For those of you that torrent video files this question is geared toward you. I’m looking for a sweet spot between quality, size & speed for HEVC encoding. I’m using FastFlix and seem to be getting really wide and varying speeds.

I’m not really literate on all this video lingo but I can, at least, get it going. Most files take anywhere from 5-17 mins for a 30-40 mins clip. I have a AMD Radeon RX 470 graphics card but when I try and use the VCEEnc it won’t let me use CRF which I’ve heard it the best way.

Anyway, if you’re willing to share knowledge or what settings you use when you convert video to HEVC that might help me speed up my processing, I would be eternally grateful.

  • rice@lemmy.orgEnglish
    31·
    2 days ago

    If a file is 5000kbps and you use 3000kbps you now have 25-50% savings like he just said. Nothing is overestimated, you can encode to w/e you want. This is how lossy encoding works, for everything.

    • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      Yes, but the point is keeping the quality the same. If you reencode a 5000 kbps x264 Blu-ray encode to 3000kbps x265 you will have visibly worse quality.
      If you encode the corresponding Blu-ray remux with x265 to 3000 kbps the result will likely be nearly indistinguishable from the 5000 kbps x264 encode.

      For OP: I also prefer smaller releases so I download mostly h265 WEB-DLs. They are usually around 3000-5000 kbps (1.3-2.3GB/hour) and look fine (especially as they usually come with HDR).
      Redownloading WEB-DLs in the right size will give you the best quality for the small size (and saves energy, depending on where you live).

      • rice@lemmy.orgEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        just fyi x264 and x265 are programs, written by VideoLAN organization. h264 and h265 are the codecs

        And no doing that is no guarantee in visibly worse quality. Depends entirely on the video in that scenario. Plenty of them will look almost the same (though h265 is a lot blurrier than 264, I’d say h264 to h264 you’re likely to barely notice)

    • Xanza@lemm.eeEnglish
      11·
      1 day ago
      1. This number is taken from the Wikipedia page, and represents a lab setting from totally uncompressed to full HEVC encoding. It’s not representative of data savings that you get from one video codec vs another, which is likely less than 4-6% between something like VP9 and HEVC… The 25-50% of completely fucking laughable in a realistic setting and you look like and idiot for bringing it up.
      2. It’s absolutely an overestimation by every conceivable metric available.
      3. You can encode to whatever you want, but if you take a VP9 encoded video and re-encode it, you may only save 1% and it will take several hours to encode. There are even situations where you will save nothing, or the resultant video file is actually larger even with HEVC.

      It’s zipping a zip file. Endlessly re-compressing things doesn’t yield positive results in the way you describe.

      • rice@lemmy.orgEnglish
        31·
        1 day ago

        It’s zipping a zip file. E

        no it isn’t, zipping is lossless. encoding is lossy.