datahoarder
Who are we?
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). Along the way we have sought out like-minded individuals to exchange strategies, war stories, and cautionary tales of failures.
We are one. We are legion. And we're trying really hard not to forget.
-- 5-4-3-2-1-bang from this thread
view the rest of the comments
You will not gain much from reencoding or compressing these kinds of files. They are already compressed in a way purpose-built for their application. If you have source materials, like blu-ray discs, you can reencode with more aggressive h.265 settings. But this will probably not do better than shrink 5-30%.
It is usually a better use of time and resources to get more storage.
This is what I always think. The real movie was hundreds of gigs, maybe TBs. What you get on the Blu-ray is already compressed to all hell but perfectly mastered to hide as much compression as possible. Why would you want compress it even worse? Hard drives are cheap, if you already want to store 1080p/4k copies of movies, just admit you're like us and pick up a couple 20TB drives