Rekall_Incorporated comments on Blu-ray hits 20 years old, and it isn't dead yet — optical disc format was introduced to the public at CES 2006

[–] Rekall_Incorporated@piefed.social [S] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

Video compression has its limits. A modern BD release has a bit/pixel value of around 0.5 - 0.7, while streaming copies are around 0.1 - 0.2. You're going to lose detail even if you use AV1 or H265.

Then you also have the problem that certain content (naval/oceanic scenes, storms, jungles) doesn't compress as well.

IMO we are also starting to see lower "returns" with every new codec generation. MPEG4 ASP (Xvid) to H264/AVC was a massive jump. H264 to H265 (or even AV1) was IMO a much smaller jump.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (5 children)

The jump was/is the same: Same quality with halve the bitrate.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Rekall_Incorporated@piefed.social [S] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Got to disagree with you on that one. It was universally true for the move from ASP/H263 to AVC/H264. It's not the case with H264 to H265 on a universal basis.

You can forget about such results if you're dealing with grain (and preserving it). Things are a bit better with "complex" content (oceans, snow storms etc), but you'll be struggling to get 50% space savings (more so with pre 2005 content).

The general bitrate level is also a massive factor.

Low bitrates, sure, even more than 50%. But you'll still be dealing with artifacts.

Medium to high bitrates (i.e. targeting a "near transparent" encode), you often won't be able to replicate a H264 encode at 12 Mbps (1080p 24 FPS) with a 6 Mbps H265 encode. Sometimes it works, but often it doesn't; I find you often need to go with 9-10 Mbps.

Haven't tried H266/VVC. For AV1 the x4 increase in encode times didn't seem to be worth it at high bitrates. Although for low bitrates AV1 seems to be modestly better than H265 (for far worse encore times).

This is all for CPU encodes at the "VerySlow" preset (1/2 for AV1 if I remember correctly).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[+] circuitfarmer@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Rekall_Incorporated@piefed.social [S] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Unfortunately AV1 encodes simply take too long for me at the 1/2 preset (equivalent to very slow) with a 8c/16t CPU.

I will probably give it another go on my next build (was planning an update to Zen6, but considering the price situation, I will have to wait another 2-3 years). And honestly my 5800X/3080 system is doing fine.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] vividspecter@aussie.zone 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

There are multiple AV1 encoders. SVT-AV1 was at least as fast as HEVC for the same quality/bitrate last time I tried.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Rekall_Incorporated@piefed.social [S] 1 point 10 months ago

That's the one I used albeit it was older version even when I tried it in early 2025.

I always use the lowest "quality preset" (e.g. "slow", "VerySlow" in x264/x265). The equivalent present in SVT-AV1 will was a number value (I believe 0 = placebo in x265/x264, I went 1/2).

Unless there have been massive improvements in SVT-AV1 in the last 12 months, you most likely get much longer encode time if you go with lowest quality preset equivalent in SVT-AV1.

Maybe I am missing something? Genuinely curious as I don't have much experience with SVT-AV1 (I've done several hundreds of encodes of different levels of complexity with Xvid, x264, x265 over the past ~20 years).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent