217

Why aren't more releases x265? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 8 months ago by Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

80 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] bhamlin@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I have some comments based on personal experiences with GPU av1 encoding: you will always end up with either larger or worse output with GPU encoding because currently all the encoders have a frame deadline. It will only try for so long to build frame data. This is excellent when you are transcoding live. You can ensure that you hit generation framerate goals that way. If you disable the frame deadline, it's much much slower.

Meanwhile CPU encoders don't have this because CPU is almost never directly used in transcoding. And even with a frame deadline the output would still not be at the same speed as the GPU. However the CPU encoders will get frames as small as you ask for.

So if you need a fast transcode of anything, GPU is your friend. If you're looking for the smallest highest quality for archival, CPU reference encoders are what's needed.