Hello just making a poll, which one do you prefer? personally I prefer x265 but since the rarbg falldown i’ve seen that almost all 1080p rips are in x264, what do you think about that, and do you recommend any place to find more x265 content beside those in the megathread?

  • BermudaHighball@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 year ago

    Note that H.264 and H.265 are the video compression standards and x264 and x265 are FOSS video encoding libraries developed by VideoLAN.

    • XanXic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it has to reach a bit more device saturation before encoders jump to it. But yeah AV1 is much better for everyone. Having AOM there to work on it and protect it is a good bonus. Pirates and Netflix on the same team there lol

      • fiah@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess I’ll have to see if my TV really can decode AV1 then, as my nvidia shield definitely won’t

    • Gellis12@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The trouble with AV1 is that it’s about a decade behind h.265 in terms of hardware support. Most people aren’t upgrading their gpus every single generation, so by the time AV1-compatible hardware starts to see significant market share, it’s pretty likely that h.266-compatible hardware will be on the market as well.

      Of course, there’s also software encoders; but benchmarks of current software encoders put av1 anywhere between 50-1000x slower than x265 for comparable quality and bitrate.

      It’s definitely cool that people are working on a royalty-free video codec, but h.265 is the undeniable king for the time being.

      • fiah@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d agree with you except that my LG CX already supports AV1. Now I don’t know the numbers, but I do know these LG OLED TVs are pretty popular

        • Gellis12@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No arguments about it being a good TV, but the vast majority of people do not have shiny new LG oled TV’s. Hell, most people are still using old 1080p lcd’s without any smart TV features, and the people who have got new TV’s over the past few years tend to skew heavily towards buying relatively cheap 4k TV’s that may not have any smart TV features (after all; if i already have a roku/apple tv/chromecast/etc that covers all of my streaming needs, why would I pay a huge premium to get these features a second time?)

          • fiah@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            yeah but don’t most streaming services already provide multiple formats depending on client compatibility? HEVC is cool and all and AFAIK pretty much a requirement for anything UHD, but if Netflix et al can instead send AV1 (like they could if I ran netflix directly on my TV) then that would further reduce their bandwidth requirements. I don’t know how long it will take for AV1 to achieve enough market penetration for it to be worth it to them, but here’s to hoping it’ll be sooner rather than later

            • Gellis12@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Netflix rolled out av1 support for a handful of Samsung smart TV’s about a year and a half ago, then kinda shoved the project under the rug and never mentioned it again. My guess is that the added costs of having to store their entire library twice plus having to re-encode everything made it uneconomical. Besides, av1 doesn’t have a bandwidth advantage over h.265; all of the comparisons that Google likes to use to show off the codec are av1 vs h.264, which is pretty sneaky and misleading imo.

  • PeachMan@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    H265 is objectively superior in just about every way UNLESS you’re trying to play it on hardware that doesn’t support it. The only reason to use H264 is for broad compatibility.

      • PeachMan@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Pretty sure it’s just more of a hardware age issue. Smart TV makers don’t put much effort into their firmware, so if they don’t support a codec now they probably won’t support it ever. Devices made before a certain year probably won’t ever support H265. I suspect we’ll run into the same thing with AV1, unfortunately. It’s another objectively superior codec that will have compatible issues. 🤷

        • Fylkir@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except h265 is only ever used for 4k outside piracy. This is because Codec licensing issues.

          Once it’s conceivable to do so, it would make sense for Netflix to announce it won’t make new Netflix ports for TVs without AV1.

    • IceSea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      also its not just pure “compatibility”, but I had a time when I played vids to my TV over an old laptop (from around 2015). Worked like a charm. But some x265 vids went into full-on stutter mode in scenes where a lot of stuff was happening… was more a nuisance than a dealbreaker, but still, preferred x264 versions if I could get them

      • PeachMan@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sounds like your TV isn’t fully compatible with x265. You can get around that by using a modern streaming stick that supports it.

        • WorseDoughnut 🍩@vlemmy.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not like a ton of people have compatible hardware anyway. It’ll eventually become more common as more uploaders can encode and downloaders can decode.

          • Fisch
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My PC, laptop and phone can play it just fine. I don’t know about my phone but my PC and laptop definitely don’t have hardware acceleration for it but modern hardware is simply fast enough so it can play it without issues anyway.

        • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          As far as I know most uploaders prefer software encoding for the best result. Even with the most advanced encoder (e.g. SVT-AV1) and the latest hardware, that becomes a taxing task with AV1.

  • CanOpener@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Neither. AV1 if available, if not I download a high quality x264 copy and do my own transcode. AV1 is high quality with smaller file sizes, but isn’t very common right now.

    • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where have you ever found AV1? I’ve literally never once seen it in the wild. It seems awesome though, I would definitely choose that over anything else

      • Loki123@pathfinder.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It really is awesome. Lots of leaps forward for AV1 recently. It encodes faster than x265 in some situations with so much space saved. It’s still in the early stages, really, and the compression isn’t perfect, but for video streaming purposes, I’ll take it over x265 any day.

        • TheYang@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It encodes faster than x265 in some situations with so much space saved

          on ffmpeg?
          I tested it like 6months to a year ago I think, and it had similar storage requirement at similar visual fidelity but transcoding took what seemed 5x to 10x the time

          /e: for future reference, I’m testing a transfer to transcoding to AV1 instead of hevc

          ffmpeg -i /path/to/infile -c:v libsvtav1 -preset 9 -svtav1-params tune=0:enable-overlays=1:scd=1:scm=0:fast-decode=1 -crf 50 -g 240 -pix_fmt yuv420p10le /path/to/outfile

          These are a mix of what I read here:
          https://gist.github.com/BlueSwordM/86dfcb6ab38a93a524472a0cbe4c4100
          and here:
          https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/AV1

          general gist:
          preset is encoding speed, higher is faster, this setting gets me a bit faster than what i had my hevc encode set up
          tune=0 tunes for being good looking
          fast-decode lessens cpu use on decode
          crf 50 seems fine for my use
          -g 240 changes keyframe insertion to every 240 frames
          -pix_fmt yuv420p10le gives 10bit color depth which helps with dark scenes and doesn’T cost much space

          • Loki123@pathfinder.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            On ffmpeg, yeah. I can get close to real-time encoding with the new version of libsvtav1 and I save space with around the same visual fidelity as x265, at least, in my experience. If you want to try it out, I recommend using the ab-av1 tool, which automatically finds the best CRF to VMAF for encoding.

            edit: Transcoding speeds, I don’t find that it’s slow, even if I’m using software for transcoding, though I’ve only been using it for my Jellyfin server for about a month or so.

          • Mah@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            "Most 2020 and newer 4K TVs have AV1 HW decoding support.

            Apple hasn’t added AV1 hardware to any of their devices yet but they are easily capable of software decoding 1080p AV1.

            These smartphone chips support AV1 hardware decoding: MediaTek Dimensity 1000 and newer All Google Tensor chips Samsung Exynos 2200 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2

            Streaming devices with HW AV1 support: Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K Max Amazon Fire TV Cube 3rd Gen Google Chromecast with Google TV HD Onn. Google TV 4K Streaming Box Xiaomi TV Stick 4K Xiaomi TV Box S 2nd Gen

            Roku Streaming Stick 4K 3820 Roku Streaming Stick 4K+ 3821 Roku Ultra 4800 Roku Ultra LT 4801 Roku Ultra 4802 /!\ Roku is not recommended for anime since it apparently does not support ASS or PGS subtitles

            PC stuff: CPUs: Intel’s Tiger Lake (mobile 11th gen), Rocket Lake (desktop 11th gen) and newer support AV1 HW decoding. AMD’s Rembrandt (mobile 6000 series), Raphael (desktop 7000 series) and newer support AV1 HW decoding. 10+ year old desktop computers with a decent CPU are capable of software decoding 1080p AV1.

            GPUs: Nvidia’s RTX 3000 series and newer support AV1 HW decoding. AMD’s RX 6000 series (except RX 6400 / 6500 XT) and newer support AV1 HW decoding. All Intel ARC GPUs support AV1 HW decoding.

            People can use YouTube to check for AV1 hardware support on their current devices. Just turn on Stats for Nerds and play a video. It will show you the codec you’re using and YouTube defaults to AV1 if your device supports it. If your CPU usage is low during playback, it’s successfully using the HW decoder." also yes plex supports it afaik.

          • Loki123@pathfinder.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dunno about Plex, but Jellyfin supports AV1 direct play just fine. Just not on Roku, which I mainly use it on. I’m a small-time contributor on the Roku version, though, and there’s progress towards AV1 support, at least.

  • XanXic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    x265 is just objectively better than x264. I’m not sure what’s to poll. It really comes down to the encoder themselves which ends up a better result. x265 has a minor draw back in that it’s new and older things don’t naturally support it and a decent draw back in that it takes more CPU power to decode the stream for playback. Other than that though x265.

    The various quality though comes from inexperienced or lazy encodes for both formats being available. I have such a pet peeve for someone taking a x264 encode and uploading it in x265 with like a 2% file size reduction and talk about how much better it looks. And the general downloader eats it up because ‘x265 gud’ to a certain degree. It hurts because then that typically becomes all you can get and no conversion is truly lossless so even re-encoding them myself can take a lot of work to get the reduction without quality loss. I’ve seen x265 480p encodes that end up with bigger files sizes than if you encoded the shit in AVI, because they seem to think low CFR and 265 is instant quality at a “better” size. If you take the time to really dial in the settings, run it at a slower speed, and understand what type of content you’re encoding you can get an incredibly high quality small file. But that takes a decent amount of knowledge and a lot of patience. That’s what really sets apart good encoders/releases.

    Idk the fix. It doesn’t help there’s also people convinced a larger file size has inherently better quality. Like seeing a bluray 1080p rip in x265 that’s a larger file than an entire bluray disc can hold drives me up a wall because usually it’s one of the more seeded files. Like obviously people uploading and tagging 4k lossless files know what they are providing, those files are needed for the proper encodes to eat up.

    But RARBG tagged releases were amazing quality. You typically had to go up a few gigs for similar quality from another release. Pahe can really nail some tv shows. Few other encoders back in the day. YIFY/YTS are amazing for the size, but you are giving up some quality. But you can’t beat a 1.5gig movie that is better than streaming quality at times.

      • dodgypast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The general pattern is that 4k will be x265 and 1080P encodes with DV / HDR10 need to be x265.

        But non HDR / DV 1080P and below is x264.

        That’s what the encoders on the cabal trackers are doing.

      • Scrath@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        For some reason plex doesn’t support it yet, though jellyfin does at least

      • HectorBarbossa99@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just heard about it a few minutes ago and it seems really nice too. Especially with all the space it saves.

        I was trying to start getting some movies in 4k to take full advantage of my new 4k tv other than gaming, but honestly the sheer size of 4k films has me staying with 1080 for at least a little more

    • Fisch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I already use AV1 if it’s available. All my devices can play it without issues and it saves a lot of space while looking at least as good as h.264 or h.265

  • Ludrol@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    AV1 we should have more hardware acceleration in the future. AVIF is also promising.

    • nixigaj@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      AVIF is a great format, but I’m still salty over what Google did to JPEG XL. If at least Firefox adds support I will use JPEG XL on my websites with AVIF as fallback. Oh yeah, and then we have MS Edge that doesn’t even support AVIF yet lol.

  • couragethebravedog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    The first time I grabbed a 1080 265 and it was almost half the file size of a 264 I had and the quality was visually the same, I knew I could never go back.

  • sophs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    H.265. The file size difference is impressive, and without a noticeable loss of quality, if any.

    • Fisch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve actually had a season of Better Call Saul in h.264, which was 10gb and another one in AV1, which was 1gb and the AV1 seemed to look better

  • CCatMan@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because of this post, I reencode a BD rip I made using handbrake to see how small the output file would be. I used the 4k av1 fast profile, but changed the audio tract to passthrough. Holy crap, 44gb down to 1.5gb. what black magic is this?

    • maximus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      AV1 is very efficient (around twice as good as h264), but a filesize that low was almost definitely because the default encoding settings were more conservative than the ones used to encode the blu-ray. The perceptual quality of that 1.5gb file will be noticeably lower than the 44gb one

  • riseuppikmin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    AV1 when available for everything other than 3d content which is ideally x265.

    Honestly it blows my mind that x264 is still as popular as it is.

    • Granixo@feddit.cl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      x264 is still popular because lots of active devices (mainly TVs and smartphones) still don’t have native support for x265.

      • riseuppikmin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Strictly because the tooling doesn’t exist in an easy enough way to go from blu-ray -> full-sbs encode at this point.

        I’m constrained by knowledge to only use tools like BD3D2MK3D to create full-sbs encode in x265 which I watch in VR.

        If AV1 were an option in this tool I’d consider it, but the additional encoding time might not be worth it to me as the person actually encoding the files.

        If anyone has knowledge of F-SBS or F-OU AV1 content or tooling please let me know as I’d be glad to learn.

    • DarkTides@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you use handbreak to do it? And what settings? Is it something that needs to be played around with to see how output is, so doing small segment to determine what is ideal?

      • 0x4E4F@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, I use Simple x264/x265 encoder in combo with MeGUI (do the avs in MeGUI, the encode on Simple x264/x265 encoder).

        Yeah, you have to play around with it to see what quality suits you. And yes, that takes a looooot of time. Doing small segments will give you a general idea, but the end result may greatly differ in movies with a lot of fast moving action scenes. So, it’s best to just encode the whole thing (2 pass, I use the very slow preset, but I’m nuts), view the results and just go from there.

  • eximo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Since having a device that can natively watch x265 I only get that format now. I’m not sure of the quality is better vs x264 but for TV shows the disk space reduction makes up for any quality loss. Movies might be different and it depends on the film but I’m still only getting 1080p rips so again maybe the quality is that important compared to 4K?

    • fiah@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      4K x264 rips (the few that are out there) are hilariously big compared to the same quality 4K x265 rips

    • Briongloid@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am 100% in on 265, I’ve gotten my Plex users to upgrade to newer devices or they can have transcoded video.

      I would love to migrate to AV1 in a few years, but that’s a ways out.