Data Hoarder

24 readers

1 users here now

We are digital librarians. Among us are represented the various reasons to keep data -- legal requirements, competitive requirements, uncertainty of permanence of cloud services, distaste for transmitting your data externally (e.g. government or corporate espionage), cultural and familial archivists, internet collapse preppers, and people who do it themselves so they're sure it's done right. Everyone has their reasons for curating the data they have decided to keep (either forever or For A Damn Long Time (tm) ). Along the way we have sought out like-minded individuals to exchange strategies, war stories, and cautionary tales of failures.

founded 10 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

For H.264 and H.265 media, what bitrate and file size is as close to original quality as possible or the same as original? (alien.top)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I recently started building a movie/show collection again on my home NAS.

I know that generally H.265 files can be 25-50% less bitrate than H.264 and be the same or better quality. But what's the golden zone for both types? 10 Mbps for a 1080p H.264 movie? And would it be like 5 Mbps for H.265 1080p to be on par with H.264? What about 4K?

For file size: would it be 25GB for a 2 hour 1080p movie to be near or at original Blu-Ray/digital quality?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is very complicated to just give an answer, because:
It varies greatly based on the content. Animated compresses vastly differently than an action movie.

Varies greatly based on encoder. NEVC vs CPU etc

Varies greatly based on encoder options. I.e. -b:v -minrate -maxrate vs -rc vbr -qmin -qmaxcq values, etc

Varies greatly based on who is watching, the TV they use and their tolerance and experience.

Savings are greater at 4k than 1080p. But once you start adding HDR into the mix, you're in a whole new world.

Even the people with very discerning eyes can't agree on everything related to this topic. Wish I could just tell you do x... but you'll have to test various methods and determine what you are happy with.
or, if you just want some space savings... use some default setting that cuts it in 1/2 and forget about it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Varies greatly based on encoder. NEVC vs CPU etc

Not asserting this isn't the case, I've not noticed it, but I can't see why this would be the case for the actual encoding. Decoding I've seen it make a difference but that's mostly the pre-Skylake iGPUs using a poor implementation of QuickSync.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Not asserting this isn't the case, I've not noticed it, but I can't see why this would be the case for the actual encoding. Decoding I've seen it make a difference but that's mostly the pre-Skylake iGPUs using a poor implementation of QuickSync.

No, it's totally a fact. Software encoding yields you better results in terms of 'quality per megabyte' over hardware encoding unless you are using some real bad sloppy software encoding results. If size efficiency matters more than anything, you use software encoding or you're basically leaving money on the table. Of course the downside is that hardware encoding is a whoooooooooooooole heck of a lot faster.