 is superior to h.264
i never claimed x265 is superior to x264

>>58311068
HEVC is shit because I can't watch anime on my laptop without draining my batter

Also fuck 10bit colour, there is absolutely no reason to encode anime in 10bit colour

I'm re-encoding my anime back to H.264, 8bit colour and 720p resolution

>>58320019
antiDaiz pls.

>>58320019
Buy Intel Kaby Lake notebook, faggot

>>58320019
this post made me puke all over my keyboard

>>58320019
>Also fuck 10bit colour, there is absolutely no reason to encode anime in 10bit colour
stupid laptopposters go away

>>58320019
>no reason to encode anime in 10bit colour
What about banding, do you want to run a CPU intensive debanding filter instead?

>>58321277
>CPU intensive
why not deband on the GPU?

>>58321480
If your GPU can do that, sure. But instead we can just use 10bit as hardware decoders roll out and not worry about banding and other artifacts in the first place

>>58321503
>10 bit means you don't need to worry about banding
kek

>>58321503
>If your GPU can do that, sure.
even iGPUs can do that

debanding is piss easy

File: 1455571524166.jpg (147KB, 600x534px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 600x534px

>>58314660
>scene
>caring about quality

>>58321532
In what situations do you have to worry about banding when dealing with 10bit footage? Certainly not with viewing content.

>>58321532
Yeah it helps significantly, and HDR finishes it off.

>>58321707
1. Low-bitrate encode
2. Source with banding
3. Wide gamut / HDR
4. Slow-moving low-light gradients. Even 10 bit is within the human range of perceptibility

In practice I just always have debanding on in mpv, because there's basically no reason not to. It's very cheap and very non-destructive

>>58311068
>tfw your shitpad x220 doesn't have h265 hwdec so it gets hotter than the surface of the sun everytime you try to decode h265


feelsbadman

i thought 264 was better than 265??

should i delete all my 264 rips now? =/

>>58321940
Would it be possible to fit a hardware decoder on a USB or PCI and have it take all the brunt via drivers?

>>58321985
Yes, you're retarded.
Delete yourself as well.

>>58311578
H.265 and HEVC literally are designed to push higher quality at the same bitrate or the same quality at a lower bitrate.

If all you think is bitrate = quality you are vastly fucking mistaken.

>>58322305
ok :(

>>58322085
Unless you plan on actually hooking your display up to said device, you need to get the frames out of there somehow.

For a typical yuv420p10 stream at UHD-1 60 Hz you'd need about 7.5 Gbps of throughput at the very minimum.

USB 3.0, for comparison, has about 5.0 Gbps of throughput, while USB 3.1 bumps it up to 10 Gbps. So in principle, it could work, I suppose.

As for PCI, you'd almost surely need PCI Express.

>>58323153
>For a typical yuv420p10 stream at UHD-1 60 Hz you'd need about 7.5 Gbps of throughput at the very minimum.
Also, if we're being less generous and assuming those 10 bits are not packed tightly but byte-aligned, then it goes up to 12 Gbps, so you'd need PCI-Express definitely

That said, you can actually accomplish this in practice; you can buy a cheap GPU that supports whatever hardware decoder you need, and use a hwdec API with memory copyback to get the frames onto your real GPU instead.

>>58323153
>>58323208
The compressed data transmission wouldn't take much bandwith. But what if rather than sending back uncompressed stream, the dongle could encode it for low latency and low complexity so it's imperceptible from source but takes less bandwith to deliver. Going even further for more older devices the dongle could scale the source too helping with image drawing and bandwith too. For example, if inserted into USB 2.0 it could send 720p quality video rather UHD.