Data Hoarder

11 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@selfhosted.forum

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 11 months ago by kingofallnorway@alien.top to c/datahoarder@selfhosted.forum

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

[–] infamousfunk@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Like others have said - it depends on the source media. In general, grainy sources require more bitrate to achieve a given quality as opposed to a clean, digitally shot source. You can choose a random bitrate and encode all your sources with it but you might not like the results or your encodes will be bloated for no reason.

Personally, having used both x264 and x265, I would stick with x264 for 1080p content. Yes there are some space saving advantages to using x265 but the time it takes really just isn't worth it - in my opinion. This is assuming you're using software encoding and not NVENC or QuickSync. Hardware encoding is much faster but yield larger file sizes and lower quality when compared to software encoding - again, not really worth it in my opinion.

[–] rajmahid@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Agree. Plus many players can’t play H265.