H.264 is all you need
1) Nothing wrong with me.
>>103218009I downloaded a movie in AV1 recently>smart TV can't play>VLC keeps stopping the picture while audio continuesRe-dowbloaded in H264 and it just werks
>generational lossJust make a new rip. People that pirate have at least one person who has the original source and people that don't have the source material themselves. No one is affected negatively by using a new codec to save space.
is h264 really better? convince me
>>103218301Of course it isn't. It's just easier on hardware than VVC
>>103218009I jpegify my stuff because it adds comedic value
how come theres no image extension for h264 codec
Most of what I've got is kept in H.264, but I do love me some H.265, too :-)My machine is too damn slow for AV1 transcoding so I don't even bother testing things myself.
n=11; if [[ -n "$(ffmpeg -i "${vlist[$n]}" 2>&1 |grep hevc)" ]]; then ffmpeg -i "${vlist[$n]}" -c:v libx264 -crf 23 -vf scale=420:-1 -y /dev/shm/h264.mkv; fitranscoding h265 to h264 without scaling is too slow for on-the-fly chromecasting
n=11; if [[ -n "$(ffmpeg -i "${vlist[$n]}" 2>&1 |grep hevc)" ]]; then ffmpeg -i "${vlist[$n]}" -c:v libx264 -crf 23 -vf scale=420:-1 -y /dev/shm/h264.mkv; fi
>>103218009This is why you make a lossless rip first, and from there you can always encode new formats as they come along.>save the planetLol, lmao even. How is that even a concern, are you even a real person?
>>103218474>lossless rip of videoHow many hard drives do you own?
>>103218514you said storage is cheap, or were you lying?
>>103218117>Just make a new ripThis is only becoming more difficult. Impossible for some media. Use your head.
>>103218687>physicalfag lost his physical media, didn't have a backuplol, SAD!
>>1032180392) Nothing wrong with me.
>>103219840What? No. Don't miss the point, anon. Physical media is dying and becoming harder to find digitally that isn't compressed to hell. Think 25-50 years out from now.
>>103220341this
>>103220341so you didn't have a backup?
>>103218687>>103222115Not everyone can afford to store multiple copies of 100+gb rips
>>103222350But storage space is cheap? Isn't this the point of the thread?
>>103218009VHS are ok
>>1032199463) NOTHING WRONG WITH ME
>>103218092>VLCFound your problem
>>10321800910/10, Thanks YIFY.
>>103218009I just download remuxes of movies and shows and keep them in storage, I figure why bother fiddling around with alternatives that result in a worse experience, when storage is so plentiful. It also doesn't make sense to compress an H.264 source even more, which is already compressed. Even a 4K blu-ray is far from the master copy, you're really just compressing an already lossy compression and making it worse.
>>103218474You don't have access to the lossless, master file of movies and TV shows. They can often reach the 'terabyte' range, for a single movie, depending on how many special effects were used.
>>103218514"Lossless rip" likely means without transcoding, i.e. keeping the source AVC or HEVC for modern media.
>>103218092>Re-dowbloaded in H264 and it just werksh.265 is a standard from 2013. h.264 is a standard from 2000. Strive for something newer.
>>103224944new bad old goodcope seethe dilate
>sToRagE iS cHeApand that's why games with ps3 graphics are 150gb+ nowadays
Indeed, stop transcoding, losers
>>103224956>muh gaymesare you 5
If it's 1080p and grainy, high bitrate/low crf x264 it is. If it's 4k HDR, same crf as above or slightly higher it is. If it's animation or very, very noise/grain free 1080p, x265 at a higher crf (~21) it is.Shrimple as.
>>103222350Then let somebody else doing it. But stop making, sharing, or downloading shitty encodes!
>>103218092>have shit computer>blame the file format when your 2nd gen i5 and its integrated graphics can't decode av1
>>103218092Use mpv
>>103218339I've been wondering this for ages as wellffmpeg -i input.jpg output.mp4 works wonders, mpv even recognizes it as a still picture instead of video, photopea also has an mp4 export optioncould be a great alternative to webp/heic, but no... why?
>>103218009I'm not wasting 90-120GB per movie, fuck that even if storage is cheap.
>>103228161jpeg fills that niche very wellwhy bother
>>103228308>I'm not wasting 90-120GB per movieyou watch 360p porn from your shitty android phone rajesh shut up
>>103228333No, I download my porn in the highest quality I can find (usually 1080p or 4k). With movies I usually just download the remux and transcode it into AV1 at CRF 20 and then I upload that as a torrent (on private trackers) so others don't have to waste their time.
>>103218039Three minutes response time? Daiz's bot is slow. Though Daiz is retarded enough to think three minutes delay is enough to make his bot look human.
No, I download my porn in the highest quality I can find (usually 1080p or 4k). With movies I usually just download the remux and transcode it into AV1 at CRF 20 and then I upload that as a torrent (on private trackers) so others don't have to waste their time.
>>103228309because h264 would be more efficientalso, h264 can do lossless, jpeg can't
>>103218009H.264 seems pretty good still but H.265 I haven't noticed any adverse effects and the size is smaller so why not
I'm honestly impressed this thread hasn't devolved into the usual JXL vs AVIF shitfest it normally does. Must be some kind of world record or something.Also why does faggot OP focus specifically on H264? Why not say DIVX, which has like 9001% better compatibility across an infinite number of electronics?
>>103228308I only do it on the stuff that really matters to me and is really incompressible due to a large amount of film grain. A 4k copy of pulp fiction takes up 70GB on my 12TB drive, oh no...
>>103228822I agree there are some exceptions but once you have 100+ of these it starts making a difference if you wanna keep expanding without getting a disk shelf. I try to keep everything in one machine and I rather have it all on SSD storage since when a disk eventually fails it's so much quicker to rebuild.
