Is HEVC (8-bit)/AAC a good, modern CODEC combination for rebuilding & reducing my library size without compromising quality? Helpful feedback would be appreciated.

  • xionzui@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    9 months ago

    If you’re concerned about quality, re-encoding from a lossy format to another lossy format is always going to lose more quality. Even if the format you choose would have been better quality if it was encoded directly from the source, the result is almost certainly going to look worse than what you have now.

    • weedwhacking@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Exactly this, avoid re-encoding at all costs. Giant hard drives are real cheap these days

    • LocustOfControl@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Definitely, unless the original source was very inefficiently compressed, it’s not worth the time, effort and quality loss to save a small amount of space.

  • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I don’t know if you want to talk specifically about codec settings but it seems overall the compression quality goes AV1 > HEVC/h265 > h264. So if you have the time and/or hardware go for AV1, otherwise HEVC will be perfectly fine. I don’t know of any situations which calls for h264 nowadays.

    • mordack550@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      The only reason that comes to mind to use x264 is to avoid transcoding for older clients. Also Firefox does not support HEVC so it always needa transcoding (at least on Jellyfin)

    • weedwhacking@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      I disagree, I think HEVC has better overall compression quality than AV1. But it’s also wrapped up in licensing problems so AV1 can be more compatible especially if you’re using windows

  • linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yeah it’s fine I reencoded almost my entire library into that as soon as my devices were able to play it.

    But if you can wait a couple more years AV1 will be better

  • Faceman🇦🇺@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    While I tend to avoid encoding wherever possible, I use H265 10Bit at low RF to archive non-critical libraries (old TV shows in some users personal libraries, 1080p movies more than 1 year old and over 20gb etc…).

    my average size reduction going from a 1080p Bluray remux of 35-40gb is about 50% with no significant effect to image quality. High action or high grain movies end up a bit larger, slower movies with no action and most animations compress a bit smaller. works well overall.

    basically any modern device can decode them and the image quality tends to be a bit better than 8bit.

    I’d like to go with AV1, but very few of my client devices can decode it, so its not worth the trouble to save a few percent,

    • Rodrigo_de_Mendoza@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I have a problem with 10-Bit though. When I try to encode more than 1 file in 10-Bit with the HEVC_AMF ffmpeg encoder, my CPU usage goes to 100% and stays. And with 1000s of files to do. Well, you can imagine. Ugh!

  • dorkage@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I am sure I am in the minority, but avoid AAC multi channel encodes as much as possible. It really makes no sense for anyone. Most home theater equipment does not support it. AC3 or eAC3 are supported by nearly every device natively. AAC does not work over SPDIF or HDMI ARC without reencoding. All that for a slightly lower bitrate? No thanks. Plus most are likely encoded from a AC3 or eAC3 so they will sound worse than the native version.

  • Nine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yes it’s good, but with AV1 hanging about then you’re WAAAY better off using that over x265.

    I re-encode all my stuff with AV1. It will take a 40GB x264 rip to 3-4GB. Where as with x265 It will be around 10-15GB.

    It’s a significant difference in storage size and (as far as I can tell) no obvious difference in quality.

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    A lot of processing power to use (re-encoding and transcoding for certain streaming clients) when, like others say, it might just be easier to not bother

    • Rodrigo_de_Mendoza@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s crazy. Why does the libx265 take SO much processing power to just convert ONE file at a time. I mean it pushes my CPU to >80% and if I try 2 files it’s 100% and stays there. And, the hevc_amf encoder won’t create 10-bit HEVC through the GUI I use. I’m just about ready to encode from the original sources again to h.264 and forget it.

    • Rodrigo_de_Mendoza@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I agree and have found that out. HEVC is a hog when it comes to processing. But, the reason I’m re-encoding is because my system crashed or should I say someone crashed it for me (long story) and I need to rebuild a large part of my library and just want everything consistent.