HEVC/H265 Encoding

[RobertX]

OK, I'm going to test the HEVC encoding and the file I'm testing it on is 720p x264.

If I'm going to compress the size and keep the quality, which resolution should I set it to? 720p? 480p?

[RodneyYouPlonker]

I just wanted to say Robert, I'm going to be completely honest with you.  In regards to the sort of thing I do.  If you rip 1080p HD video from disc like I do.  You should really just use the x264 codec to encode with.  You shouldn't ever try and modify the codec by using a newer one.  I have already tried this months and months ago with using the x265 codec and nothing was achieved really.  If you are working in a large size with good quality the most in size you will achieve you're looking at about 200 MB or 300 MB.  It's just not worth it at all and you waste all your time because you put your processor under such heavy load that it takes hours and hours.  With the x264 codec you can have the encode completed in under 2 hours and then get it uploaded to the net and it's done but with x265 you spend hours and hours on end even maybe days if you have an old machine.  You spend hours waiting for it to complete and you gain what 200 MB to 300 MB less over all.

It's just not worth it I tested it all out a long time ago and I found the answer was not good.  Size by side comparison there was no real difference by using the newer codec, there was no gain at all it just looked the same so the whole thing was worthless and it was about 8 to 9 hours of your life that you won't get back.  Best idea is to stick to the original codec that it was encoded in originally on the disc.  Any expert would tell you not to modify the codec it's just common sense really but some people can't understand that because they think they know better, they'll never learn anything, nothing can be done really to make them understand.  The only time you really need x265 codec is when working with UHD video where you really do need it then otherwise there's no point.

[RobertX]

Thanks, RodneyYouPlonker.

[RodneyYouPlonker]

Thanks, RodneyYouPlonker.

I am just being completely honest Robert, I hope that this is okay.  I wouldn't make stuff up and I'm being honest as I tested all these things out.  I wouldn't play games and make stuff up, I've been honest with you before in the past and I would keep telling you how it is in the future.

I know it would be fun to try and use the x265 for HD video but it just takes such a long time and if using an old machine you could end up waiting for such a long time, if anything you would end up being disappointed (I know that I was) I tested the movie Total Recall last year, the remake movie with Colin Farrell and there was no gain in the end.  I know it's kind of sad really to waste hours trying to make something better.  One day I would actually like to rip and have a go with UHD but I would need a drive that can read the discs.  Maybe one day, I have to admit UHD does look really good on a TV screen and it's very nice, with the kind of sizes they use now I would say that x265 codec is definitely what is required now but putting it into practise is definitely the way to go when working with very nice UHD.

[RobertX]

I appreciate your honesty.

To come to think of it, I do have a question: My external drives are full up. filled with a shit-ton of wrestling, movies, and TV show. Are avenues of compressing the videos worth exploring?

EDIT: I should say, is there a way to save space? I don't care about quality if more space is cleared up. I just require a solution.

[RodneyYouPlonker]

I appreciate your honesty.

To come to think of it, I do have a question: My external drives are full up. filled with a shit-ton of wrestling, movies, and TV show. Are avenues of compressing the videos worth exploring?

EDIT: I should say, is there a way to save space? I don't care about quality if more space is cleared up. I just require a solution.

Yes mate I hear you.  Same thing happened to me some time ago, it was last year actually.  I found the solution was to simply just open up the external drives and remove the drive inside and then replace it with a much larger one.  Yes this did cost a bit of money, I also had to be very careful what I was doing when putting the new drives in as I noticed that extra care of plugging in the SATA port was quite delicate.  You can get better ones if you buy an enclosure and you can get better and bigger sizes.  That's what I did it was much better.  I know exactly what you mean it's not easy trying to decide what to do but just watch out if you decide to get new ones do a bit of research first.  I simply just copied the data from the old drives and then replaced the drives and put the data back it took some time but gave me a much better amount of space to have all my stuff in.

[RobertX]

You know RYP, I think I erred: I just realised that I'm ordering around, far from my query.

My solution was to see if I can just make the file DVD-5 quality by lowering the resolution from 720p to 480p.

Would that help, or would the file size be at a constant. At this point, I don't care about quality degradation since the files I encode to DVD are already degrading.

OK, bye now!

[waregim]

An even better solution to an enclosure is a dock. Often designed for backups, they can be used for data as well. Just plug in an HD, fire up and it will act like a huge USB stick.

However... the reason they are not popular yet for this application is that the HDs will fry after any long term use.

The solution is simple. Mount a case/CPU fan on the base and connect to the comp 12V (or 5v is rated) supply or else use a wall blister supply rated for the voltage. I have mine mounted with packing tape and cable ties.

In a pinch, a table fan will do.

They are reasonable. About $25.

[RodneyYouPlonker]

I used to work with a lot of DVD-5 ages ago, it was totally fine.  I know what you mean it's easy to work with even on a very old machine.  Burning DVD-5 is so easy so it's good if you don't mind doing the degrade.  Since I evenutally one day moved onto BD I realised the size was much greater and quite a jump it was.  I know we all like to do our own thing these days but yeah if you do downgrade then good luck, as long as the content is okay then it should be fine and if you can save space then that's the main thing.  I've noticed also the price of HDD these days sometimes the prices are quite high.  It's all swings and roundabouts and if you can get a good price at some point in the future then go for it.  It's a very open market but buying brand new drives with enclosures can be pricey it has been for a while now which is the reason to make more space I had to simply just get bigger sizes and that worked for me.

I used to work with DVD-5 for quite some time in the past.  Have lots of memories of burning to DVD and then watching lots of movies and it was good for the time when I was doing that.  Watched so much I see a lot of those movies now appear on TV quite often and I do remember watching them many years ago brings back lots of memories.

[Fant0men]

I just wanted to say Robert, I'm going to be completely honest with you.  In regards to the sort of thing I do.  If you rip 1080p HD video from disc like I do.  You should really just use the x264 codec to encode with.  You shouldn't ever try and modify the codec by using a newer one.

...

Best idea is to stick to the original codec that it was encoded in originally on the disc.  Any expert would tell you not to modify the codec it's just common sense really but some people can't understand that because they think they know better, they'll never learn anything, nothing can be done really to make them understand.  The only time you really need x265 codec is when working with UHD video where you really do need it then otherwise there's no point.

In comparison to AVC, HEVC offers from 25% to 50% better data compression at the same level of video quality, or substantially improved video quality at the same bit rate.

~Wikipedia

So we should never use a better codec than what's on the disc? So, back in the day, when people first started to do DVDrips in DivX (which is MPEG-4), they should instead have made the rips using MPEG-2 (which is the codec on the actual DVD)? By your logic, that's what they should've done. You're just wrong about this. Accept that and stop spreading false information.