Zoom in x200
Left: 720p x264 --> 0.25 GB
Right: 1080p x265 --> 1.11 GB
I tested watching both on my phone:
- Without zoom, I didn’t notice much difference in visuals.
- The audio is stronger at the same level on the x265 version.
- I need +15 volume level (Android) to make the x264 sound equal.
What do you think, guys? Is it worth 4 times the file size?
You must log in or register to comment.
I personally prefer 720p x264 for movies and SD for shows. I have have rpis and use jellfin web too so x264 plays better with them.
For a few select items ill get better quality at 1080p but these are trying times and disk prices are just going up.
X265 theoretically does better compression. But that depends on how much we’re compressing.
It looks like the x265 copy is just that much higher quality, which is perfectly indistinguishable on any mobile device.
I wouldnt be surprised if some of the difference in filesize is audio quality.
Not a popular opinion, but if the media in question is only being played on a phone (especially with a slow connection), I’m tempted to stick with Laserdisc rips (or equal). I’m a 4k Atmos kind of guy, but I can barely tell a difference if I’m on-the-go streaming to a sub-1080p screen
deleted by creator
For watching on a phone, probably not.
For watching on a real TV, definitely.
If you’re downloading for a permanent collection, I’d get the 1080p version. If you’re downloading temporarily to keep on your phone, then save the space.
Based on the TRaSH Guides, x264 is better for 1080p content and x265 is only worth it for 2160p and above. But I don’t know how they would compare in the case of 720p x264 vs 1080p x265. I think I would prefer 720p x264 if it had a higher bit rate.
The biggest issue with downloading x265 stuff from the high seas is that so many of them are just x264 that’s been re-encoded in x265, resulting in smaller file sizes but reduced quality as well. x265 is superior in almost every way technically speaking but it needs a good source material, not an x264 reencode. Their “golden rule” is more like a rule of thumb and I absolutely wouldn’t use some blanket criteria like resolution or dynamic range.
I checked out this guide, it’s actually really informative, thanks.
I’ll just watch and delete, I should get 720p version then
I’ve noticed that things recorded on film hold up much better to low resolution compared to digitally filmed content.
Why not compare 720p 265 to 1080p 265? I don’t get anything in 264 these days, 265 support is ubiquitous and the performance is so much better.
It’s not just about codec and resolution, either. Every algorithm has a bunch of parameters that you can adjust, so you could get a 4k60hz video with a reasonable file size and still have it look like crap. And that’s not even mentioning the audio quality.
Maybe the new ones, but most of the old rips are still x264.
My last trip I knew my cell coverage would be too poor to stream but I was also running out of space on my phone, so I re-encoded my stuff to 360p, low ass bitrate.
It was a bit blocky for some fast paced action scenes. For sitcoms? Totally fine.Is it worth 4 times the file size
For a TV or a Tablet, sure.
For a phone? Meh, unless you have a ginormous phone (mine is 6.67") I wouldn’t botherBitrate and resolution being equal, 264 is gonna be about half the size of 265. It’s an older codec, so it decodes easier on older hardware (like 10 or more years old). If you have anything recent-ish, 265 will save you space… all other things being equal.
Because 264 saved less space, people used lower bitrates. With 265, they’re using higher bitrates because storage devices have gotten bigger. Blu-ray rips that were 4-5GB in 264 are like 2-3GB in 265 and look better.
With 720p you’re reducing the resolution so that takes down the size too.
It’s really hard to say if you have no control over the encodes. Learn handbrake (honestly it’s not hard, handbrake intermediate users know like 90-95% what handbrake experts know, it’s a very easy and straightforward tool to use) and take control of your encodes. Tweak the settings as you like 5-10 seconds at a time until you find a setting that meets your size and performance needs, then save it as a preset and encode more stuff with those settings.
hardware doesn’t even need to be that recent! i’m using an i7 8700K for my plex server and it can transcode h.264 into h.265 on the fly.
Bitrate and resolution being equal, 264 is gonna be about half the size of 265
Should that be “twice the size”?
Yeah. My bad. I think I did mean to eat half the size but meant to say the numbers (codecs) the other way around.
deleted by creator
You’ve got me curious, I’ll definitely give it a try.
Depends on the content: something like western animation, or something like documentaries and news reports, do not really get anything worthy going past 720p and sometimes even that is too much. And even the most blink-and-you-miss-it-scenes series on TV nowadays do not really justify spending 1080p for the entire duration of the episode.
Depends on the playback: If you are only going to watch on your machine / your own phone, you can go with whichever but if you intend to watch on a TV set for example, or if just intend to share the file to other machines in general, x264 has much wider compatibility and stresses the hardware far less.
or something like documentaries
Huh? You haven’t watched a lot of documentaries this last decade I guess. I wouldn’t watch any under 1080p and If I could 4k (for those filmed in 4k) If I had the TV and proper device…
In my experience I haven’t found the need. When I’m watching ibexes fight I mostly care about the surrounding ecological context, not about counting and cataloguing how many warts do each one have on their dicks.
This is a matter of personal preference, not something where a consensus opinion helps. Where you’re at, it sounds like 1080p x265 isn’t worth it. Would it become worthwhile to you if you were using it on a different device? With a different set of conditions (like lower battery drain)? If a small change can make it acceptable to you, it’s a hangup, not a standard.
It depends on how you intend to view, and the source.
DVD source? No reason to go past
720480 as that’s all they do.Blu-ray can do a lot more.
Interestingly on a 65" 4k TV, I find most 720 sources to be fine. I did just watch Blithe Spirit from DVD and it was awful. Lots of blurriness. Someone really screwed up the encoding on that one.
As others have said, test your encoding. I’ve generally found with handbrake that movies converted with a Quality level 19 (H264 MKV container), reduce about 70%+. So a 4 GB video often reduces to 1 GB, and you can’t see the difference on the screen.
Some you can, but those are movies with a 16:9 aspect ratio and letterboxing built into the video so DVD players show them correctly. Since that loses some pixels up front, they require using higher quality levels to prevent visual lossiness.
DVDs are 480p, not 720p.
Thanks for the correction - bunch of numbers in my head and I grabbed the first one, haha.
I have pages of notes about how to convert different types of videos with accompanying scripts for ffmpeg, so I don’t really have to think about it anymore.
Yeah, I get that. I’ve got my Handbrake presets and that’s that, so I don’t need to spare it a second thought.
letterboxing built into the video so DVD players show them correctly. Since that loses some pixels up front, they require using higher quality levels to prevent visual lossiness.
Letterbox and pillars baked-in actually has very little, if any, impact on filesize or quality, when encoding from the same source and settings (other than the one dimension that was trimmed)
When you go to reconvert it has noticeable impact in how you encode.
I have movies with letterboxing that’s 20% of the screen. You’re going to say losing 20% of your pixels to baked-in, forced letterboxing has no impact?
Are you watching it at 200x zoom?
