this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
230 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

1450 readers
22 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fiah@discuss.tchncs.de 44 points 2 years ago (1 children)

x265 no contest, all day every day. Then again we should probably be migrating to AV1 ASAP

[–] Gellis12@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 2 points 2 years 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.