Should I start converting my movies and porn to AV1 to save space on my 1tb external or should I just buy a new external
>>106448899why downgrade when you can upgrade
>>106448899Loser. kys
>>106448899Depends on the AV1 encoder. If you're talking about the NVENC AV1 GPU encoder then it's going to depend how bad the H264 encodes were. If you're using a CPU AV1 encoder then it's unlikely you'll want to retain the H264 rip after passing quality validation.
>>106448899I would convert all low bitrate stuff, you aren't losing much quality and depending on how many videos you convert the savings can be substantial.be careful of videos with variable bitrate, preserve the birate curve (crf option), if you see bitstarved scenes you'll have to edit it manually and/or do a two-pass encode, it's usually something to care about for 4K BDMV rip or high quality remuxes, all the shitty reencodes you'll find on the internet are already of low quality and usually with fixed bitrate.be careful of HDR10+ or dolby vision as your encoder needs to support them if you want to keep them, i've read that svt-av1-psy encoder can do it, forget about any hw-accelerated encoder though, none support dynamic HDR of any kind
>>106448899https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/106322158
>>106448899use AV2 instead, it has been worked on for like 4 years nowhttps://gitlab.com/AOMediaCodec/avm
>>106449032this isn't supposed to be a social media site, it's the technology board, fuck off
>>106448899yes
>>106448899>Should I start converting my movies and porn to AV1 to save space on my 1tb externalnot unless you're encoding from a remux and jack the quality settings all the way up, or don't mind everything looking terrible>>106448899>should I just buy a new externalyes
>>106448899
>>106448899no. the power in requires to re encode cost more money than extra storage. unless you're distributing that video to millions, it's not worth it.
>>106450149Maybe it is worth it. There are trade-offs with everything...
>>106449836How can there be meaningful improvements for an AV2 already??
>>106450341AV1 was released stillborn
>>106449836this, av2 will likely fix all the issues with av1, but as others have said, hw support for encoding is limited. doing sw encode for av1 is extremely long, i got 0.2fps encoding on a 16-core@3.5GHz. If you have 1TB of ~5Mb/s h264 (or around 4000 hrs of videos) if would take 5 times as long to encode it all, which would probably require in the ~200kW/h range (given a 100W TDP), that said it's probably cheaper to buy a new hard drive/ssd than do sw encoding
>>106450341av2 had improvements like months after av1 was standardized
>>106448899Don't do this faggot, only encode from highest source quality like original Blu-Ray to AV1, if you encode H.264 to AV1, you're just making things worse because lossy to lossy encode
>>106451008That's like $10 of electricity.
>>106451404>lossy to lossy encodeBesides this I fully support the OP.
>>106451008what? First off thanks to Vulkan Video hw support is a non-issue, just write new shaders for the new codec. In fact, from what I've read about AVM/AV2, they're actually designing it in such a way to make use of AV1 hw acceleration with or without GPU assistance.As for sw encode I recently passed some 5-10Mb/s h264 pr0n through SVT-AV1 to reduce space and with a 5950X the encoder processed it at x5-x10 speed. The encoding speeds you're describing are what you'd get from the reference encoder 5 years ago.
>>106451439I messed up calculations, I looked at svt-av1 benchmark and it can perform as good as ~25 fps on consumer cpu (e.g drawing between 80-150W). For 4,000 hours of media, that would take ~4,000 to encode (assuming 25 fps if it's low quality tv/web dl, 24fps for blu-ray/dvd etc..), which would consume 100 * 4,000 / 1,000 = 400kWh, which would cost you about $40 at 0.10 $/kWh. That said it doesn't take into account that your computer will be in an unusable state for 6 month during which it'll be using 100% of the cpu for encoding only.
>>106451788what was the original bitrate?from svt-av1's website, you can see that consumer-grade cpu aren't that fast at encoding av1:openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/svt-av1also, that's assuming you only need to perform a single pass encode and you don't want to preserve special features, like dynamic hdr or 10bit color depth. When you start adding up those, the encode takes way longer.
>>106451804>cpu video transcoding
>>106451829No ASIC or SIMD (GPU) for it?
>>106451909>>106451881hw encoding exists, but it only supports a limited set of presets and formats. Given that you do transcoding, you also need a hardware decoder for the source format that supports the features you want/have to deal with. even the latests nvidia cards don't support hw decoding (let alone encoding) for all formats, they usually only implement the most commonly used ones. for that reason, doing software encode is the most viable option
>>106451829works on my machine
>>106451829>>106452461ffmpeg -i "$file" -c:v libsvtav1 -g 120 -c:a copy "$output_file"that's the command i use btw. The -g 120 was recommended from the ffmpeg wiki, but I'm too lazy to look it up. I don't want to bother with double pass encode but from what I've read CRF which is used by default will have similar results anyway. The filesize might be all over the place but I still get 20-50% the size of h264/h265 videos with no perceptible loss in quality
>>106448899Fuck off Daiz.
>>106452501>double pass encodeThis came up when I was looking to optimize filesize. Does it work?
>>106448899Just buy more storage and encode new stuff you get with AV1What is the point of wasting time to further degrade your existing, already lossy-encoded files with another lossy re-encoding to save a few MB?Always keep the full quality source when possibleEncode at maximum quality possible with the best possible codec when you can't buy more storage>it's pornNevermind, just do whatever the fuck you want, maybe even lose the files
>>106452501>Sets the GOP (Group of Pictures) size to 120 frames. This determines the interval between keyframes (I-frames) in the output video. A GOP size of 120 means that a keyframe will be inserted every 120 frames, which can affect video quality, seekability, and compression efficiency.
>>106452501Getting 3.3x (1080p) on a 3600.
>>106450341>How can there be meaningful improvements for an AV2 already??av1 is 7 years old already old man
>>106451008>doing sw encode for av1 is extremely long, i got 0.2fps encoding on a 16-core@3.5GHzin 2018?
>>106451404blu-ray uses h.264 (most of them, some are mpeg2 or vc1)
>>106452604Pretty good. Shrunk a 1GB file to 0.15GB. Quality difference is noticeable but completely acceptable dependent upon acceptability constraints.
>>106452568The optimal options to encode shit is Constant Rate Factor and Two Pass Encode.CRF is you give ffmpeg an arbitrary value and it tries to make the filesize as low as possible without sacrificing more quality than what the value you gave it suggests. Due to giving ffmpeg free rein to optimize the video as it sees fit with only some arbitrary value acting as a limiter it's the most optimal option.If you need to encode to a specific filesize then two pass encode is the optimal option. Meaning you can just do it with one ffmpeg command to contraint the filesize but the video will probably look worse for the same filesize that if you did it two pass.Something I do for small files like for 4chan or Discord is I try several CRF values and eyeball it until it's close to the limit. Of course for long encodes that could last several hours that's impractical.
YIFY-tier encodes won't benefit from AV1 because the video has been bit-starved so much AV1 can't further compress it without destroying quality. However a lot of HQ H264 rips tend to just use retarded settings like 10Mbps ABR and AV1 can save like 90% on those. Not because AV1 is 90% better than H264 but because when you set an arbitrarily high bitrate for video instead of using CRF the encoder will just start wasting space.
>>106449068nta but>relying on vmafretard. especially considering that the nvenc av1 encoder oversharpens things to cheat at vmafusing your own eyes mogs all these metrics
>>106451788>In fact, from what I've read about AVM/AV2, they're actually designing it in such a way to make use of AV1 hw acceleration with or without GPU assistance.sounds retarded, source?
>>106448899You do you but I wouldn't bother with re-encoding a bunch of shit.
