Absolutely needed for over 1080p since H.264 just doesn't have the tools to encode it efficiently. Still has a way to go to match x264 at transparency since it can take more bitrate to get an x265 encode looking as good as an x264 one, but I believe at lower bitrates x265 has an edge.

Pretty pointless at the moment unless you're doing something that requires bitrate starving the source, like web streaming.

>>51768036
As it stands I can see it having a use for those who just want a smaller filesize. It can be useful in pirating. There's plenty of torrents already that have been encoded this way.

A better solution would be if one of the world's superpower could improve their internet speeds to the modern era. Honestly a lot of compression needs for streaming lies on the fact that most people have a connection that is worse than South Korea's. You think Netflix would be worrying too much about compression if the average user could grab 30 gigs in no problem?

>>51767911
I think it is the way to go because Im looking at 300mb files that look the same as 700mb H264.
If this got out like 5-6 years ago internet piracy would have been better for everyone.

>>51767911
XviD > H.265 >>> x265

>>51767911
One of those is a format spec, the other is an encoder. Do you mean HEVC/H.265 encoded by x265? Anyways, it's clearly very good at low bitrate streaming, but current encoders may be heavily optimized for that situation alone. And the patent situation has basically killed HEVC streaming right now.

Which is a damn shame since its motion artifacting often looks much less annoying than VP9's, although this may be more of a libvpx problem.

>>51768262
The question is whether they'd look as good as 300MB H.264 files, or if you're even that good a judge of quality.
>Another V:10/A:10 YIFY release!

>>51768334

>H.265 >>> x265

x265 is an H.265 encoder, you fucking idiot hence it's the same thing.

>>51768563
Oh god can you imagine the h265 YIFY releases?

All I know is that x265 TBBT was about 1/2 or 1/3 of the size of x264, and much clearer picture, at the expense of the processor (GPU?) being worked a lot more.

I'll take it.

File: 1433570745460.gif (371 KB, 500x375) Image search: [Google]

371 KB, 500x375

>>51768563
>>51768598
>tfw the YIFY dictatorship is over

After years of fighting in the underground against the forces of shitty encoding and 92kbit/s audio we did it.

>>51768919
>After years of fighting in the underground against the forces of shitty encoding and 92kbit/s audio we did it.
what do you mean?

>>51770255
he means the autism has won again.

ease of use doesn't matter when you have an e-peen to stroke.

>>51770310

YIFY isn't "easier to use". Opening one video file isn't that much harder than another one.

YIFY wouldn't exist if there weren't shit speeds out there. And YIFY is pointless anyways. Just Google "watch X movie online" and go through one of the various streams out there. What's the point of a poorfag downloading a torrent? It's the same shit quality as a stream. YIFY doesn't serve wise people.

>2016
>Nobody want to use LOSSLESS videocodec

>>51767911
They're good if you have a data cap. Otherwise I'd just get a proper-sized x264 release.

>>51771487
>13GB for 1minute video
ok

>>51767911
the problem now is poor people dont have a pc strong enough to decode that shit.

its nice having 1080p 10bit AAC movies in 2GB

>>51771511
>its nice having 1080p 10bit AAC movies in 2GB
No, there isn't, at least, everything below 8gb looks like shit and have shitty blanks overall that I can perfectly notice on my 42" plasma.

>>51771521
>what is 10bit color

>>51771539
At those low bitrate it isn't encoded perfectly and you get tons of squared artifacts often.

>>51768919
>we did it

Yeah you fuck surely did a lot

>>51771510
>hurr durr I'm too dumb to know difference between lossless and uncompressed

>>51771644
Wow Ahmed, show us your compression algorithm!

>>51767911
I would prefer it if people use free codecs.
But at the moment Google are still the only ones seriously using vp9.