For those think "1080p is 1080p" without consideration for file size & bitrate (Images zoomed in for detail)

5635  2017-03-22 by ThinkOutsideTheTV

597 comments

well, that's informative, thanks!

He's comparing 1.5 vs 35. Idiotic.

This picture is to show people who say all 1080p is the same you dink

No one who has seen more than one video in his or her lifetime would say they are all the same.

100% false. For a long time I was under the assumption that 1080p was a measure of quality, not simply resolution. Same with my wife, and probably anyone who has ever dabbled in torrents at any point.

inb4 elitist comment about how smart you are

Hey fuck your "elitist" comment but anyway i am seeing a few confused posts in this thread that make me reconsider my opinion above. I guess there is confusion out there, so I stand corrected.

This car going 250km/h is blazing fast compared to that one there crawling at 10km/h.

Idiotic

Just like people who think 1GB 1080p rip is just as good as 20G 1080p rip.

Who says this? I have never heard anyone say this. Just lots of people bitching about people supposedly saying this. I think you all are putting words into peoples' mouths.

Here's another analogy for those having trouble grasping this concept.

4 minute .mp3 compressed @ 64 kbps = Sounds like shit 4 minute .mp3 compressed @ 320 Kbps = Sounds good

.mp3 is still 4 minutes long regardless.

So let's get this straight, the amount of pixels have nothing to do with the compression method. Mmmkay? End of discussion.

What's the point of trying to sound like such a dick? Did you run your comment through some kind of English to condescending-as-fuck English translator?

let's get this straight

fucks up the logic beyond belief

.mp3 is still 4 minutes long regardless.

I think a better comparison would have been with sample rate and sample size rather than duration.

Your condescending attitude is ironic considering your analogy makes absolutely no sense. What total duration has to do with anything I have no idea.

The closest analogy, that I can think of, to visual resolution in audio is sampling rate.

Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way. But there's a difference between bit depth and sample rates. I'm a producer, I would know. I encourage you to read about it. Also, it's not a perfect analogy. But it's sufficiently rudimentary to carry the concept over to another form digital data. Audio and Video are two very different things, obviously.

You may be a producer, but you need to brush up on your signals a bit. Total duration has nothing to do with... Well anything.

Audio and video are not that different from an A/D perspective, there is just more data in a video stream.

Also, now that I think about it, the closest analog to video resolution in audio is really the number of channels.

So you're discontent with my analogy? By all means, provide us with a better one. The point still stand, which was that it doesn't matter if it's 1080p, rather how many bits per pixels there are and how you lose quality depending on how you compress the video. Because there are people out there who for some reason swear that 1080p means 1080p. I understand that length doesn't directly equate to pixels. And I honestly don't know what would be a more definitive representation. Audio channels? Ok, sure.

I remember downloading 128kbps and loving the sound quality. Albeit this was at a time when it would take 20 minutes to download that song.

for music you must have to encode lossless to lossy . lossy to lossy like 320kbps->128kbps sounds real shit.

due to differences in psychoacoustic models used between different codecs, it's even worse than you think to do this:

original > FLAC 320kbps 96kHz > MP3 256kbps 44kHz

than

original > MP3 192kbps 44kHz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss#Transcoding

Going from an original WAV/PCM file to a FLAC file doesn't cause generational loss, it is LOSSLESS in the conversion. That's why it's the Free [I]Lossless[/I] Audio CODEC.

Your example is wrong because going from one lossless > another lossless doesn't lose anything, before going to the final LOSSY 256kbps MP3. It will still be higher quality than going directly from original to 192kbps mp3.

And FLAC is rarely ever at 320kbps, and most things are at 44.1kHz so I don't know why what the fuck you're trying to get at with these numbers anyways.

you're right. my mistake. i should have taken a lossy format of course lol.

thanks for pointing out. i'll correct the example

Yeah but what I'm saying is that if your project file or PCM file is at 96kHz, then the bitrate is going to be waaayyy higher than 320kbps. 16/44.1 is 1411kbps.

16 bits * 44.1 kHz * 2 channels = 1411200 bits per second = 1411 kbps

So for a 24 bit 96 kHz file the bit rate would be

24 * 96000 * 2 = 4608000bps = 4608kbps.

Isn't converting lossy to lossy video also bad? Which I believe is why Yify movies always looked so bad, cause they were transcodes of scene transcodes.

I don't think anyone is confused if a 1080p raw movie is any different than a 1080p compressed video in terms of length. The time is kind of irrelevant.

Yeah I don't know how this is upvoted so high. It really doesn't add anything to the OP.

I'm confused that if the image is compressed, is it really still 1080? I thought 1080 implies a specific amount of distinct pixels across your tv, if you compress that image, can you really still claim its 1080?

Compression doesn't always have to mean a loss of information.

If a certain pixel stays the same shade of black for 10 seconds you can just store the information "this pixel is black for 240 frames" instead of "black black black black black black .... [repeated 240 times]" and you have the same information in less space.

In practice the codecs we are talking about don't preserve all information, maybe that pixel changes between 3 very slightly different shades of black but the codec says "black (#000000) for 240 frames". In that case we've saved space by losing some information about the changes in that pixel, but we still have that information for every one of the 1920x1080 pixels, so it's still fully 1080p.

Best explanation in the whole /thread.

Wait, I want to discuss more! How was your day?

I'm trying to get my sleep cycle back on track.

I was trying to stay awake today, but I fell asleep around 5pm, and woke up again around 10pm.

It's now 12:30am, and I think I'll have a meal, and then go to sleep.

Had the same issue last week, going for walks got me out of it

Hm, I could easily go for a walk if I didn't gosh darned fall asleep.

Anyways how's your sex life?

oh hi doggy

Wink wink nudge nudge

I cant talk about it, By the way, do you want to go jogging? Golden Gate Park?

Nah, I am going to stay home and play with my 1080p.

Edit: PENIS

Also about 4 minutes long.

so what do you do with the remaining 56 minutes?

Apologize.

Heavily compressed.

And pixelated.

Are you japanese?

Into Japanese porn I see?

Before someone else says it, yes I realize there are many reasons why you would be unable to, or prefer not to download something in a much larger raw size. But I have had quite a few arguments where someone claimed it was a waste of time to do it, and that your eyes couldn't tell the difference, etc.

If you do need to download something quickly or conserve data and want the maximum amount of quality don't be tempted just by resolution, if you have a choice between a 1gb 1080p rip and a 1.3 gb 720p rip, the 720 will probably end up looking a lot better. Also, if your device will support it, look for H.265 (Aka x265 or HEVC) rips as you will be able to get the same quality in half the size.

The size of the screen you are watching it on matters as well. I had small screens my whole life until recently, and it was getting hard to tell the difference between a lot of bitrates.

I like that you used jpeg to compare quality <3

I'd like to point out that this is basically like the argument that people used to use to say that 1080p is barely different from 720p and how 1440p is barely different from 1080p.

Ok, can you explain to me about HEVC then? Everyone I pickup has AWFUL pixelation? Or patterning in the darker areas. Shadows are like 480p. So I've been avoiding them. I usually pickup 1080p x264 and each movie is around 5-8GBs. I guess I'm. It checking bitrate...

Wow this explains why often when I download 720p porn it seems to look better while 1080p somehow looks no different or worse

well, it's just... 1.5 vs 35 is 20 x the size, maybe do a comparison on 2.5 vs 10 instead?

For me, resolution is like my car's paint job. I could spend time and money (bandwidth) making the paint look nice, but will it affect performance? Nope. Car drives with or without the paint.

As long as the content is there, I couldn't give 2 fucks how much detail is in it. If it looks post 1990 I'm good with whatever resolution or bitrate I'm offered.

Also, if your device will support it, look for H.265 (Aka x265 or HEVC) rips as you will be able to get the same quality in half the size.

This codec was specifically developed to get 4k video down to a size that's managable, so yeah, it compression is much better than H.264.

Advice for nyaa dot eu ?

This is why I'm glad 6 and 8 TB harddrives are getting much easier to buy. I've got like 20tb of stuff because every movie Blu Ray is like 25+ gigs.

Would've have it any other way, but it does take a lot of space!!

I wanna buy a larger NAS, probably something like 6 tb aswell. But how the hell can I transfer my already 2 tb of movies without waiting half a year for it to transfer the files?

One thing I will say is that as someone with a (very very good) stereo sound system sometimes I appreciate the lack of 5.1 audio channels making dialogue actually audible on a 1.8gb movie.

I also realise that soon I will be forced to upgrade my living room as finding 1080p on new movies is becoming harder. A new blockbuster will have plenty of results for 4k UHD HDR 3D VR 7.1ch coming in at 57gb and cams but only one decent 1080p file

UTR

Look for them. Get a newer Roku if you're using Plex. It will direct play almost everything. And even if it's a 65Mbps 4K, it looks absolutely amazing on a 1080p TV.

Just beware of bad HEVC rips, x265 doesn't guarantee quality by itself

Exactly. The point of new codecs is higher and more efficient compression which translates to lower filesize but does not per se say anything about quality.

x265 / HEVC isn't in any current scene standard yet. so the scene gorups still encode in x264. beware of p2p groups re-encoding x264 releases into x265.

re-encoding from lossy to lossy format is much worse than you think.

Look for HEVC x265 rips by Joybell or Joy. Best I have ever seen

transcodes will get you banned from any good private tracker for a first offense.

Thanks for that link (scene rules), most interesting read in a while.

Look for HEVC x265 rips by Joybell or Joy. Best I have ever seen, and I have been d/ling HEVC fora long time.

It's also hilarious seeing people that refuse to buy/watch DVDs anymore because of quality, yet have no problem with low bitrate 1080p BDRips. Newer DVDs look fine and are usually much better than most online rips.

But mah Kodi box does 4k! Hyuk.

You are not taking into consideration many pirated files are not actually what they claim to be. Just cause it says 720p in the title,or 1080p, doesnt make it a fact. I have a good hunch the top picture in your example was never 1080p to begin with.

Yes it was. The detail was lost in the conversion of a 35MBps stream to a 1.5 MBps stream. You cannot do that without serious image quality implications.

Which means it's not actually 720 or 1080p.

Yes it is. You can keep the same amount of pixels but reduce the information in a single pixel or duplicate the same information over several pixels.

Where do you get high bitrate media to begin with?

There's a site just for these comparisons, imgur isn't good for this.

All you have to do is move your mouse of the image to compare, here's an example from the movie Oblivion http://www.screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/45240

I think a pic to pic comparison is a bit misleading. usually you see a big difference watching a moving video. fast paced action movies have tons of artifacts while a still of a slow scene have not.

There is a site just for these comparisons, imgur isn't good for this.

All you have to do is move your mouse of the image to compare, here's an example from the movie Oblivion http://www.screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/45240

The website has apparently deleted all images:

No comparison found with ID #45240. Probably because we cleaned out the database 01.08.2017 because the old database got maxed out.

Awesome link, thanks.

Personally, I can see that the Yify screenshot has less definition, but the difference to me is so negligible that I don't really care.

It's like shopping for a TV at Best Buy with them all lined up beside each other. Yeah you can tell the difference between them because you can compare them side-by-side, but if you take home a store brand Dynex/Insignia instead of a Sony, it'll look a lot better when it's alone.

Yify files have terrible sound issues I've found

YIFY releases have 96kbps audio

128kbps is the minimum for most mp3 files.

256kbps is a good medium for quality and file size.

320kbps is very good quality, but higher file size.

Most 15+GB Bluray rips come with audio streams in AC3 codec at 1000+kbps (3x the bitrate as a good-quality song.)

And yes, there is a noticeable difference between 96 and 1000 kbps audio.

I never understood why they'd compromise the audio quality on a rip. In the overall scheme of things, how much difference does it make in the overall file size to go from 96kbps to 320kbps? To me, that difference is more quickly noticeable than the video.

maybe they assume the majority of people who download a rip because it's 900mb are doing so to watch it on their phone or laptop, and rips that are larger (3.5-15GB) are made assuming it's going into someone's collection, or that they will watch it on a nicer setup.

personally I think you should download the best quality you can find. Storage is really cheap these days, a TB hard drive is $45. Having a collection of movies you like, as well as TV shows, makes sense for people who have shoddy internet or are "home sharing" their movie and TV collection. Basically, if you don't have to settle, why would you?

Then again, torrenting/movie collecting is a hobby of mine, so I look at it differently than most people.

I just think when a collection gets large, the sizes do matter, even when HDD's are relatively cheap. I fall on the side of the Best Buy TV example, where I can probably tell that there is a little bit of a difference between the 2 videos without them being side by side, but not enough to really matter. The audio being lower quality sticks out right away and I figured without a huge change in size, it would make a big difference.

Yeah a few gigs here and there eventually will add up and fill up hard drives quickly. This is especially true for people that watch a lot of shows. I watch 11 shows a week and that would add up to a ton of extra data during the course of a season. The best quality is usually 2GB+ more than what I usually download. That adds up to half a terabyte for the course of a season and this is excluding the movies I watch. If I can't tell the difference, or if the difference is negligible, then it's not worth the extra space.

One thing to consider is voices require less bitrate than music, which for me is why I instantly notice yify's lack of sound quality during music.

Where can I download the good quality movies? I got excellent internet and a 4k screen, but everywhere I search almost only YIFY movies are available.

ThePirateBay (dot) se.

Search for grym, joybell, UTR, SPARKS, these are all good uploaders.

thanks a lot.

sure thing, also HEVC or x265 content requires a beefy CPU/GPU to play, especially in 4k.

Btw, sorry to bother you again, but if I want to compare bitrates on 2 different torrent movie files to see which one offers the best quality, how do I do that? I am not sure where the bitrate is written.

Could you give me the links to the movies you're comparing? I could point it out if I knew what you were talking about specifically.

E.g. If I search up life of pi on torrentproject: https://torrentproject.se/?t=Life+of+Pi Where do I check the bitrates of the movies?

So most high-quality rips will be 12-15GB or larger.

Bitrate is just a measure of how much data per second is in the file, so a movie 95 minutes long at 12GB will have a 2.1mbps combined video/audio bitrate.

Look for file sizes in that range, on the right hand side of the page.

That site doesn't give an option to sort by size, for some weird reason :/ I'd recommend giving ExtraTorrent.one a try.

ah okay, makes sense, thanks again.

no prob :)

Got it :)

Doesn't need to be beefy. A 1050 or 460 will play it no problem

Those are on new architectures, which thankfully incorporate hardware decoding features.

Old generation CPUs and GPUs don't have those hardware decoders, so they rely on software decoding and that takes a huge tole.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean you need beastly hardware to do it, just modern hardware.

I'm sorry for not being as specific with my words as you apparently require.

I don't have any requirements. Don't know why you are getting snarky. You gave out incorrect information that I corrected. The issue wasn't specificity. You were just wrong.

You were just wrong.

A 780ti, "beefy", will have a harder time decoding x265 than a newer 460.

If you're not on this current generation of cards, you will need a pretty "beefy" GPU/CPU to handle decoding. You don't need "new", "modern", hardware. You need "beefy" older hardware.

In the first place I was talking in terms of people hoping to play x265 on their laptop, or older desktop rig that they may use as an HTPC. You need to look at the context. A lot of pirates aren't on the bleeding edge of technology, they just want to watch free shit. I want to help people learn, in case they didn't already know.

Meanwhile you think it's important to call me out on using the word "beefy" in my comment, which wasn't even directed toward you. You interjected, just to correct me.

Your staunch lack of thought is funny as hell. You can't consider the fact that you're so petty, you are making an argument out of a word that you care so much about, you went out of your way to correct me for using it.

also HEVC or x265 content requires a beefy CPU/GPU to play, especially in 4k.

This is flat out wrong. You need an entry level graphics card that can be had on sale for $100.

You can move the goal posts all you want.

You CAN buy a NEW graphics card, for $100.

Or, you can assume it will just work with whatever hardware you already have, and therefore you need BEEFY hardware.

What, you think people just drop $100 just to watch their favorite shows in HEVC?

I'm saying "if you want to watch this, your hardware needs to be pretty new or a pretty high-tier card from an older generation."

you're saying "buy a new card so you can watch this new stuff."

Completely wrong interpretation of the context of this whole conversation. I'm not recommending people buy anything new, I'm warning them that things might not work right if they don't have newer hardware.

I'm not saying anything. And you didn't say "you need beefy or new hardware". You said you need beefy hardware, which was incorrect. I just pointed that out and you got all worked up.

Why do you act like I'm the one getting worked up when this literally looks like you sitting in the corner, and then getting so peeved about a single word that you feel the need to pipe up about it. Makes no sense to me how you think I'm worked up, when you literally started this whole argument.

I wasn't peeved at all. I was correcting incorrect information you gave to someone who asked a question. It's called being helpful. I wouldn't want the guy to go out and buy a 980 because he thinks he needs beefy hardware when the least powerful cards on the market will play it no problem.

There is no argument.

You really thought you were being helpful. Really. You thought someone would go buy a $450 video card because of advice from the internet.

I doubt that. Just admit you're a petty asshole who wanted to stick his nose in and call someone out for using a word you disagreed with, and there being absolutely zero factual error with the original comment.

Yes? You're quite angry and I have no idea why. Being wrong about something so minor isn't that big of a deal.

Bitrate between different codecs is not directly comparable.

I'm not comparing it, I just pointed out the codec of most rips and the bitrate it is at.

I just threw in the codec in order to make my point. Most high-bitrate rips are going to be better quality than low-bitrate rips.

I'm not comparing it

Well, ya kinda did when you said

there is a noticeable difference between 96 and 1000 kbps audio

but yeah, obviously 96kbps MP3 is worse than 1000+kbps AC3. For the negligible difference in file size that it makes, I wonder why people don't opt for the highest quality audio.

Compatibility, probably. MP3 can be played by everything, AC3 is still limited, albeit nowadays it shouldn't be a big problem.

320 MP3 is great. Why bother using 96?? That's my point. It's still negligible file space relative to the video.

Ah, gotcha - you're right then.

shit you're right yeah I did compare it. i just replied from my inbox, didn't reread what I wrote.

I think why people don't opt for it when they download a movie is because not enough people know what to look for, they see screenshots of the movie, like what they see, then download.

I guess some people might not care, either. Or might not notice. My girlfriend watches shitty streaming sites that sound like the audio is coming from a tin can and the video is all muddy and terrible. Like it's been re-encoded a dozen times into increasingly lower quality. It drives me crazy, even if I'm in another room and can hear it or briefly see it. She sees no benefit to spending 5 minutes to download a 3GB H.265 file.

Hopefully h265 will become more mainstream once more devices have hardware decoding built in. My Motorola Turbo 2 can decode HEVC at 720p just fine, but 1080p at a high bitrate struggles. Older laptops (and desktops even) don't fully support decoding it, and until that changes most people won't consider switching.

But I agree, if you've got the bandwidth and time, might as well get the best quality you can find.

At 96kbps? It absolutely is. Unless the entire movie is only spoken word without sound effects, it's going to sound positively horrible in mpeg and positively horrible in ogg, aac, etc.

Thanks, yiffy.

Different codecs encode differently. 320kbps MP3 sounds horrid compared to 320kbps AAC or OGG.

I'm not saying any codec will sound good at 96kbps

Good, that was the entire point of that post, and we're discussing yify rips at that exact bitrate.

Do you not know how encoding works?

I'll leave you and your ad-hominem to it.

ad-hominem

No ad-hominem. Actual question based on your post. Hence my video-encoding comparison because I honestly thought you didn't.

Is there much of a difference between 320kbps and 1000+?

Assuming stereo? Yes. It's mostly overkill. Surround sound? You need it for the extra channels.

Anything above 320kbps is literally wasted space

it's 1000kbps to account for multiple channels rather than just stereo

Yup, most 5.1+ rips need at least 2x the space of a normal stereo file, usually there is less "info" needed for the rear channels/sub than front, but depending on the compression it doesn't affect the bit rate

  1. That applies to mp3. AC3 and DTS are completely different animals.

  2. Given the same codec, 320kbps stereo would be roughly equivalent quality to 960kbps 5.1

So what you're saying is ridiculously misleading.

Don't mind the downvotes, you're right.

Really depends on if you're only talking stereo or 5.1+ channels. The 320 kbps is very dependent on the assumption of stereo.

Unless it's 6 or 8 channel audio...

It is mostly excessive. The point of it is having a "master" copy, or as close to a master as you can get.

I wish people would stop calling them "Yify movies". It's YTS now. Yify handed it off to Otto who then just murdered it.

With that being said, they had their place. On a 40" TV they worked. 55"+ TV's weren't that common place. 90% of people were watching his movies on their PC monitor back when he became popular. Not to mention connection speeds have become better.

Yify was the HD/3D version of Axxo.

Now with Plex, Kodi, Emby, and a million other library front ends hooked to bigger TV's, they no longer have their place.

I fail to see how library apps displaced a movie ripper/distributor. I honestly don't see the correlation.

I don't think media center and frontend library apps have displaced them, but rather they've increased the watching of media on living room TVs.

When Axxo made 700MB DVD Rips, people either watched it on their PC, or burned it to a DVD. That was the point of his sizes.

In home streaming was in it's infancy when Yify started. He himself used to just watch them on his PC. Smart TV's were just starting to be a thing. 55" TV's or larger weren't in every livingroom. So people watched them on a PC or burned them to a Blu Ray.

He was filling a niche category of people. Now things like Plex are wide spread. Now people can stream their content within their homes. Now if people have a TV smaller than 55" it's surprising.

Those same movies that looked amazing on your PC because the screen was smaller and that was the only way you knew how to play the content, look like dog shit.

And I haven't even brought up the advances in people's internet connections. When Yify started and I was "hanging" out on that site, People with over 15Mbps internet were rare. I work for my ISP and was amazed I got 15Mbps.

I now get 500/150, have a pretty badass Plex server. 25 people or "accounts" stream from me. And my bedroom TV is now larger than my livingroom TV was at that time. So I want better content. Yify movies (Actually YTS), don't cut it anymore. And it is getting that way with more and more people.

I'm actually in the process of building an entire new setup for content delivery. And know how I used to do this? Download Axxo movies, and use windows media center with my Xbox.

Times are advancing fast. Yify had it's place just like Axxo did. And there are a couple of really good RG's that are leading the charge into the HEVC/high bitrate/up to 4K era.

So, bigger TVs and higher resolutions are what displaced yify, not library apps.

The growing popularity and simplicity for not so knowledgeable people to setup an in home streaming service like Plex and the advance in technology to support those platforms is what displaced them. It all runs hand in hand.

Please point us to these better versions! Where can I get amazing looking content for my Plex server too?

Again, quality is in the eye of the beholder. But anything by UTR has proven to be well within my expectations. If you want more than that and are only streaming locally, DDR has some really high bit rate stuff in 4K.

Are these the uploaders like YiFi?

No. They are the next gen of encoders and RG's. Releasing in HEVC in 1080 and 4K. BUT in smaller sizes. DDR releases 4K in HEVC at a much larger size. The quality is for those who are picky.

So you're telling me the codec I need, but is there a place to grab those uploads like YiFi used to have?

Or, do you encode in this format from your Bluray collection?

You have to stop using Yify as a benchmark for what you're looking for. If you want MP4's in the same size and quality, you probably won't find anyone better than him.

If you want a slightly larger file size and much better quality, you need to make sure you can handle HEVC and then get them from UTR. I will PM you a link or two.

Oh no my bad lol! I didn't see what sub I was replying in. This was on my front page. Ha!

Oh yeah. YiFi isn't my benchmark I was being vague because I didn't see the sub. Thanks for the links!

25 streams? What's the spec?

Right now....

E3-1241v3 Supermicro MB 4 x 3TB WD REDs in a RAID 5.

And it never actually runs 25 streams at once. I think the most I have had at anytime was 6. But again, not everything requires transcoding.

HEVC really taxes the CPU. My new build will utilize a blade server to do remote transcoding, and a completely separate storage server.

That seems interesting, do you have the spec for the transcoding one? Or you haven't decided yet?

Each blade will have dual E5620's x 4 blades. Unless I get more funds, then I will be getting dual X5650's on each blade. Roughly a passmark of 39000 with the E5620's.

I don't think to know what a blade server is, I'll google it ASAP. Thanks I appreciate it anyway!

This is what I plan on using.

It's only a 4 blade chassis. And if you look hard enough you can find used/refurbished models pretty cheaply. As an example, the version I spec'd out will run me close to $600.

That's cheap! Thanks!

You don't need to break the bank to have a serious setup. Yes my current server cost me $1500. But that was all brand new stuff. And I planned on allowing close friends and family stream from me.

If you plan your content and your clients correctly, you can very easily get away with a direct stream server using something almost akin to a potato.

Say you had just a single Roku Premiere+, everything I get from UTR is a direct stream on those. Almost no CPU utilization. So with that you could probably just get away with something like a Raspberry Pi 3 as the "server" and point it at a NAS drive on your network.

That's glorious, thank you very much!

This is one of the worst examples of anecdotal evidence I've ever read. TVs and monitors are judged on objective measures too, like color gamut, brightness etc. Your eyes may not be able to tell the difference, but some people do care and can tell the difference. Sure it'll look better alone, but it won't be the same or even close.

I read his comment is "when all the hot girls are gone you won't realize how ugly this one is".

I have heard that statement before, which always made me laugh.

have an upvote

It's not evidence - it's opinion.

It's useful for people to know that Yify is meant to be mediocre-quality, fast-download. Beyond that, people have their own preferences.

To you I'm guessing Yify is a mockery of the system - an enemy to quality and standards.

To me, it's good enough.

Oh, quite the contrary. I think everything has its place. But that best buy blanket statement really upset me. It's just ignorance. I didn't know Yify exists, and for my daughter and her kids movies it might be perfect. Does frozen, Moana, and Cinderella require 30-40 gb combined space? Hell no. Do I want the new rogue one rip as a high bitrate remux/encode or even as the Blu Ray iso? Absolutely.

i only download 10+gb 1080p rips, or 720gb for tv shows since i dont care. for hevc im still trying to figure out what the magic file size lower threshold is for high quality.

that being said, definitely looking forward to backing up my blu rays using hevc and crazy good settings.

I personally prefer to download movies with a 10+mbps bitrate and I won't go for anything under 7500kbps. Taking the length of the movie in mind, I hardly ever download a film with a size smaller than 7,5 GB. You can definitely see the difference compared to the low encodes. If you have trouble finding high encodes or the transfer rate is slow, I'd advice either private trackers or private usenet indexers.

I used to download Sparks encodes, along with all famous groups, with files of 7GB+. There are times I just don't need that much of quality, so I choose the WEB-DL.

But, for some reason, the 1080p WEB-DL that used to be 6GB, are now becoming less and less (4GB, 3GB). What is happening?

Which sites do you download from?

My preference is Usenet, as it guarantees maximum download speed without having to worry about ratio's. The top both indexers are pfmonkey and dognzb. They have almost everything you're looking for and in high quality. A private torrent tracker I occasionaly use is hd-space. There are better hd trackers out there, but it's a decent one for the average user.

I tend to use rargb for my shows works well and I don't have to bother trying to somehow get into one of those private groups

That is exactly what I have Sonarr and Radarr pointed at. I love their releases. And once something comes out on a higher bitrate in HEVC from UTR, I just swap it out.

I tend to use rargb for my shows works well and I don't have to bother trying to somehow get into one of those private groups

I no longer do any local files- I have a remote server with many terabytes of storage and a gigabit connection

The practical limitation is the connection of the streaming device- Comcast sucks- so I generally download 480p TV shows and 720p movies for a compromise between quality and streamability for the large number of users

1080p at 1gb is bad, but 1080p at higher bitrates transcoded to 480p is absolute shit

Neat, I've used H.265 before but I had no idea that it was capable of that. Could I convert all my ripped blurays to H.265 with virtually no impact to the image quality? That would save a ton of space on my NAS.

HEVC is great. Just make sure you have a strong enough computer to decode it while watching.

went on a holiday and brought a few movies and series with me on my external harddrive. laptop wasn't able to play them and neither were any of the phones.

thankfully I went to italy in the off season and all the free fucking wifis were turned off because nobody was there. had to actually buy a sim card with mobile data..

Roku Ultra supports it.

I just saw this too. The hardware decoder in the Roku 4 is rated for Main 10 encode level 5.1 or below and supports 10-bit.

That is miles ahead of the PS4 and XBone.

I have the Roku 4 and Ultra and prefer the Ultra, it runs cooler, and plays all my h264 and h265 files, the 4 does not support all h264 flavors..

That's awesome, but I've just got an HTPC and a NAS. Does everything I need

Real world the benefit of h265 over h264 is often only 15-25%.

Depends on the content. OP is correct to mention it but watch out for H.265 hype too!

DO NOT re encode from an already compressed rip. Unless you redo the rip from the source, you will be greatly disappointed.

Yeah I was planning to rerip using makemkv if possible. If not, I won't bother and just stick with using my x264 rips.

It can't hurt to do some testing. Find what settings and methods work for you. Handbrake is an awesome place to start. I don't think MakeMKV can do H.265, but if you could rip the raw movie and then use Handbrake, that may work.

Alright, I'll try that. Thanks for the suggestion.

Only an idiot would think an already compressed video file can be compressed to another compressed video file without image quality impact.

So I've been converting my entire library to h265 for about a year and a half now.

1) H265 takes way longer to do the high compression ratio encodes that retain the excellent quality they are known for. On a 4.7gHz 6700k I would get about a 6:1 ratio. Meaning a 100 minute movie file would take ~10 hours to encode.

2) The quality at very low bitrates are starkly superior to h264. This becomes less true at higher quality and higher bitrates. For example, at 2mbps, h265 and 1080p can be completely watchable, while x264 will be blurry and shit with lots of artifacts in the blacks and no ability to see anything during fast movement scenes.

That that up to 20mbps and the difference is less noticeable. x265 is almost entirely transparent to a blu ray 1080p source at about 18 to 20 mbps, but h265 doesn't cut that in half like you'd expect based on the low bitrate improvement. I personally encode very high quality to get the best compression and end up at about 12-13mbps to get an output that is transparent to the blu ray by my eye. 25-40% more efficient compression is all you can expect at the high quality, and it will take 4x as long to encode. x264 may be better for your needs.

3) Not all devices have hardware h265 decode yet and software encode is extremely heavy. Serious, that same 4.7ghz 6700k could not software decode high bitrate x265 on playback at 100% usage. It's insanely hard to play back. You have to have hardware decoder in any device you want to play the files on. Anything phone pre snap 810 may not have it, and many 2016 low end phones don't have it yet either. If you want to make a NAS and be able to watch your vids from a tablet or phablet, again x264 may be the better choice.

What software do you use for encoding? I'd like to get my hands on it if the UI is fairly user friendly.

Not all devices have hardware h265 decode yet and software decode is extremely heavy

Found this out when I DL'd a 1080p h265 file and thought something was broken with the rip, nope just my computer couldn't decode it, my HTPC just has an old AMD APU which was perfectly fine for high bitrate h264 but ground to a halt with 265, it does just fine with 720p 265 so I've been getting most of my TV shows at much lower file size which is nice since that is where 70% of my HDD space is dedicated so far.

Thank you for the detailed response. I'm amazed that you need a 4.7Ghz 6700k to decode h265 fast enough! While I don't use any mobile devices with my NAS, I'm concerned that my HTPC with an i3-3225 might not be able to handle h265 decoding. Regardless, those are some amazing results and I'll be doing some research to see if h265 is right for me (or maybe I need a new HTPC upgrade :P)

I think I have a couple of shows I downloaded that are already encoded with h265 so I'll check those out and see if my HTPC can handle them. h265 might be a better solution for watching stuff on my gaming rig too (i5-4690) so it might not be a complete loss.

Nice post, thx for the information. I hope more and more devices will support H265 in the future. For low bitrate streaming it's superior to H264 like you said.

sounds more like a hobby than something you'd do to actually enjoy watching it. Kudos to you though mate.

Some people turn piracy into an opportunity to learn about data compression. I'm definitely going to start picking up Blu Rays and encoding them myself for my favorite releases. I built a home theater and it's hard to not be a snob about quality now.

I got started a few years ago with netflix blu-rays and handbrake. Learned a lot and enjoyed it quite a bit.

Meaning a 100 minute movie file would take ~10 hours to encode.

Fucking hell. Sounds like an excellent task for Zen though. Wonder what it's times are like.

Really want to build a Zen rig now. Just for that and Plex transcoding.

It's really not bad when you are shrinking a 50GB blu ray to 12GB with absolutely zero apparent quality loss whatsoever. I have about 700 hours of content done now and I'm only just now starting on my second 4TB drive on my NAS.

Benchmarks suggest if you can get a rock solid stable 3.9ghz overclock on all 8 cores with SMT on an 1800X would be about 180% the encode speed, or ~3.4:1 encode ratios. Maybe ~5.5-6 hours instead of 10.

My understanding is that x265 isn't quite working right yet on ryzen though for some reason.

That's definitely worth it. Most of my files are smaller than that. Ryzen is definitely having some teething issues, I think AMD wanted to push it out rather than waiting any longer.

I can't imagine how long a task like this would take on my 2700k. Even at 4.8Ghz chances are it would take 12+ hours.

Yeah, x265 is still immature even after years. You can encode main-10 medium speed just using the preset quality slider at maybe 18 and get a really nice high quality encode at low bitrates in no time at all (maybe 40 minutes for that 100 minute source on my machine).

But if you try to do the same thing for high bitrates, it gets you no-where. The compression ratio vs quality for fast encodes breaks down badly compared to x264. Most of the time you will gain zero compression ratio at all unless you use extremely high quality compression and an extremely slow speed setting.

It's gotten a little better in the fact that the compression ratio is higher than it used to be at high bitrates, but we lost even more time to get it imho.

Also Google and friends have been working on an alternative, free open codec to compete with x265 with the VP10 codec.

VP9 competes with h.265, you're thinking of NetVC which VP10 got mixed into along with Theora and a few others which will compete with h.266 or whatever they're going to call the next generation proprietary format

TIL, yeah VP9 was the one specifically targeted at x265. Thanks.

What program do you use to encode?

I purchased the native x265 encoder because two years ago third party support was still pretty lacking. x265 is now quite well integrated into Handbrake.

The native encoder is nice because it has a CPU usage slider that lets you instantly free up resources if you want to encode on your main machine and use it for web stuff (or even gaming) without having to cancel an encode. You're overclock better be rock solid stable though if you want to multitask that seriously.

Unfortunately it's pretty picky on source material. I've either had to resource material or actually encode lossless x264 in Handbrake first to then compress it to x265. Which just murders the compression ratio because the lossless x264 encode increases file size by at least 10%, often 25%.

If you have multiple computers in the home you can setup distributed encoding and seriously cut down on the encode times for x265. Using Ripbot etc.

Short answer, yes

Lossy bluray to Lossy264 to lossy 265 conversion = barf

Wasn't planning on converting to a lossy source again, I was just planning on reripping from Blu-ray.

Warning: many smart TVs will not play or recognize H265

I play media from my HTPC so everything should be fine.

That will work just fine, it's too bad we are held hostage by TV manufactures and whether or not you want to support certain formats. It sounds like technically the TVs would require better processing power to decode H265 and that might be the hold up

Same quality in half the size? Sorry I just don't buy that claim.

Suppose you encode AAAA as 4A. This is half the size but contains the same amount of data.

I understood he meant HEVC or H.265 being half the size with same quality of H.264.

Ah, fair enough. Here's a paper.

Apparently my employer's internet connection gets me through that paywall.

Unfortunately, all my attempts to save/copy the document into a format I could share here for free didn't work. Piracy foiled...

Just stick the DOI in at Sci-Hub.io to get the PDF.

I'm more concerned with how it pans out in practice. Show me 2 movies one encoded with H.264 other with HEVC half in size with same quality.

It's not a claim, it is a academically studied and a proven fact

I had thjis exact argument with a friend the other day. They wanted to watch Rogue One by streaming a "1080p" version on Kodi. I said that I would download the proper 1080p Blu Ray rip and he couldn't get past that the quality was going to be night and day. So I let him watch his shitty stream version which he later told me sucked because it buffered so much, maybe because of all the demand lol

My in-laws have that box and keep streaming these crappy quality movies, I just don't get it, I would just wait for a high-quality download

Thats the downside of public facing Kodi servers. People hear "free movies", and get all excited.

People actually make their Kodi servers public? That sounds like a bad plan to me all-around.

There are public facing plex servers too.

Is the posted image at 1.5mbps on h.264? Or is it h.265?

Also, I just got the 10Gb rogue one the other day and it was a waste, because I didn't like the movie. So maybe I should have just got a smaller one to see if I liked it.

Since 1080p is 2.25 times more the pixels than 720p, I'd figure you'd have to have at least 2.25 times larger of a file for the 1080p rip to look better. Or maybe somewhere in between 1x and 2.25x filesize.

There arent many movies I want taking up 10 or 20 gigs on my drive, also I wish people would stop using H265 as many smart TVs do not play or recognize it which makes it completely fucking useless

This is feast or famine thinking. Aim for 4-7GB 720p rips and you'll find that to be the best compromise.

+1 with HEVC content

HEVC/H.265 and x265 are two different things. One is a video compression standard and the other is a encoder.

Sources are the smallest (top) and largest (bottom) 1080p versions of "Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring" available on a torrent search engine.

I found the 3D versions of those movies, they looked great.

At about 30gb I'd damn well hope so though.

I am not 100% but I think that 3D movies require double the size for the same quality, for reference the 35mb/s Lord Of The Rings was a 68GB download, lol

Oh wow, what size was the file from the first image?

Is that the normal 700mb one?

2.5G

When looking at stuff, I order it to size and with the most seeds.

order it by size ascending or descending?

Definitely go for the highest size

For me it depends:

  • Archieving / Collecting / Hoarding: Highest quality (and thus size)
  • Quickly watch a fun movie with the "popcorn" friends who don't care for quality: low size 1080p so we can start watching immediately
  • Watching on a flight: Medium sized x265 encode (if available)

I've got a group of friends and we all appreciate a decent rip, so I'm always stocking up on 10-12GB rips according to our list of movies to watch. Sometimes you need a movie in a pinch though, and that's where those 1.5 GB rips have their place.

true. unfortunately i only have the "don't see a difference" family and friends, who swear not hearing and seeing a difference on a 60" 4K TV when watching a 1080p 10mbps rip, and a 720p xvid rip...

:'(

The seed count doesn't always reflect the download speed you will get, I regularly get the same speed on a 4 seed download as a 40

Yeah there's other factors like the seeds' location and Internet connection speeds.

Also do you show up as a seed even if you download only part of the files? Cause that would mean some parts of a torrent may actually take a long time to download despite having lots of seeds.

You're still shown as a leech until the file is done.

You're only shown as a seed when the file is done.

What if you partially download a torrent?

You're already sharing, but are still a leech.

Yeah that's what I meant. For me if I untick the sample folder and .srt file of a movie for example, and there is a .mkv in the folder, once the mkv is done the client shows 100% completion and "Seeding".

Yes you definitely do, I happened to look for rogue one 2 hours after release and despite being connected to dozens of seeds I was getting 15-200kb/s and downloaded Arrival at 6mb/s

That's because of the ratio of seeders/leechers. The seeds you were connected to had completed the download entirely. However, you can also connect to other peers that haven't finished, they'll share what they have available.

But it shows you what's most popular.

Popular is not equal to better quality

But it tends to correlate with higher download speeds.

Sometimes you don't care about quality, you just wanna watch a damn movie.

True, but I usually don't care about time because if I want to watch a movie as soon as I can I simply go to the cinema.

But I get your point.

BDRip vs full blu-ray?

BDRips can be multiple bitrates between 1.5 Mbps and all the way up to RAW blu-ray

I usually aim for rips with a video bitrate of ~10 to ~15 Mbps, do you think that's potato quality?

35 Mbps sounds a bit high to me, that's why I was asking what was the release.

It depends on the person really. I recently set up a home theater and I had to trash a lot of old rips I had. I generally aim for 8-10 Mbps, and even higher like 12-15 on newer movies. Older movies I have as low as 1.5-3, but that's cause they're so hard to find in decent quality anyways.

How much bitrate do the bottom and upper black bars have? I feel like I could download full blu-rays but that's wasted space isn't it?

I think I'll build a home theater as well in 4 to 6 years probably and I'd like to not to have to re download all the stuff I have now.

I couldn't tell you. All of the rips of recent movies I get are cinema wide and don't have the bars. I can't imagine they'd add too much, since the encoder should know how to handle it.

Where can one find these cinema wide releases?

Most of them are. For example the top movie on piratebay for HD movies is 1920x808

But those still have black bars. At least for me. Very rarely will I find a movie without them so I don't think it's a res issue.

Well they have black bars when you play it full screen on a 16:9 display, but they aren't in the video itself.

Ayyyy. Sorry I am dumb.

It really depends on your screen and whether you want high end surround sound or not. I used to download YIFI rips and not even notice the difference, then I slowly kept increasing size until recently when I switched to only getting the largest available and I could never go back. 10-15 isn't bad at all.

Now I can't stop thinking I need better quality.

First world problems I suppose.

It's as first world as first world problems get

You NEED it...

Quality whore

We all are. Spoiled with real life resolution. Can't go back!

A BDRip is a re-encode. A full blu-ray is a remux (or an image, but I don't see the point of that, save for cloning).

Well a remix gets rid of bonus features and an image retains them..

How does that compare to this version?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBGEG21CGo0

I can't believe I just watched that to the end. So worth it.

2 minutes video

can't believe watched whole

something something millenial attention span

Gandalf Sax guy 10 Hours [600:05]

Big Dirty Stinkin Sax

Hutch Touch in Entertainment

15,813,245 views since Sep 2012

bot info

the difference between a 35mb/s vs 1.5mb/s file is straightforward... but what i really need to know is which is superior between a 5mb/s 720p and a 9mb/s 1080p, since those are the typical bitrates of scene bluray rips.

as it is, i go for the 1080p release but ideally i'd prefer something in the 12mb/s range.

also curious to know at which bitrate HEVC 1080p becomes better image quality than a typical 9mb/s h264 1080p...

I'm pretty interested in this blind guy that can see.

well you know how blind people have heightened senses, so they can even see better than the average person with sight.

No no no, they can smell the the visuals.

Ken M?

That doesn't sound right, but I don't know enough about blind people to dispute it.

Lee Sin can see now.

Immortal sight cannot be obscured!

He's one with the bitrate and the bitrate is one with him.

I'm pretty interested in this blind guy that can see.

I'm pretty sure rips of Daredevil have been out for a while now.

So I'm not sure if anyone has answered and this isn't my strong area but...

1280x720 comes out to 921,600 pixels.
1920x1080 comes out to 2,073,600 pixels.

I took 5mb bitrate and divided it by 1280x720 and 9mb bitrate and 1920x1080.

In my calculations, I divided the bitrate in KB by the megapixels of each resolution to give a number scale we can see better.

1280x720: ~5.42

1920x1080: ~4.34

At least from a non-visual standpoint, It appears 1270x720 at 5mbps would be better quality than 1920x1080 at 9mbps. About 20% better.

thanks a lot for this explanation. there's not much on reddit that pertains to practical information for me, but this math is something i will use every time i want to download a movie.

of course, there is still a part of me that leans towards getting the 9mbps 1080p over the 5mbps 720p but that's a struggle for another day. i suppose ideally the best course of action would be to wait a bit longer for those higher quality 1080p releases.

judging from a typical scene release, based on my sight alone, when a 1080p has double the bitrate (without reaching that magical 2.25x number) the image looks sharper to me. there is more of a 3d effect and sense of depth.

Some say HEVC is about half the file size. Also where can you find well seeded 12 Mbps rips? I don't have very good luck, then again I haven't been looking for the most recent rips.

i typically find 12mbps rips on private trackers. they are internal releases so they don't often make it on public sites. also, the scene rushes to get those 9mbit rips out and then a couple weeks later the better rips come out with much less fanfare.

i guess you have to find groups that specialize in those higher quality releases.

like

Arrival 2016 1080p BluRay DTS x264 - D-Z0N3 - 18.9mbps vs Arrival.2016.1080p.BluRay.x264-SPARKS - 9.2mbps

or

Passengers 2016 1080p BluRay DD5.1 x264-DON - 12.9mbps vs Passengers.2016.1080p.BluRay.x264-SPARKS - 9.2mbps

I downloaded an Exkinoray rip of Arrival that was 15mbps but there were tons of glitches and artifacting that I turned it off and watched the Sparks release. At 15mbps, I found it to be noticeably better image quality but without the strictness of scene rules perhaps there isn't as much consistency and accountability on internal releases.

There are the TUSAHD releases but they get nuked quickly :/

It's not that I can't find 2016 releases in 10-15 mbps rips, those I can find and wait a bit from public trackers. It's the not so recent movies, like 2000 and earlier, that I have trouble finding. I also had to dip out of the private tracker scene, so there's that too.

sorry, no idea man. i don't watch movies more than once and don't archive for long term. if i want to watch an old movie i just accept that low bit rates are part of the pre-hd aesthetic.

your best bet is probably still private trackers.

Well, 1080p just just over 2x the number of pixels as 720p, so in theory, the bitrate should be just over 2x higher to compensate, no?

This is why a 1.7GB 720p WEB-DL and a 1.9GB 1080p WEB-DL piss me off, the 720p looks better. a 1080p WEB-DL should be roughly twice the size

Just make sure you have to find in decent quality anyways.

So this is a bit off topic, but if there are two 1080p BluRay encodes (e.g. Moana on TPB) and one is x265 and the other is x264, how do you know which one is better quality? Can't just compare bitrates.

I think that x264 bitrate is around 2x x265 bitrate.

Does that mean that an x264 video is half the size with the same quality in x265?

No, its not even close.

I don't think so, x265 is not perfect AFAIK that's why I'm waiting for AV1.

woah whats AV1? Sounds legit.

Basically a royalty-free codec. If i recall correctly it has 5% more compression with 15% less CPU usage compared to the h265, but I'm on mobile and I can't check my source so don't quote me on this, just google it.

Quite possible, the predecessor VP9 can be decoded a lot faster than H265

Basically a royalty-free codec. If i recall correctly it has 5% more compression with 15% less CPU usage compared to the h265, but I'm on mobile and I can't check my source so don't quote me on this, just google it.

~ /u/HoardingYourPosts

loool ofc this exists ^

Who created this bitch of a bot: I HATE YOU, whoever you are.

Nice mate. Don't need to google it now you've provided an explanation. I'll wait till it becomes commonplace with us streaming plebs.

You got them wrong way around, H.265 video is half the size of the H.264 with same subjective quality.

Also x264 and x265 are encoders, HEVC/H.265 and AVC/H.264 are video compression standards.

In this example or in most examples?

That's a rule of thumb, it's not precise but it's pretty much always true AFAIK

Nah, that's the goal H265 developers are aiming for, but we're not there yet. As of yet the bitrate can generally be reduced between 10-30% for the same quality compared to H264, but at the cost of 4-6 fold increase in required computing power.

Oh I'm sorry I'm not that good anything related to h265.

This is a pretty great article on the matter

x265 is the successor to x264, designed to be better. By the simple advancement of the state of the art, I would expect x265 to simply always be better. For the same size media (blu-ray), it will be able to aqueeze more quality into the same bits.

But only some blu-ray players support x265. So the only reason to buy x264 instead of x265 is if you expect to play the media on a blu-ray player which does not support x265.

HEVC/H.265 and AVC/H.264 are video compression standards. x264 and x265 are encoders.

corrected, ty

x265/hevc kicks in with similar quality on blind tests at very low to low bitrates. my rule of thumb is, for anything below 5mbps video bitrate i try to find a x265. for anything above i'll get the 1080/2160p x264 encoding.

Most decent x264 1080ps will be at around 10-12mbps. I wouldn't download a 1080 x265 for anything other than mobile or very small screens.

H265 are too heavy for mobile AFAIK

Too heavy for your mobile, I think. MX can decode it pretty fine with my 2015 flagship phone.

well, an x265 1080p of 5mbps is indistinguishable (blind testing) from a 10-12mbps x264 1080p stream, according to the sources above.

even just with tv shows the blocking is noticeable on my 27". this only gets worse the larger u go.

But then again the encoder is so slow most people use shit settings with it...
Can be worse, unless you go really low bitrate

Smooth Video Project also seems to work a lot better with higher quality videos.

SVP master race

ugh why??

Is there a problem?

i find that a bizarre thing to be advocating in a thread about video quality.

are those shots taken with a phonecam or something? :thinking:

My screen resolution is 1366*768 . so which one i should grab=> 720p or 1080p with the same bit-rate ?

720p. Try downloading from ETRG. He has best 720 rips.

You should grab a better screen.

i do have a better screen and tv at my home, i am a student so i have to stick with my laptop in my dorm. Hope next time you rather help or ignore. thanks

For the same bitrate go with 720, 1080 won't be worth it until you get close to double the bitrate

720p

Are you seriously trying to lecture some idiots on the internet by wasting your time with this? You do realize this post won't make any difference whatsoever.

Are you seriously trying to lecture some idiots on the internet by wasting your time with this? You do realize this comment won't make any difference whatsoever.

You seem like a cunt

and OP seems like noshitsherlock

I'm wasting my time talking to you, but a lot of people into piracy don't understand bitrates and compression fully and could benefit from the discussion this post facilitated.

I prefer movies that fit into 10mb webm files thanks

Does that exist?

vp9 really is crazy huh

I like that people think picture size is the level of quality. I could make a video that's 1080p and it's just 20 fuzzy color boxes. But it's 1080p!

I usually download from known creators like joy's 10bit x265 versions or tigole

that's because both are part of UTR and have the same standards and settings.

I may be wrong but I have noticed that colours of UTR are bit washed out. Is it only me?

Hmm not that I have noticed anyways. Maybe my TV is getting old.

If only more people knew about the concept of bits per pixel.

Briefly, bits per pixel is the amount of data applied to each pixel in the file. The formula is the per second data rate, divided by the number of pixels per second, which you compute by multiplying the width times the resolution times the frame rate (data rate/width x height x frame rate). For example, suppose you encoded a 640x360x30 fps file at 800Kbps. The bits per pixel would be 0.116, calculated by dividing 800,000/(640x360x360).

High quality videos tend to be in the 0.15 range. Less than 0.1 is bad quality and more than 0.2 is considered wasted space/bandwidth as the increase in size doesn't reflect as increase of visual details no more.

Isn't a bit one string of numbers that describe a color? How can a tenth of a bit describe a pixel?

Thanks for the information though, from /r/all and I was trying to understand what the difference was!

Encoded videos aren't just a series of images. There are keyframes that have all the information for the entire frame, and then from there, each subsequent frame is a modification of the previous.

Don't forget that B frames can reference the next frame as well.

or why a 300 mb episode of the simpsons looks much better than a 300mb episode of modern family

If my brain is working correctly, this formula works for any encoder type. But would the ranges be the same? I'm guessing with newer codecs like AVC, the ranges would be lower?

This comment is probably what you're looking for.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/60soz8/-/dfa01p0

This should be the top comment. Great information.

I'm always using the MediaInfo utility to give me this information. It calculates the bpp.

That's good information, thanks!

My internet is shit. So I mostly go with smaller download sizes. However, if it is something that is a visual experience(nature docos, attempts at realistic CGI, huge action movies, etc) then I will wait out the longer download, because it is definitely worth it.

This guy knows what's up.

Thanks YIFY! V: 10, A: 10

better than VHS! yay!

meh, i usually let the SPARKS fly! Its not bad at around 10mb/s or higher. I'm hoping HEVC will be more widely used as its algorithm can work wonders, and 4k content is inevitable. Also hoping HDDs come in 100TB drives soon, as burning on DL DVD blanks is tiresome.

Never had a problem with YIFY, they were like a 1-stop shop.

Some people have shit internet so its 10/10 for them. I get only 2mbps so yify was a god to me.

Exactly, there's a reason why YIFY is popular. The rest of the world has slow internet. It's not rocket science.

When Elon gives the world LEO-based satellite internet with decent latency and bandwidth, it will kinda be rocket science though.

but why not download SD or 720p? it will look better than bitstarved 1080p rip

people don't know that

I start my torrent when I wake up, go to work, come home, it's finished on a 15mbp/s connection for a 15gb download.

I download 4K on a 1 mbps connection.

Not to mention pretty much all your ability to discern that level of quality difference goes out the window as soon as you start looking at normal speed video vs still images. It's not an accident that when appliance stores show you the latest TVs they display still images or slowly panning nature scenes. And given the diminishing returns of increasing the bitrate, if 1.5 mb/s isn't good enough, 3 probably is. ...and that doesn't even take into account imperfect sight.

Umm, those appliance tv stores shows clips from movies and TV shows most of the time.

How shitty or small​ is your tv? The difference is extremely easy to spot. If the shit video doesn't give it away, the atrocious audio does.

how shitty or small is your tv?

Well, there's a reason I'm subscribed to /r/piracy.

I would say shitty audio is a much bigger deal. The ability to hear that difference is way more than the video compression issue lopping off some high frequency components not to mention that you really do process that audio signal in a much more direct sense. If you don't have even standalone speakers with your TV it's gonna suck. In addition to the attenuation of low and high frequencies, there will be distortion. If you're into movies that go boom and you don't have a sub-woofer, you're really missing out.

This is the correct answer

Or you could download a 3gb 720p WEB-DL in 20 minutes.

Yeah, no with that internet speed, mate.

2mbps 3gb 20 minutes

Depends on the movie, if it's slow changing bright scenes then YIFY style 1080p works as good, if it's dark/black or fast action most of the time then it's awful.

I don't know why I ever trusted those ratings

yep, since x265 hevc went common in 2015 in stopped dl-ing from yify all together. what really bother me most about his rips is the poor audio.

Anoxmous, or whatever his name was, was pretty good. The video was okayish, but for being slightly bigger than Yify files, the audio was much better, and actually in 5.1.

ah yes anoxmous was way more decent than yify imo. but most his torrent are likely dead since kickass are gone

No it isn't. Anoxmous torrents are alive. I just download his underworld copies. Torrents are located somewhere the net. You just have to find it.

since x265 hevc went common in 2015

I can't find files of this type for some reason... you'd think it would be popular with stuff like anime.

It's a lot of encoding time, and little difference in quality in comparison to that massive encoding time difference.

I'm honestly surprised it's caught on as much as it has. The primary benefit is 4k, and less so at smaller res like 1080p

Erm, no. The primary difference is the file size. A 1080p h.265 encoded file can be as much as two times more efficient than h.264 encoded files at same quality settings. This makes a huge difference to people with slow and limited internet.

When more devices have hardware decoding it will gain traction. The file sizes are pretty amazing.

Same, I only dl copies that have decent audio.

I still don't have a hardware decoder for x265 on the shelf near the BFT, and I don't like the transcoding DLNA game.

yifi rips, though? They just work.

cuz they were right, and I dont need every damn movie to take 15GB disk space

People don't seem to get the point of yify. He provides low sized rips for people who download movies and watch on a laptop with Apple earbuds

How do you watch pirated movies? In your home theater?

Yes

Yeah. Laptop with laptop speakers, need to fit as many as possible on a 3TB portable HDD. They were perfect.

Hey thats me

Yup. It is a consistent mediocre quality. Low file size, quick to download and easy to transport. Works without crazy codecs. If I want to download all 200 disney movies? yify. Rogue One? 25gb blu ray rip please.

I agree as well.
Summer blockbusters -12GB.
Movies I want to watch -12GB, and then replaced with a file size indicative of the enjoyment or special effects.
.
Average Comedies, Average Dramas, Average Movies, Chick Flicks without great tits -700megs.

Lol too much disparity there. I'll give shit movies up to 2GB and great movies around 16-20GB.

Bewbs deserves more quality than the movie. So Chick Flicks let's go full Remux.

Lol other way around for me but I get your point.

Rogue One is a Disney movie.

This guy gets it!

Speaking of Rogue One.

9.86GiB SPARKS 1080p ~9mbit/s:
https://ibb.co/g8i6tv

19.4GiB CtrlHD 1080p ~18mbit/s: https://ibb.co/crmRtv

What is this? A link to download rogue one in 4k?

Huh? It's a comparison screenshot of 2 different copies.

Right. But which site is it?

I'm confused what you are asking. Which site is what?

You posted a pic with a bunch of movies to torrent. What site is that? that you screenshot.

You posted a pic with a bunch of movies to torrent.

Um, no?

I posted 2 pictures. Each picture is a screenshot from a downloaded copy of Rogue One. The point is in comparing the quality of each copy showing that the larger 19.4GiB copy is actually much noticeably better quality than the 9.86GiB smaller copy.

I agree. Heavy cgi movies go 25gig bluray rip. Low cgi movies go yify.

I have precisely the opposite priorities.

You guys realize that starwars is part of the disney collection, right?

He clearly means disney animation

But in that case, and especially for the old actual cartoons, compression would be less noticeable?

Less noise basically, yes. The less complex detail, the better. Big patches of solid colors are easy and cheap to compress effectively.

It's almost as if people have different preferences and priorities

And for people who don't want to wait three days for a download complete on a slow internet connection.

I put em up on my TV, and its perfectly watchable. 700GB of movies. most all are YIFY releases. the non yify ones I've grabbed have had a ton of issues. (Valkyire has none of the speech as audible, its sounds like its around the corner or somthing)

"watchable" being the key word.

My 1978 Ford Fiesta is technically "driveable"

Otherwise know as normies

I just watch movies on my laptop in bed and my internet connection is slow at times. YIFY is perfect for me. If I had a faster connection I probably wouldn't use YIFY unless it was the only torrent available.

Just did the entire Stargate Atlantis series from blue ray...damn thing nearly takes up a TB of space. But coverting it down to more reasonable levels is gonna take ages.

Y'all need a NAS and FiOS then

Exactly why I always go for the 3gb 1080p releases. I don't even keep them on my hard drive after viewing anymore, I just want something that's going to download a lot quicker than the best quality stuff.

That doesn't mean the audio or video quality were 10/10.

Well yeah, that would be a waste. Most 15gb tips aren't great either. It's once you get over 30gp that the quality shines through

cuz they were right, and I dont need every damn movie to take 15GB disk space

15.75GB per hour. So a standard two hour movie would be 31.5GB

Meh, not worth it tbh. Obviously depends on the individual, if you have super faster internet and infinite disk space, then yeah, sure, why not. But for the average user, not really worth it. The difference between 480p and HD or even 720p and 1080 (even the slowest) was huge, and there were barely any drawbacks (the size difference is marginal). But the difference between 1080 1.5 mbs and 30 mbs is really not that big to bother with downloading 30+ GB for just one movie.

Yeah my movies are always around 9gb per file. Good enough for me

Which sites do you download from?

They were never high quality, and everyone but you apparently knew that. They were just good quality for the file size.

Because they are perfect for the resolution that is given. Full HD is 1920x1080. For your ≤ 22" PC screen with that resolution the quality is fine, especially for the file size. Of course, if you stretch that to 4k on your wall covering plasma TV you won't be happy. Or if your hobby is zooming in on video data instead of watching the film...

Build a home theater and you'll quickly start being more picky.

v10 a10 to me just meant there were no sync issues and the source wasn't a chewed up video tape.

Exactly, cam copies can still be 10/10... for a cam copy. Its like giving a graphics rating to a smart phone game, your not going to give it a 5/10 if its the best looking smart phone game ever made but still shit in comparison to PC gaming.

YIFY never gets a A: 10 from me anyway. 2 channels just isn't enough.

Thanks YIFY! V: 10, A: 10 V: 8, A: 5

as the home owner with a very nice 7.1 sound system, I always groaned when one of the roomates would come in with this brand new title that just got out and it would be a YIFY. I swear sometimes they were even mono

The pixelation in YIFY rips are the worst, especially when the camera pans.

Ive also noticed that colors are slightly washed out in YIFY videos

Nah dude, when it's dark is when you truly see how awful it is

That's kind of deep.

Google black crush. It's a side effect of high compression like yify

Yeah, the compression artifacts cause color banding something fierce. I can't stand 8 Bit rips for this reason... I only download 10 Bit color depth now.

Yea but people like us who got shit Internet dont have much choice

  • 3gb 720p WEB-DL
  • 2gb 576p BluRay
  • RealMedia file ripped in 2000 and downloaded off Limewire

Not everybody wants to dedicate over 3+GB of space to just ONE movie, especially when they have a LOT of movies. A lot of us prefer 700-900mb, myself included (sometimes I might DL a 2GB BRRip, but thats only if I have no choice). YIFY was a convenience, and a big one at that.

It's fine if you want to only have 700-900mb encodes. Just don't be disingenuous and pretend that it's 10/10 quality.

I never did pretend a 700mb BRRip was 10/10 quality, I just said it was good enough for me, my good man!

Hdds are diiiiiiiiiiiiirt cheap. I have over 1000 movies and hundreds of tv shows, and the vast majority are 30+gp rips. Large collections aren't an excuse. Why even bother downloading those garbage rips at that point? Just stream them

Some of us have shitty internet.

They are dirt cheap these days, even for big sizes, but the main thing for me is that I just don't want to dedicate that much space per video, its not that I can't afford the drives. Its a personal preference thing more than not having the means. I would love higher quality, but the amount of extra size a true HD video takes up just makes it not worth it, but of course, thats just me. Oothers will say the opposite, and I can understand both sides, but I'm defo on the "compact filesize" side of the fence.

Or when a lightning strikes.

I think that's compression artifacts, not pixellation. They likely use a horrible motion estimation setting.

YIFY are the McDonalds of torrents. Consistent, reliable and of acceptable quality. I've never had an unpleasant surprise when I've downloaded one. That counts for a lot when you're not worried about the last x% of quality.

YIFY is what made me stop pirating stuff when I was too broke to buy and just borrowed bluray from my friends instead. I make popcorn, they bring over movie.

Now I'm too lazy to even pirate and I just buy shit sometimes

must be nice

America in a nutshell

too lazy to download a torrent? lol. yeah. :)

i just got sick of downloading something only to find that it was in mkv which didn't play on anything I owned. (this was a while back.. not a problem now) .. got sick of hardcoded subtitles. or just plain missing subtitles. what seemed like 20 different audio codecs..bleah.

It's a lot easier to click "buy" on the iTunes store and bam, there's the movie, and even in HD and 5.1. easy peasy. don't have to deal with busted .rar files anymore.

I'm 62 and torrent, use Usenet and Kodi daily. I never get tired. You might want to lay off the popcorn ;)

Do carbs really make people tired?

If you're fueling up on junk foods that are high in carbs, you can have a rebound effect when they burn off quickly. Think of giving a 6 year old a bunch of candy. He'll bounce around the room for an hour and then crash, lol.

A properly balanced diet will keep you plugging away...

I remember when Usenet was fun. before automated DMCA takedowns. I don't know what Kodi would really offer me anyway. Anything that Popcorn Time doesn't? i barely have time to eat carbs as it is.

Kodi is worth checking out. You won't regret it.

I get that, but need more than 10 years to get there:)

Funny, I just hit 35 and I've almost completely automated my system of downloading, complete 180 from the napster/limewire days. I've got my own private server crushing it 24/7. It's quite amazing to have so much space and hello, saved money!? I don't know bout you folks out there but even with a decent salary, I need to make more. Doesn't help I'm in metropolis tho, close to 30% goes to taxes, 40% of that remainder goes to rent, fucking food costs an arm and a leg, and I gots a kid. If I can save (what the fuck do movies even cost these days?) $15-40 and watch on a nice home system, then hell yeah, that's what the market dictates. And if I can delay the enjoyment and not eat one cookie but two if I just wait for the movie to release, fuck yeah, show me the way. And sometimes I get to see a good movie on the big screen (Get Out was incredible) then hell yeah too. Media costs so much money and we need someone to pay for it. It's definitely not millennials, at least it's not the ill informed ones that realize they can have all this free shit because their future is literally being gouged by impossible housing, a hella competitive market place, extremely impoverished schools and communities and private prisons literally locking away our population, why wouldn't people just straight up steal it. This life can be gangster whether you like it or not.

All that being said, do not steal media. I condemn the act of piracy and I do not steal. The above was just a story.

i just got sick of downloading something only to find that it was in mkv which didn't play on anything I owned. (this was a while back.. not a problem now) .. got sick of hardcoded subtitles. or just plain missing subtitles. what seemed like 20 different audio codecs..bleah.

You just said "YIFY is what made me stop pirating stuff", then listed a bunch of complaints that don't seem to reflect YIFY's uploads at all. They were generally really good at consistency, even if they sacrificed quality a bit. Sounds like your complaints lie with uploaders other than YIFY.

As you get older you have less time and more money.

I used to service and repair my own car - now it's easier to just hand it over to someone else and pay the bill. Similar with computers - I still fix those myself but I don't tinker with them any more. I want it to just sit there doing it's job without interference from me. Media is the same - I'll pay some money (or sacrifice some quality) if it saves me hassle.

As you get older you have less time and more money.

lol. not in my case. i have less time and less money. I quit working in computers, and they've been fun again as a hobby. i'm much happier not working in IT anymore, though. but I make less and the hours in health care are a lot more.

but having computers being fun again has been nice. i built up an Intel NUC, threw linux on it, and have a HTPC that just works.

but sometimes it's easier to just pay the $10 for a movie, especially one that i'll watch more than once. i've done that after grabbing something from Popcorn Time actually. i loved John Wick so i bought it from iTunes. now i want to go see it in the theatres (which is do-able, as a local theatre has $4 tuesday tickets)

Don't forget cheap (in bandwidth / disk space).

Exactly, and I've never had an unpleasant Big Mac meal, Big Tasty meal, Quarter Pounder with Cheese meal, Cheeseburger meal etc etc. They always tasted the same, and it was always a damn good tasting burger and fries. However I live in UK, so unlike you lucky Yanks, we never get free refills in our drinks. I envied you Americans with your unlimited drinks...

Maybe your right

Consistent, reliable

but

acceptable quality

I think we have a problem right there.

I never said "good quality"...

You have a point though. We have our own definitions of acceptable. Some people refuse to eat McDonalds for exactly that reason.

YIFY are the McDonalds of torrents.

Consistency, reliability, and acceptable quality are not three things I associate with McDonalds...

Consistency, reliability, and acceptable quality are not three things I associate with McDonalds.

Obviously going to the wring mackies then, the ones in the Uk near me are really good.

I live in the US, here they serve garbage food.

consistently? reliably? Do you accept that?

I'm sorry about that 😢

But they are. You know what you are getting, it's everywhere for similar prices and menus and the quality is ok for the price.

Consistency, reliability, and acceptable quality are not three things I associate with McDonalds...

You are confusing "I don't really like McDonald's" with McDonald's is poor quality, unreliable, and inconsistent.

Mcdonald's, while certainly not great food, actually gets high marks for all three of those categories when you judge them against what they are aiming for. They don't strive to be classy or a five star restaurant. They strive to be quick, cheap food that appeals mainly to kids and teens (and therefore their parents), people who are traveling, etc..

As far as consistency and reliability, walk into any McDonald's in the country and order a Big Mac, Fries and a Coke, and you will get a meal that is almost identical at any of them. That seems pretty much the definition of consistency and reliability.

Don't mistake this as an endorsement of McDonald's, I'm no fan either. But I can give them credit where it is due, and /u/Mr_Will's comparison is actually quite an apt one.

A big part of it too doesn't show in screenshots, the compression artifacts are even more noticeable in motion.

My big concern is how good or bad these files will look on a 4K UHDTV.

I watch rips on my 4K Samsung all the time, and they look fine. The 720p rips are a little bit on the muddy side, but tolerable.

Thanks, what model do you have?

KU7000. I watch via a desktop PC connected to it.

A display cannot be both 4k and UHD at the same time. UHD is 3840 x 2160 whereas 4k is 4096 x 2160

Aren't you comparing monitors to TVs? All or most UHD TV are advertised and marketed as 4k TVs.

It doesn't matter whether the display is a monitor or a television, it's not actually 4k unless it has 4096 horizontal pixel count. Televisions that's say they are 4k while having a resolution of 3840 x 2160 are falsely advertising

My minimum size is around 10gb, I watch a lot if my content on a 120" screen and the lower but rates are unwatchable at that size

Conversely on my 46" tv seen from about 12 feet away, a 1.8GB h.264 movie looks quite tolerable. Especially if it's some dumb movie for my kid to watch. FOR FREE. For me it's just not worth fucking around with 10-20GB files in most cases. If I want hi quality for something, I buy the movie, rather than bitch about the quality of something someone else has donated their time and effort to provide.

And this is why Comcast's picture quality is horrible. Most people don't even realize it because they're used to it, but if you pay attention it's very noticeable.

Most "HD" cable quality sucks and that pisses me off a lot more than low quality rips, because I am paying for it. (Erm, was paying for it, but not any more.)

And then like the common fucking retard you are you upload these images to an imagehost notorious for its compression.

And the common genius such as yourself will think "Even with Imigur's compression it's still apparent! That makes it even more convincing!"

Thank you, another good example of why YIFY was cancer.

Yify serves its purpose. If I wanna watch the newest comedy film/am in a hurry/am going to watch it on mobile, I'd much rather a 1GB download than a 30GB.

And DVD rips served that purpose just fine. But because YIFY was so popular due to people not knowing any better (people alluded to in the OP), now STILL when I go search for something in 720p or 1080p, I immediately know to disregard the highest seeded result because it's a goddamn shit yify rip.

I'm going to take this opportunity to actually learn from someone who knows more than me lol. What are your criteria when looking for a good quality version? Also where do you actually go to find good rips?

Well private trackers are the way to go, but if you can't be bothered with securing an invite and maintaining your seed ratio you can get fine quality stuff from public sites like Pirate Bay or rarbg.

My criteria boils down to visual, I look for the kind of fidelity that is shown in the OP with no nasty macroblocking. But as a shorthand for that, you can just look at filesize. As a guideline, 4.37 gigs for a 720p rip is kinda standard, which puts you around 5000 kbps or so for video bitrate. I'm not sure what the exact size standard is for 1080p but personally I look for at least 8 gigs. Those are just kinda your normal everyday quality, decent enough for a computer monitor or a nice tablet. For popping on a TV when I want something to look really nice, I'd look for something higher but eventually you hit diminishing returns on bitrate and you won't be able to see the difference. The same goes for 4K - bigger is closer to original quality on disc, but at some point you have to ask yourself if you can honestly tell the difference. I have 4K rips that run from only 15000 kbps up to 60000.

on a similar note, (but not related to piracy) if a youtube video has a 1440p or 4k option, it will look better than a 1080p version, even on 1080p monitors due to higher bitrate

163 days old comment, but notable info nonetheless: It does greatly depend on what video player you're using. Some players use poor downscaling which can cause problems like blurriness, color being washed out, aliasing, and other artifacts.

As usual, the best video player is MPC-HC (or equivalent) running madVR.

This is why I'll always be a disc collector- or until streaming services can do 4k @ 60mb/s.

But then we will have 8k...

With the cost of 3-4 disks, you get an external HD that you can put 30-40 full Blue Ray movies.

Or get in a private tracker with Bluray raw rips...I don't have room for all those cases, but my hard drive does.

Don't have to worry about encoding groups when you only get remuxes!

Tbh, only stupid people would argue like that 1080p is the same than 1080p

To paraphrase Carlin, think of how stupid the average person is. Now, remember half of people are dumber than that.

Stupidity and cleverness have fat tail distributions so there might very well be more clever people than there are average. Then again there might be more stupid people. One must look at the data. Let's just use the median instead to make sure we at least land in the top half.

So, do you have a link for the high quality lotr that you have in the screenshots? :)

Thanks!

Now if only more groups released in RAW... They are so hard to find

Not on torrentz2 and then sort by size

zoom in some more and you can make that 35mb/s look shit

This is completely true, but photos taken of a TV screen isn't as convincing as a direct screenshot would be.

Could someone ELI5 why 1080p can differ from a larger file size 1080p? I quess I kinda can understand why but I'm not really sure.

1080p is the resolution of the video. Which is a collection of images played one after the other. 1,920 pixels wide by 1,200 tall.

These pictures are all the same size in pixels... But differing compression. https://www.gimp.org/tutorials/GIMP_Quickies/JPG-Compression-Sample.png

The one at the bottom right would be a smaller file size than the top left. Both are the same resolution.

So the amount of pixels are the same, but in a more compressed file the pixels are more lumped together thus giving a less sharp image?

Less information over the image = either blocky pixels, less colours so you get banding of gradients (you'll have seen this), image looks smeary etc.

Take a picture on the first ever camera phone, then take a picture on a DSLR. Resize the images to the same number of pixels... Which will look better?

In essence yes. In a perfect world every single pixel would be defined individually (RAW) but due to space constraints this isn't done with video. Instead we compress the video with some algorithm. The algorithm makes decisions like that group of pixels are nearly the same colour (so you only need to store that pixels at x,y width z pixels length p pixels is green) but this can cause blockiness.

The above works for single images as well. Video compression also makes use of the fact that frame to frame the image often differs only slightly. So you only need to store information how the image changes in the next frame (google confetti compression computerphile)

Bitrate controls the amount of bits that's allowed to be used to store this information. The lower the bitrate, the more simplifications have to be made resulting in a blockier image and fuzzier movement.

Just think of a digital photo compressed into a 50K JPG file, and also into a 500K JPG file. Both jpegs are the same dimensions on your screen, but the smaller file will look a lot fuzzier than the larger file.

So how will I know which one I have. And how do I make sure to get the better version?

One way that is generally effective is to look at the file size.

If you have the same movie at 1,5GB and at 12GB, the 12GB version will look way better.

Pretty damn good quality for 1.5 millibits per second.

It's simple. Avoid YIFY. Quality problem solved.

Unless you live in third world and got shit internet or you live in Australia and got shit internet but cant wait 20 hours for a torrent movie to download.

Unless you live in third world and got shit internet or you live in Australia and got shit internet

You already said third world...

haha

No. Patience is the key. No one wants to watch over pixelated YIFY encode it destroys the movie big time. I'd rather wait for a day to finish a slick encode.

So you're cool with burdening your computer 20x as much and wearing it out so you can see things slightly more goodly? Back in my day, file sizes were 350mb and it took 6 hours to download and we liked it that way. and the only movie was the 51st state/formula 51.

and wearing it out

Hehehehe, really?

That's not how these things work.

it makes the things spin faster and the heat melts down the components, dont you know anything about the way the world works?

If your computer is melting - That's an issue. If your CPU manages to exceed 100°C, that's an issue. Do you mean your mechanical drive which is spinning at a set RPM no matter what happens to it (unless it goes to sleep / off)?

It makes no difference watching a 720p or 1080p or even 4k video.
Even gaming which uses FAR more resources and generates FAR more heat... Guess what - The PC can do that for days / weeks / months / years.

A fan may spin a little quicker, I doubt it as watching a video barely tickles most CPU's... But it may spin quicker.

You are right, heat kills components. So the CPU which will last 25+ years may only last 24 years, 11 months if you watch 1080p over 720p... Oh noes.

If you hear a fan squealing, replace it before it dies. Watch whatever you want.

Please don't spend multiple minutes typing actual responses to jokes, it makes me feel bad.

Some people actually believe it though... I'm not kidding :/

Not even those that need velcro shoes!

1080p is just the size of the image.

So, quick question. Where should i look for movies with better quality than yify but at a similar file size?

Also they need to have subs for all languages and at least 3 surround audio tracks.

Quality and Smaller file size don't go well together.

That being said, you can download decent movie up to 3-4 gigs. Try JYK-Condors on extratorrent.

You will not find movies with better quality with a similar file size. If you want better quality you generally have to get a file of a bigger size.

Except maybe if you go for the x265 codec, which doesn't work on all devices as of right now. For example, my TV won't read them but my computer will.

If it's not allowed then delete me.

But I'm liking this neZu guy's stuff.

Somewhat off-topic, but I've recently grabbed a few 4K x265 files, I know all about x265 in its upsides/downsides, but am wondering if there's any, ANY way I can watch them smoothly on my 2600k PC? Literally lags on any video player and CPU usage camps at 100% !

AFAIK Ivy Bridge CPU's and above (mine being Sandy Bridge, just my luck), better support x265 playback, and would not lag right?

Any difference between video players? VLC vs MPC-HC for example?

Yes, mpc-hc is the only player to come close to a smooth experience.

What's your GPU?

Two GTX 780's.

I will tell you that my gtx660 definitely could not pull it off and I needed to buy a Radeon RX-480 to get the job done

My family can't tell the difference at all.

When you factor in the distance your sitting from the TV, the stuttering chromecast causes when the bitrate is too high. There's really no point at all.

Honestly, 720p does the job just fine but it's habit to download 1080p.

Very important, because I sit 3 inches away from the tv screen with the show paused every 1.8 seconds.

thanks for this thread. imma save it so i can steal stuff more gooder next time.

Of course it's different. But the question is - can you notice this artifacting while movie is playing? The answer is "no", you can't.

It's the opposite, it's even more noticeable in motion

The best option really is a bad Xvid rip. Insane file size and miserable quality. Yes, people still make <480p Xvid rips on some private torrent sites.

ELI5 mb/s? This sounds like a speed measurement, no? How do I know I'm downloading a "faster" 1080p movie?

What is 1080p on like a 1.5 gb file size movie compared to the same movie at 1080p on around a 4.5 bg file size? Does file size affect the clarity?

If a movie weighs 8GB, normally the image will benefit from having 4X more data per second than the same movie weighing 2GB.

Data per second, in this context, essentially means details in the image.

So yes, it affects the clarity. If you compare the two images, the bigger one (I'm talking about file size, not resolution) will be sharper, the smaller one will be blurrier.

If your TV is small, or if you're are far away from your screen, you will not see those difference as much.

There are so many HEVC tv shows is it there that have low bitrate stereo audio and poor video. We don't need tiny file sizes anymore. This isn't the dial-up century. Keep file sizes similar to the old 264 encodes allows improvememt in video and audio quality. I don't understand why these idiot 'scene' people bother when they can't even do it properly.

Nobody gives a shit with 30GB movie

Your grammar is as poor as your bitrate.

grammar Uhm.. here we don't care about grammer. I prefer a decent bitrate about 7-10mb/s which it's okay.

grammer

Your spelling is as poor as your grammar.

What's the sweetspot bitrate? How high can the bitrate go before you can't tell the difference watching a movie at the optimal distance (in relation to TV size) from your couch?

It really depends on the quality and size of your screen and the distance from which you are watching the movie.

For me, an video bitrate between 4000 and 5000 Kbps is good enough so the difference is insignificant.

I mean, I could maybe see a 5 to 10% difference in the quality of the image, but I'm not willing to download, and especially store (I'm a collector), a file that is 2 or 3 times bigger, just for that 10% difference.

The file sizes add up quickly. I did a animation render on Blender, total run time is 10 seconds at 24FPS. 1920x1080, 64 bit color depth, 0% compression etc. Total file size was 5.2Gb. For 10 seconds. Some compression is good, but I'd hate to see raw uncompressed movies

I have Star Wars Episode 7 Blu-ray with bonus disc. Actual movie is 39.15GB at 30038kb bit rate. Bonus disc is another 32GB at 34967kb.

The Avengers. 38GB at 23700kb.

So yeah the file sizes are large, but that's the biggest either of those two films get.

Acceptable for quick watching and on the go!

Those people would be idiots. I can have picture frame that's 20x11 in size that frames a stick figure drawn by a child, or The same frame can hold a masterpiece. 1920x1080 is the frame size, P means progressive (full frames.)

I will say: I still prefer when a full movie comes in under 700mb even if I'm no longer archiving on cheap CDs.

This is a jpg so you're 35mb/s comparison shots are going to be be compressed a bit.

First axxo, now yify - never ever for me.

That's why you actually buy LOTR like an adult.

Where can you buy a digital version with no DRM and the same resolution and bitrate as the bluray?

Impossible. But you can buy the bluray and rip it yourself.

Soooo top one free? Bottom one pay money? Got it. FREE!

You can still get the bottom one..

Whicjmh one is crunchyroll?

I simply download the biggest file, I am a simple man.

For those of you who seem to have your jimmies rustled by this:

Are you upset that people are uploading lower quality vids or are you upset that people are downloading them?

If it's the former--I don't understand your frustration. People are taking their own time to rip and seed videos to you FOR FREE.

If it's the latter--nobody's forcing you to download low quality rips. I own a 12 year old crappy 720p tv. I'm gonna download crappy rips because I don't care about the difference. If you care about your downloads, then download the fancy ones. What do a care?

Both. Imagine if you are having a party and everyone brought over really nice and varied beers - and then Steve shows up with a sixer of Coors Light. And won't shut up about how great it is.

Steve brought you free beer. Steve should he celebrated.

Well, I don't celebrate mediocrity.

My beef with YIFY is not the quality or size. They could have made very decent SD rips at that bitrate, but they blow it up to 1080p for absolutely no gain and for a while it replaced high quality 1080p rips on public torrent sites to the point that I had to move to private trackers in order to not get potato quality. That stuff being labeled as 1080p is technically correct, but not the way it's meant to be. It should be shunned for the same reason as upscaled content.

The frustration is that people actually think YIFY rips are 10/10 quality. If people were honest, they'd just say hey, I have shitty speed, so this is okay for me. Instead of saying omg best quality ever! So, the frustration is more that people are stupid liars, more than anything.

Although watching low quality movies with lots of artifacts bugs me (especially in dark scenes) I live in Aus and have a 500gb data cap and 2-3 Mbps download (on a good day) so I'll take the 1-3gb 1080p x264 version any day. I still find them pleasantly watchable on my 1080p monitor and even my big 1080p TV.

What were the codecs used?

Always choose the biggest file (within reason). That's my philosophy anyways.

My shitty eyes only go up to 480p. I really need an optometrist.

Especially in the lower size ranges(1-5gb), The file can be bigger but still have lower quality, if the compression is poor.

It's not as simple as just file size and bitrate. The encoder settings and codec matter hugely. A h265 encoding will often beat a much larger size h264 encoding. Certain skill with encoding options will enable very hig quality encodings with small file sizes, especially if there are setting which allow optimising for certain scenes, such as in space or night-time with large amounts of darkness etc. Particularly good efficient encodings can be achieved for animated movies.

I bitch about this topic more as tech advances. With internet speeds and storage solutions where they are today, it blows my mind that it's near impossible to find full quality 1080p content.

You can usually find full blu-ray rips on rarbg's site, as well as 5-7GB transcoded versions, from various uploaders.

I'll look "rarbg" up after work, never heard of it. Thanks!

I second RARBG, they have good torrents which are verified. Some might have a low S/L ratio but it's worth the wait in my opinion.

I find that groups like AMIABLE, SPARKS, EtHD and PublicHD are also very reliable and provide quality BluRay rips at decent sizes (~10GB).

On Google, the first result should be the correct one.

Awesome, thanks for the information and heads up.

Just use torrentz2 more than half of what I'm looking for I find in raw remux and if not almost always 15g+

I don't sit a foot from my tv though.

Grym all the way.

Remux ftw.

yeah. My ISP said no to me :(

So the 720 vs 1080 doesn't matter? There could be 720p movies better looking than 1080p ones, right?

Not that it doesn't matter, but it's not the whole story. But yes, a 720p rip at high enough bitrate could look better than a 1080p at a really low bitrate. Observe: http://imgur.com/a/tJJMa

One image at 720p with as little JPG compression as possible, the other at 1080p with maximum compression. The larger image is 1/10th the filesize of the smaller one, and it looks like dogshit.

Doesn't codec also have an effect on quality?

I've seen 1080p HEVC that have a bitrate of 2.0 that are absolutely insane in quality.;

While we are on the same page can someone suggest a good doctor strange torrent..I'm facing the issue which op has shown in images while the fight scenes takes place...

SPARKS's is fine.

Since I'm legally blind and usually drunk does bit rate really matter on a 60" 1080p TV from 15' feet?

"It looks fine!" Is the answer I get a lot.

No, it doesn't. Half of this show is in fucking space or dark areas and it's a blurry fucking mess where I can't even tell how far apart their fingers are because of your low bitrate garbage.

It doesn't matter if your are closed.

I'm not saying file size doesn't matter. But 1.5 vs 35mbs is a very drastic difference. 10k vs 20ish would be more realistic as to torrents that's are actually out there

Helps to have a 144hZ+ monitor too

Yea it should probably be obvious to anyone who's been DL'ing vids for a few years that a 720 or 1080 BRRip isn't going to look like the source material. 720 & 1080 rips are fine IMO, and even YIFY BR's, and Axxo DVD's (remember Axxo?) always satisfied me, because all I wanted was the movie, NOW, and in decent quality, which is exactly what I got. I didn't need a million DPI of detail, and if I wanted that, I'd have DL'd one of the 9GB "real HD" rips, but forget that, even with BIG storage space, theres no WAY I'm going to dedicate 4-9GB just for ONE movie, NO chance, 700-900mb is the filesize I want. So long as it looks good on my HDTV, I'm happy, and I know it'd look better if I bought the Blu-Ray or DVD, but I've been completely satisfied by DVD & BRRips for donkeys years.

lol I rip TV shows I really like from Blu-ray, about 8 gigs each episode.

Haha only the best for you! I'd find it hard to resist getting a high quality X-Files full series torrent, but even at 2GB per episode, the whole series would probably be over 1TB. Its high time I got the boxset IRL.

Lol, The Lord Of The Rings movies I just downloaded for my semi annual marathon are 60-75GB each

BLOODY HELL!!! The quality will probably be incredible though!

You can count Gandolf's age by counting the rings around his pupil from 100 feet away

Hahaha

I refuse to download movies that are below 4gb, unless they're old.

Funny how you say "I DL'd one of the insane 9GB real HD rips", considering a HD Rip should be far larger than that, and it's obviously been heavily compressed, most of my movies at this moment are about 60gb in size for 2160p, and they're also compressed, A non-compressed HD movie should be about 20-60gb, depending on duration mainly.

Thats fair enough, people should do what they want, whatever suits their needs; thats why you refuse to DL movies below 4GB and I refuse to DL movies above 4gb. A 700mb-2gb BRrip looks fine on my 40", and I don't have endless amounts of storage space to acommodate a 300+ library of 60gb movies, so again, I'm perfectly happy to make that compromise.

Axxos a throwback, i remember being in some forum thing just to get advance access to their releases

Hehe, Axxo hype days!

When looking at stuff, I divided the bitrate and the difference between a lot better when it's good enough.

these are both acceptable quality for a movie i'm going to watch once. or maybe i'm just a pleb

So what?!

Seriously, pretty much all your ability to discern that level of quality difference goes out the window as soon as you start looking at normal speed video vs still images. It's not an accident that when appliance stores show you the latest TVs they display still images or slowly panning nature scenes. And given the diminishing returns of increasing the bitrate, if 1.5 mb/s isn't good enough, 3 probably is.

I disagree strongly, watching on my 70" samsung upscaled to 4k I would rather not watch anything under 10-15mb/s due to the obvious quality loss. Not to mention getting raw 7.1 Dolby Atmos or DTS-HD only included with large releases.

either you're a mutant with the eyes of an eagle or your sitting 2 ft away from your TV.

Anyway, whatever blows up your dress.

I used to care about such things. I even had a post many years ago showing the difference in a still shot from Kill Bill (from the Yakuza blood bath scene) comparing bluRay and DVD. Then I played it and I realized it really didn't matter. I could go back and forth between the two systems , on a computer monitor, and notice a bit of a difference but if I hadn't looked at the BluRay I would never have thought about the issue. Maybe the difference is greater on today's better monitors but when you're watching a scene, your brain is trying to put it all together; words, plot, major visual points. What it's not doing, in any conscious sense, is looking at the high frequency components that are shifting 30FPS+. Obviously, at some level of degradation where faces look fuzzy to the point the eyes are blocks (people automatically focus on faces in particular eyes) you'll notice but it's shocking how low the bitrate needs to be before it doesn't matter.

Note, that mammalian vision is done via saccadic eye movements as opposed to taking in the whole image like a camera anyway. it focuses in on movements and larger edges. Your vision is interpolating between fixation points and between frames. It's probably true that for a sufficiently long monologue where a face is close up and barely moving you will focus on the eyes and so the amount of degradation it takes in that area before you notice will probably be less but that's probably the worst case scenario. Of course, if your looking for such defects you will notice it a lot more but then that's not how most people watch movies.

what do you think of how normal quality (4-8mb/s) 720p files look upscaled on your 4k tv?

most sports i download (mma/nhl) are only in 720p and i was thinking it might be better if my next tv was 1080p, instead of forcing a 4k tv to blow up 8x the pixels.

i suppose in a couple of years 4k tvs will have better upconverting technology but as it is i'm skeptical...

It definitely won't look worse than a 1080p tv but it depends what kind of tv it is. 1080p on my Samsung 4k upscaled looks like 2k

I watch it my stuff 2m away from a 20in or 16in TV and can't tell the difference, so if I get the one with bigger bitrate look better in my small TV?

always sort by largest file size

but where can i get true 1080p stuff :/ ?

tehPARADOX has a Untouched & Remuxed Blu-ray section...

I have a friend who would prefer a 2GB 1080p movie over a 720p movie twice the size.

That's awesome man

The good image is not 23x the quality, despite it being 23x the filesize.

Had the same quality compared to H264, but higher file size 1080p?

to me, its still the same movie

But we're talking about the quality.

It's like when your friend buys a point and shoot camera and says "Dude this camera shoots at 30 megapixels!!!!". Uhmmm that doesn't really tell me much information.

I would choose quality regardless of the file size. However ISP's in my country sucks and did I mention they put data caps in all their plans which is so much of a pain..... that's why I'm just sticking with the rips of "DTS-JYK"

No shit Sherlock. People must be stupid as fuck to up vote this shit.

.jpg

nice xD

Gandalf Sax guy 10 Hours [600:05]

Big Dirty Stinkin Sax

Hutch Touch in Entertainment

15,813,245 views since Sep 2012

bot info

x265 / HEVC isn't in any current scene standard yet. so the scene gorups still encode in x264. beware of p2p groups re-encoding x264 releases into x265.

re-encoding from lossy to lossy format is much worse than you think.

Yeah I don't know how this is upvoted so high. It really doesn't add anything to the OP.

I'm confused that if the image is compressed, is it really still 1080? I thought 1080 implies a specific amount of distinct pixels across your tv, if you compress that image, can you really still claim its 1080?

Encoded videos aren't just a series of images. There are keyframes that have all the information for the entire frame, and then from there, each subsequent frame is a modification of the previous.

I think that's compression artifacts, not pixellation. They likely use a horrible motion estimation setting.

Ive also noticed that colors are slightly washed out in YIFY videos

Nah dude, when it's dark is when you truly see how awful it is

Yea but people like us who got shit Internet dont have much choice

You guys realize that starwars is part of the disney collection, right?

Exactly. The point of new codecs is higher and more efficient compression which translates to lower filesize but does not per se say anything about quality.

It's almost as if people have different preferences and priorities

too lazy to download a torrent? lol. yeah. :)

i just got sick of downloading something only to find that it was in mkv which didn't play on anything I owned. (this was a while back.. not a problem now) .. got sick of hardcoded subtitles. or just plain missing subtitles. what seemed like 20 different audio codecs..bleah.

It's a lot easier to click "buy" on the iTunes store and bam, there's the movie, and even in HD and 5.1. easy peasy. don't have to deal with busted .rar files anymore.

It doesn't matter whether the display is a monitor or a television, it's not actually 4k unless it has 4096 horizontal pixel count. Televisions that's say they are 4k while having a resolution of 3840 x 2160 are falsely advertising

100% false. For a long time I was under the assumption that 1080p was a measure of quality, not simply resolution. Same with my wife, and probably anyone who has ever dabbled in torrents at any point.

inb4 elitist comment about how smart you are

Yeah my movies are always around 9gb per file. Good enough for me

Yeah but what I'm saying is that if your project file or PCM file is at 96kHz, then the bitrate is going to be waaayyy higher than 320kbps. 16/44.1 is 1411kbps.

16 bits * 44.1 kHz * 2 channels = 1411200 bits per second = 1411 kbps

So for a 24 bit 96 kHz file the bit rate would be

24 * 96000 * 2 = 4608000bps = 4608kbps.

Or when a lightning strikes.

Not everybody wants to dedicate over 3+GB of space to just ONE movie, especially when they have a LOT of movies. A lot of us prefer 700-900mb, myself included (sometimes I might DL a 2GB BRRip, but thats only if I have no choice). YIFY was a convenience, and a big one at that.

Nah, that's the goal H265 developers are aiming for, but we're not there yet. As of yet the bitrate can generally be reduced between 10-30% for the same quality compared to H264, but at the cost of 4-6 fold increase in required computing power.

Could you give me the links to the movies you're comparing? I could point it out if I knew what you were talking about specifically.

either you're a mutant with the eyes of an eagle or your sitting 2 ft away from your TV.

Anyway, whatever blows up your dress.

I used to care about such things. I even had a post many years ago showing the difference in a still shot from Kill Bill (from the Yakuza blood bath scene) comparing bluRay and DVD. Then I played it and I realized it really didn't matter. I could go back and forth between the two systems , on a computer monitor, and notice a bit of a difference but if I hadn't looked at the BluRay I would never have thought about the issue. Maybe the difference is greater on today's better monitors but when you're watching a scene, your brain is trying to put it all together; words, plot, major visual points. What it's not doing, in any conscious sense, is looking at the high frequency components that are shifting 30FPS+. Obviously, at some level of degradation where faces look fuzzy to the point the eyes are blocks (people automatically focus on faces in particular eyes) you'll notice but it's shocking how low the bitrate needs to be before it doesn't matter.

Note, that mammalian vision is done via saccadic eye movements as opposed to taking in the whole image like a camera anyway. it focuses in on movements and larger edges. Your vision is interpolating between fixation points and between frames. It's probably true that for a sufficiently long monologue where a face is close up and barely moving you will focus on the eyes and so the amount of degradation it takes in that area before you notice will probably be less but that's probably the worst case scenario. Of course, if your looking for such defects you will notice it a lot more but then that's not how most people watch movies.

also HEVC or x265 content requires a beefy CPU/GPU to play, especially in 4k.

This is flat out wrong. You need an entry level graphics card that can be had on sale for $100.

You can move the goal posts all you want.

Look for HEVC x265 rips by Joybell or Joy. Best I have ever seen, and I have been d/ling HEVC fora long time.

Kodi is worth checking out. You won't regret it.

Too heavy for your mobile, I think. MX can decode it pretty fine with my 2015 flagship phone.

what do you think of how normal quality (4-8mb/s) 720p files look upscaled on your 4k tv?

most sports i download (mma/nhl) are only in 720p and i was thinking it might be better if my next tv was 1080p, instead of forcing a 4k tv to blow up 8x the pixels.

i suppose in a couple of years 4k tvs will have better upconverting technology but as it is i'm skeptical...

It definitely won't look worse than a 1080p tv but it depends what kind of tv it is. 1080p on my Samsung 4k upscaled looks like 2k