this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
214 points (95.7% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers
278 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Nearing the filling of my 14.5TB hard drive and wanting to wait a bit longer before shelling out for a 60TB raid array, I've been trying to replace as many x264 releases in my collection with x265 releases of equivalent quality. While popular movies are usually available in x265, less popular ones and TV shows usually have fewer x265 options available, with low quality MeGusta encodes often being the only x265 option.

While x265 playback is more demanding than x264 playback, its compatibility is much closer to x264 than the new x266 codec. Is there a reason many release groups still opt for x264 over x265?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de 62 points 9 months ago (12 children)

x265 playback is more demanding than x264 playback

By a factor of 2 with the same bitrate. But you only need half the bitrate for the same quality (SNR) so it really isn't.

However, encoding is about 10x more demanding in terms of bitrate, or 5x for the same quality. This may be worth it for long-term storage or wide distribution over limited bandwidth (torrenting), but not for one-time personal use.

[–] iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee 18 points 9 months ago (11 children)

For a Jellyfin server however it's quite a boon.

[–] JbIPS@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Did you do something specific to play x265 on JellyFin? Last time I tried, the video kept crashing every 5-8minutes, even with a low bitrate threshold.

[–] allan@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Which client? Works fine here

[–] JbIPS@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

JellyFin App for Android TV (on a Shield)

[–] WhyAUsername_1@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There is an option to use an external player. So you could use VLC as an external player and use it. It would work better.

[–] JbIPS@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I tried that, but the result is the same (and progress doesn't seem to be saved). Maybe it's specific to the Shield or to my files

[–] iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Hmmm what do you mean the video kept crashing? Where is your server set up? What are you using for OS? Is it bare metal, is it running in a Windows, in a VM, in a container?

In my case it's running in a Proxmox LXC container (the container is running Ubuntu). I'm passing through the integrated GPU, as instructed in the Jellyfin docs. And then I enable Intel QSV transcoding on Jellyfin. The CPU consumption is close to negligible. Then again, you need an Intel CPU capable of x264 transcoding at decent rates. Anything after 8th gen should be able to do the trick (with this I mean, you can ALSO transcode whatever source to x265 on the fly, but that's not a feature I'm actively using at the moment, as the resulting file is usually larger anyway). I'm using an i5 9500T, and I benchmarked something like 8 transcodes simultaneously to almost no impact. I think it was starting to be noticeable past 12 transcodes simultaneously. But that's some heavy streaming there! That'd mean EVERYONE is connecting at once to your server using FF (I believe Chrome is x265 capable, and the apps also take x265 just fine if your phone/computer support it). So...in short, my i5 from a few generations ago is already overkill for x265

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)