 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Great... ...now that I've just transcoded all my video to H.264 they come out with H.265. I may just wait until H.266 comes about and save the other 50%. Then my videos will take up 100% less space than before. |
|
| .264 files With good compression and video quality You can turn a 25GB blue-ray into a 9GB file. Not to shabby! |
|
| reply to cdru
Re: Great... Um..check your math. |
|
| reply to brianiscool
Re: .264 files said by brianiscool:With good compression and video quality You can turn a 25GB blue-ray into a 9GB file. Not to shabby!
Yep. Fit 111 pirated Hollywood movies on a 1TB disk.
Next step is Hollywood lobbies Congress to declare H.265 a "weapon of mass terror" and they make it illegal to possess a movie encoded with it, or even to possess the following characters - H.265 - any where, in any order, on your disk drive. |
|
SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL | But how lossy? I'm already disappointed in the current "broadcast-quality" compression that cable and satellite are using. I'm also not terribly fond of the compression artifacts that are visible on some DVD titles (granted I don't watch a lot of BluRays yet). I'm just worried on what this efficiency comes at the cost of. |
|
| reply to brianiscool
Re: .264 files Technically yes, though you are severely downgrading the audio quality, normally from HD audio to DTS or AC3 and regardless of what people may say, it's no longer blu-ray quality. It's often not even HDTV quality. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to MaynardKrebs
They would never ever do that. It would not be profitable.
Instead they would lobby congress to require any media greater than 750gb have a fee attached per 100gb over the 750 limit be charged to cover piracy. Because in the eyes of Hollywood the only reason anybody needs a 4tb drive is piracy.(They forget that people who have Steam or do graphic arts can chew up terabytes.)
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
 ·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| reply to SunnyD
Re: But how lossy? HDTV quality is what it is at the moment ATSC HDTV is a set standard, some providers like FiOS don't recompress it, some cable operators compress it really bad, hopefully for normal HDTV if they deployed H.265 video they'd keep the bit rate the same and increase the quality, this could help streaming sevices like netflix whose HD streaming is even worse.
Their's no point in going up to 4K, if they don't keep the bitrate high, much higher than blu-ray.
I myself would actually be happier to see this improved compression to current 1080P HD like streaming and HDTV.
instead of 4K. Eventually 4K will come, but their is no rush as even the sets are like 25K |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | reply to cdru
Re: Great... The would be 25% (1/2 of 1/2) |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Oh crap... ...now we have to drop out monthly caps by 1/2 to defend our overpriced video services.
-Your friendly neighborhood MSO |
|
| reply to StatGuy
Re: Great... Um..check your funny bone.  |
|
| Let see if ATT Old Fashion Telephone lines can handle 4K TV, But I Highly doubt it, the best case scenario for uverse is one overly high compress 1 UDTV stream. |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | reply to MovieLover76
Re: .264 files There is no such thing as "blu-ray quality audio", nor is "HD audio" a codec. Blu-Ray supports a variety of codecs, including AC3 (AKA Dolby Digital). It's part of the spec, so AC3 is by definition "blu-ray quality".
What I think you probably mean is that the quality is not as high as the lossless codecs. Bluray supports three of those. LPCM, which is uncompressed, and Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD for compressed. Either of those three will provide identical quality, since they're all lossless.
To most consumers, the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable. For those with both a high-end home theatre system and a discerning ear, higher-end blu-ray rips often include lossless audio, although these rips are often not much smaller than the original blu-ray themselves. You'll sometimes find the audio transcoded to FLAC, another lossless codec which is more efficient than Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD.
The most typical scenario you find is the rip will simply include the regular DTS or DD+ stream. I'm not sure that anybody can actually tell the difference between DTS and DTS-HD in practice. You'll get a much bigger difference in audio quality from the quality of your AV decoder's DACs than you will from the DTS/DTS-HD difference.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
| reply to SunnyD
Re: But how lossy? I think Directv and others use MPEG-4, which is less efficient then h.264. |
|
 BigBlarg
join:2008-02-10
Longueuil, QC
kudos:1 | reply to skeechan
Re: Great... We have a winner! |
|
bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | reply to Kearnstd
Re: .264 files My DPM server has a buttload of 2TB drives in it. And no pirated content I assure you. |
|
cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | reply to StatGuy
Re: Great... said by StatGuy :Um..check your math.
How dare you tell me to check my math. I challenge you to prove to me that my yet-to-be-invented fictitious H.266 codec can't achieve 100% compression. It obviously would not be a lossless codec. It would be lossy but it's something that many I think would exchange for near infinite compression. I even have several different resources to back up my claim. What evidence do you have? |
|
 aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA | How long until.... devices are available that can decode H.265? |
|
| reply to Kearnstd
Re: .264 files said by Kearnstd:They would never ever do that.
Come again? |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | reply to MovieLover76
Re: But how lossy? ATSC HDTV is a set standard |
|
