So, I've downloaded the whole Rick and Morty season 1 and

File: conf.png (35KB, 648x586px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 648x586px

>>58695664
Pic related, it's the configuration.
Also, wich Hardware aceleration is the best?

Try mpv

>>51971506
> /g/ is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.

File: reddit.jpg (149KB, 800x820px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 800x820px

>>58695664
>Rick and Morty

>>58695664
>Rick and Morty
>K-lite codec pack
>my notebook
Holy normie, Batman!

Install Gentoo

>>58695859
Jesus I just want to watch youtube videos and series layed in my couch. I don't need a super battle station and I don't want more bloatware

>>58695802
Well you are right. Does anyone know a good site with information about this codec (specifically it impact on the processor)?
A simple google search didn't do it for me. Then I will delete the thread

>>58695813
I didn't like it, maybe because I was drunk when I watched the first episode. I deleted everything already.
It seemed a cool thing to watch

>>58695664
>>58695982

Intel has first implemented hardware HEVC decoding in Skylake. Haswell and Broadwell have partial support. Anything earlier struggles.
So yes, you can expect your facebook machine to heat up and have high CPU utilization while trying to decode high efficiency compression in real time, genius.

>>58695689
>asks about HW acceleration
>HEVC unchecked
>>58695664
>uses pic that has the word HEVC in it

There's no real 'solution.' The fix is just newer hardware than you have already, or just use something encoded differently. h265 as it stands right now isn't better than h264 unless you take special care with encoding parameters and your filtering, which I can bet you most rippers aren't doing.

>le reddit show
That's the problem.

>>58696079
i doubt his hardware has hevc decoing

>>58697681
intel has had hevc decoding since haswell, amd since GCN 1.2, and nvidia since maxwell

not too hard to believe

>>58695664
AV1 will save us all. You just gotta wait for next year.

Why isn't this codec being pushed as the next savior of the tech world? it would bring millions on savings for streaming sites.

Is there some kikeness behind this?

>>58695664
>Downloading re-encoded WEB-DLs

>>58700231
>Is there some kikeness behind this?
Like you wouldn't believe.
Say hello to the MPEG-LA patent pool, as well as HEVC ADVANCE which has its own separate fees, and of course TECHNICOLOR is also doing its own thing, forcing you to negociate insanely high royalties (that have no maximum cap!) with three different groups.

The Alliance for Open Media is the next thing all the big players are in.

>>58695664
> not using MPC-HC

>>58702150
>>58695664
This. I watch h.265 on my 2007 Core2Duo and have zero issues with MPC-BE. Download it OP, that or MPC-HC, either or

No hardware HEVC? Here's the solution.

Convert them to a different format, you dullard.
Download handbrake, or whatever, I don't fucking care.
Convert to H.264, or whatever, I don't fucking care.
Save up your money.
Buy a damn brain.

CCCP

>>58695664
H.265 simply isn't ready.

As of the moment, the only advantage is that it's better compression rate compared to H.264 for the same quality. But it also takes MUCH more processing power, as you have noticed, and guess what:
Storage is cheap; processing power is not.

Therefore get rid of that shit and watch it in H.264 at a much higher quality, so what if it takes three times as much space, you've got that to spare.

>>58699951
AV1 will make a lot of heat too unless your processor has hardware accelerated decode for it. The main issue is that CPUs have had hardware decode for h.264 since 2010. It's having to work extra to decode h.265 in software. There's not a darned thing either you or OP can do about it.

>>58702397
Except dirt cheap Chinese ARM cores have h.265 hardware accelerated decode in Android. It's not a matter of processing power so much as it is having the right hardware. You should be able to get PCIE cards with hardware encode / decode for h.265, av1, and whatever else comes next.

>>58702415
The ffmpeg vp9 decoder is a lot faster than the hevc decoder, in fact nearly as fast as the h264 decoder. av1 will be slower than vp9, but there is still hope that it will be sane to decode with software.

>>58695664

>I couldn't play it. After realizing it was coded with h.265

how do people miss this shit. don't forget to look before crossing the road!

>>58702461
HEVC yields a higher compression ratio than VP9 at similar qualities. There's a reason VP9 software decode is faster.

>>58702397
>Storage is cheap; processing power is not.

The problem that tries to be solved by HEVC is not more storage than bandwidth.
Netflix and other firms want to deliver their content other the top with the least possible bandwidth, and want to experiment with UltraHD.

It's the same for satellite delivery, HEVC was chosen to broadcast 4K content.

source : I'm working in the Set top box business.

Most SoC used in new STB (DVB-S, DVB-T or even IP) are HEVC ready (ST, Broadcom), but the software is still lagging behind.

>>58699951
>next year
Isn't it supposed to be out sometime this year?

>>58700231
Patent pools. No one wants to pay for unnecessary royalties, so the only people using it are those who absolutely NEED 4k; and even then VP9 is an option, even if slightly inferior.

That's why AOM is making AV1 to compete with it. Royalty-free codec meant for super high compression will save us all.

>Year of our Lord 2017
>Codec packs
Is this real life?

Just download MPC-HC or VLC, they should be able to play H265 out of the box.

I encoded a ripped DVD to H265 only a month ago and it plays fine on MPC-HC.

>>58704068
>Royalty-free codec meant for super high compression will save us all.

also means that encoding it will be fucking slow

>>58704218
That's where Moore's law will hopefully save us.
But really, decoding speed is a lot more important.

>>58704224
>>58704234

When do you think the scene/private trackers will switch over to av1?

>>58704259
How are we supposed to know?

>>58695664
interesting, I didnt into codecs until recently but I like h.265 and was surprised to see noone else was using it and to hear some people couldnt even use it.

When done right it will make a 4.5 gb 1 hour episode of a show in x264 shrink down to 700mb in x265.

I use a 6700k, it will play the video fine and fastforward and rewind just find, but I did also notice alot of processing power being used.


on another note, does anyone know how to use hardware acceleration to re-encode a video from x264 to x265? Id like to use hvec_nvnc, but I cant find good settings. Only lossless will make the image the same, anything else blurs out the finner detail.
I can use lib265 or whatever to make the image the same and the file size smaller.
since hvec_nvnc lossless can make it the same quality, I know the card is capable of it, but it pumps a 4gb file up to 35gb, wich is outragous.

>>58702397
you could use the same argument for any new format

do you still have MPEG-1 files lying around?

>>58704259
As soon as Hardware decoders/encoders are available probably. It helps that all the GPU manufacturers are involved in its creation, at least.

>>58704274
GPU-accellerated video encoding is shit, only use it for realtime stuff like streaming

also, of course lossless produces the same quality, that's what lossless means

>>58704274
No reason to use x265 when you care about quality. the only place where H.265 encoders tend to consistently do better than H.264 encoders like x264 is with really low-end bitrates.

>>58704336
also encoding lossy to lossless is pretty retarded

>>58704274
>When done right it will make a 4.5 gb 1 hour episode of a show in x264 shrink down to 700mb in x265.
That's bullshit and you better spend some time reading more about this stuff.
Retaining the same quality, h265 needs around half the bandwidth of h264 but only in a theoretical scenario. This was not yet achieved and more/better is even theoretically not possible. These super small h265 encodes are usually a result of "oh fuck it"-encoders who noticed how insanely slow current h265 encoders are and just went with lower quality/compression rate.

>>58704426
as was the case with the mpeg4 > h.264 transition, h.265 has new features which make low quality encodes more bearable to look at

one that stands out is how it handles fade-in/fade-out, you can make the shittiest dial-up-tier video, and fades will still appear accurate and smooth

>>58704426
>>58704525
here's an example
https://jii.moe/BkHLWOjPl.mkv

>Reddit and Morty

>>58704525
Yeah but "low quality encodes" that look "bearable" is not what we are talking about for most use-cases here (pirating movies/series, archiving stuff, digital library etc.).
Nobody wants to download a movie because it still looks bearable although being so bitstarved. That's not a useful argument in a "which codec to use" discussion.

>>58704639
i know where you're coming from, but op might only be after what he considers "good enough" quality anyway
if he would have readily made a 1.6G x264 version of his 4.5G file, and he can instead get a similar quality 800M x265 version, then why wouldn't he? (well, assuming he's good with the additional encoding time)

in most cases good enough is just that, good enough

i grab high quality versions of shows and movies, then transcode them later to save space
i figure it's better to have a "good enough" copy if i want to watch it again, rather than delete it and have no copy at all

>>58704703
>i grab high quality versions of shows and movies, then transcode them later to save space
sounds pretty horrible

>>58695664
I caught AIDS and cancer from reading this post
Fuck /g/

File: 2017-01-30-000734_1920x1080_scrot.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>58704639
>Nobody wants to download a movie because it still looks bearable although being so bitstarved.
oh, and this is just plain wrong, sub-dvd-quality tv show episodes are always the most popular on public torrent trackers
most people couldn't give two shits about video quality

>>58704732
yea, well, i only have 6TB of space, sue me
at least i don't go as far down as what most people get

File: cantwakeup.png (618KB, 1048x720px) Image search: [Google]

618KB, 1048x720px

>tfw the only hardware I own that has native HEVC support is a shitty $60 chinktablet I just bought

>>58704850
Have you forgotten how bad most DVDs look? 480i with artifacts out the ass?

>>58704850
>most people couldn't give two shits about video quality
[citation needed]

>>58704917
They can't even be assed to get the aspect ratio right. http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/the-dying-of-the-light

File: a.png (285KB, 885x884px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 885x884px

>>58704917
for example
here's rarbg's tv section, sorted by seeders
notice how the most seeded are almost all the smallest, shittiest SD reenc's available

>>58704915
i live in a PAL country, so i got 576i with no telecine, dvd's were actually bretty gud

File: coffee-guy.jpg (143KB, 1280x1440px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x1440px

>>58704850
>most people couldn't give two shits about video quality
I DO.

File: a.png (193KB, 882x594px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 882x594px

>>58704942
as for movies... top 8 are fucking xvid dvd screeners, all added this year

xvid
dvd
screeners

normalfags haven't left 2002 behind when it comes to piracy quality

>>58704989
this has to be a joke

>>58704989

Xvid is a better codec than h.25x

Had been for over a decade.

File: __kousaka_reina_hibike_euphonium_drawn_by_kanikama__645efd85b0e75db6fff1812d4cb17740.jpg (19KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 450x450px

>>58704943
so do i

>>58704942
>>58704989
>my shitty torrent site is representative for all people

Only plebs use torrents, especially when its some public site. Ofc they gonna download the smallest versions because they have no idea what 720p, 1080p or x265 etc even is... Also even the "HQ" encodes on p2p are mostly shit since its done by some retards. Scene releases are much better since they have some adhere to the rules

>>58705023
you know you're just adding to my point, right?
you think usenet or a private tracker will be more indicative of what "most people" are doing?

File: the.flash.2014.310.hdtv-lol[ettv].mkv_snapshot_35.31_[2017.01.29_09.46.04].png (540KB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 720x404px

>>58704942
I downloaded that first torrent there. It looks like shit, sure, but it's still better than an interlaced compressed to fuck DVD.

Not pictured: The Flash.

File: the.flash.2014.310.hdtv-lol[ettv].mkv_snapshot_35.56_[2017.01.29_09.47.15].png (487KB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 720x404px

>>58705112
How does anyone watch this capeshit? Seriously.

>>58704850
>oh, and this is just plain wrong, sub-dvd-quality tv show episodes are always the most popular on public torrent trackers
>most people couldn't give two shits about video quality
There are many reasons for downloading low quality releases.
Often it's because their devices (TVs, ...) don't support new shit (DVD Players and TVs with DivX and AVI support were common while the support for h264 is sometimes very confusing for consumers since their devices only support a certain level and it's usually not easy to get the exact specifications, proper mkv support is rare), their internet might be either slow or impose limited quotas (yes, this still exists), maybe their devices (TV, laptops) are old and e.g. only 720p so why would you need a 1080p encode. Sub-1080p is still the most common display resolution for laptops.

>>58704703
>i know where you're coming from, but op might only be after what he considers "good enough" quality anyway
>if he would have readily made a 1.6G x264 version of his 4.5G file, and he can instead get a similar quality 800M x265 version, then why wouldn't he? (well, assuming he's good with the additional encoding time)
This example is perfectly fine and valid, I would've never made a comment. It advertises half the size for same quality (and that's already optimistic). However, the guy I originally quoted said:
> When done right it will make a 4.5 gb 1 hour episode of a show in x264 shrink down to 700mb in x265
and that's just completely wrong since it sounds like quality would stay the same (at ~15% of original size!) while in reality it's going to get much worse. In general, a statement like this is quite useless as I could just go on and say:
> When done right I can turn a 4.5GB show in h264 into a 1GB show in h264 using x264!
Well, of course I can... but not without loss of quality.

>>58704989
>>58704998
-> >>58705153
It's really pretty easy. Many of these people download something, put it on some random USB flash drive (usually fat32, so only files <4GB) and plug it into their TV or DVD/BD Player.
Most older TV and DVD Player support XviD perfectly fine. And while "more modern" hardware can do h264 as well (some even mkv) many many files still won't work as they only support certain profiles of h264. Never heard of these profiles? Well, normies haven't either and even if you have, it's not even that easy to find out what exactly your hardware supports and what level was used for the encode you download. Many encoders don't list it, so you have to download it first and check then.
The "download -> flash drive -> watch -> delete" workflow is really easier for these people when they stick to the old formats and that's what they do. And when you always loaded xvid and it worked well then why should you change that now?

>>58705153
first part:
limitations as you've mentioned certainly factor in, but i find it difficult to believe that such a high number of people are getting low quality encodes because they're forced to, if they weren't ok with the quality, many of them will have done something to allow for getting better encodes

second part:
i was just making an argument for making "good enough" encodes, using op's numbers for an example

>>58705214
Maybe they should buy a TV/DVD player that isn't a fucking decade old.

>>58705214
>put it on some random USB flash drive (usually fat32, so only files <4GB) and plug it into their TV or DVD/BD Player.
if this was really common, i would expect to see more encodes targeting just-under-4GB, like how they used to target 700MB back when people used to burn their movies onto cd-r's

>>58705023
It's possible to get high quality x264/x265 encodes using nothing but torrents, though.

>mfw this entire thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEzhxP-pdos

>>58702714
Yeah but OP has downloaded the files to his computer so this is irrelevant to his problem.

>>58699753
he didn't say which core i5, dingbat.

>>58705223
>limitations as you've mentioned certainly factor in, but i find it difficult to believe that such a high number of people are getting low quality encodes because they're forced to, if they weren't ok with the quality, many of them will have done something to allow for getting better encodes
Yeah but they are.
Last year my ex-girlfriend was watching GoT on her laptop and it looked horrible. Asked her what it is (the encode/file) and she said it's copied from a friend. It was some 480p encode with low bitrate and looked atrocious as fuck. Huge macro blocking in dark scenes. Told her she can have my 1080p files as they look way better but she was like "no it's fine, these are fine".
I have experienced similar situations with other people. They really don't care. They absolutely don't. It has to work, easy setup, no problems, no time delay, that's all that matters.

As for quality: even in the 1080p/h264 department low quality bitstarved encodes like YIFY dominate trackers, so even among people that go for higher resolutions or better codecs the choice is the small (and bad looking) file and not some better (but larger) encode just next to it on the tracker.
That's reality.

>>58705247
How many XviD movies >4GB do you see?

>>58704300
But today's computers can handle H.264 just fine, so there's no reason to use MPEG-1. OP however is complaining that his notebook can't take H.265: at which point there's no reason to try to use this "new format", just stick with what works which is H.264.

>>58704915
Have you forgotten how bad most VHSs look? rainbow and dot crawl artifacts out the ass?

>>58705317
Find it hard to believe even a laptop i5 can't handle x265. Unless it's like a first gen i5.

>>58695777
Trips of truth.

>>58695664
So encode it to H264

>>58704943
>>58705020
>tfw downloading chink cartoons bdmv because the 13 year old chink, ruskies and damn gook rippers are retarded.

File: vhs.gif (2MB, 400x349px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x349px

>>58705332
VHS had awesome artifacts, though.

>>58705303
that's what i'm saying

http://www.xpee.com/video/3759/babe-pissing-on-her-vcr

>>58695664
Rick.
and.
Morty.

Slide it.

>>58705334
>Unless it's like a first gen i5.
My 560m handles x265 just fine even when I use cpupower to set the max frequency back to 1.2GHz.

>>58695664
I dowloaded the same torrent as you.
Neither vlcor mpv would play it on my §4 mini smartphone :(

>>58705495
>Neither vlcor mpv would play it on my §4 mini smartphone :(
Modern smartphones actually have HEVC hardware decoding. IIRC even the Samsung S6 had.
$5 Chinkphones probably not though.

>>58705345
Same

>>58702439
>You should be able to get PCIE cards with hardware encode / decode for h.265, av1
You mean graphic cards?

File: 1363917478464.jpg (22KB, 442x298px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 442x298px

>>58695664
OP here, I was on so much xanax yesterday when I wrote this post. Now I can't delete it because it's to old. Sorry
Well I gess is a "h.265 pros and cons thread" now.
I understand now I wont be able to play these tipes of video in my Facebook machine without turning it into a heater, wich makes me angry because is a nice relatively hi-end notebook.
And all these new codecs are interesting for people like me (and most of the world) with low internet connection.
And what about google's codec vp9? I think it is similar to h264?

HEVC will forever be a meme until the anime community adopts it.

>>58707777
>until the anime community adopts it
There are already some HEVC encodes on Nyaa. But honestly, I would rather they adopt AV1 once it's ready for use, and completely ignore HEVC.

>>58707777
AV1 > HEVC

>>58700780
>the alliance for open media is the next thing all the big players are in
yet, a large part of the entertainment and consumer electronics industry is still with HEVC.

>>58704942
>dvd's were actually bretty gud
with an incorrect sound pitch

>>58708026
Yeah, because AV1 still isn't officially released.

>>58708039
w0000000t?!

>>58705023
>scene rules
you know that those rules are also restricting the sceners to produce real high quality releases. The minimum CRF is 18 which I find ridiculous, the minimum should be 16. Basically all groups take a transport stream, cut the ads and encode their release using the same settings so the only difference is who released it first. Private (and some public) trackers are slightly more conscious of quality and sacrifice speed for quality.

>>58705303
so we could still be using VHS and VCD because normies don't care about quality.

AOMedia progress report, as of a couple weeks ago, for those with the patience to sit thru 42 minutes of a presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzPaldsmJbk

>>58708064
Movies released on PAL(50Hz) regions are sped up from 24 to 25fps and the audio is sped up too(by 4%) so the pitch is changed.
In the NTSC land movies are slowed down by 0.1%(hence the 23.976fps). Since the change is minimal the pitch shift is unnoticeable.

So:
NTSC: keeps original pitch but resolution is lower and there is judder
PAL: higher resolution and no judder but distorted pitch.

>>58708326
Thank you for this detailed explanation.

Also:
PAL MASTERRACE!

>>58707777
Why are normal fag movie rips such trash compared to the anime scene. Everything is either low bit rate or huge remuxes

File: 2017-01-29-135401_1366x768_scrot.png (294KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1366x768px

>>58708527
Normalfags don't know what it means to encode shit. Animefags have been doing it for years, and have become super picky about muh quality.

>>58708565
>image
Woops, was gonna reply to >>58708268 as well; forgot to remove my image.

In any case, anyone think that AOMedia's "don't sue anyone using our codec, or we sue you!" plan will actually work?

>>58708527

and how exactly are anime rips any good

post some specific examples

>>58695664
Download the original H.264 instead. What you downloaded is a shitty transcode.

>>58708268
> Q. Do you have any epoch(?) on the year of when this stuff might actually be shipping?
>A. So, when we originally formed the alliance, we said the end of last year. (Laughs) So yeah, software schedules only slip right. Our current plan is to do bitstream freeze in October. I think that one is a bit more reasonable goal.


Fuck.