![x265Logo_309x137[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/6AgqsB8.png "x265Logo_309x137[1].png")
>720p x265 file = 200MB
>720p x264 file = 1.2GB
>picture quality looks exactly the same
what is this sorcery?
>tfw YIFY is dead
>>63030780
imagine what YIFY could have done with x265
>300MB 1080p movie
>>63030700
>picture quality looks exactly the same
It doesn't. You have shitty eyes.
>>63031005
Or maybe I'm not a film nerd who invests $25000 on a home theater to watch a black and white grainy film from the 50's
>>63030700
>what is this sorcery?
Moore's law.
An x265 encode takes significantly longer than an x264 encode.
Also your numbers are off.
For the same quality, x265 gives you a half-sized file encoded 10 times slower than x264.
h265's optimized for UHD, so you get better results at huge resolutions.
Does VLC support this codec?
>>63032281
yes
>>63031753
>Moore's law
Moore's law has jack shit to do with anything. It's merely an observation that the number of transistors on a typical CPU doubles every 18-24 months.
>a shitty 720p x264 encode will look identical to a shitty 720p x265 encode for half the filesize
wow
>>63030700
now compare CPU usage for both.
h265 takes up more processing power.
>>63032618
1.2GB for 40 minutes of 720p video isn't that shitty tbqh my family
>not downloading 8gb rips at least
plebs pls
>>63032644
so what? when h264 came out in 2004 the most powerful customer CPU's available had a 3Ghz single-core
I notice a small difference but <1/5 of the file size is still a pretty good tradeof
>>63030700
THANK YOU BASED YIFY
Y:10
I:10
F:10
Y:10
>>63030795
Imagine what your mom could have done with my dick haha XDXDXD burnt
>>63031199
rekt lad
Have anyone started using it yet?
>>63030700
>>picture quality looks exactly the same
[citation needed]
>>63030700
>720p x264 file = 1.2GB
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>63033249
Jessica Jones Season 1 is out as 720p x265 rip
3.08GB for 13 episodes
>>63030700
There is no sorcery involved. H.265 is the successor to H.264. However, at the moment the best H.264 encoder is still better than the best H.265 encoder. In other words: x264 > x265.
Pic related, one of the improvements in H.265.
>>63033332
i take that as a no then.
>>63032538
I know what Moore's law is.
But h265 is a lot more demanding in CPU time than h264, so while Moore's law didn't make h265 possible, it made it reasonably fast.
Rule of thumb is if you want files half as big (for the same quality) you need 10 times the processing power.
According to Moore's law that means a new codec generation twice more effective than the last every 4-5 years or so.
>>63031199
lol holy shit that is true
>>63033996
>hey everyone I read a cool Wikipedia article and I'll shoehorn this term in whenever it's tangentially related
>>63032644
For decoding too or just encoding? If it's just for encoding, who cares?
>>63031199
this desuall movies made before 1970 are shit
>>63033249
i've seen the occasionl 1one think
>>63034096
or just that typing "Moore's law" is a lot faster than typing "the fact that he number of transistors on a typical CPU doubles every 18-24 months"
>>63030700
>talking about encoding on /tv/
Good luck with that OP.
>>63030780
aren't yts the yify guys with another name?
>>63034175
Based YIFY cares.
>>63034238
yts is a group that has been trying to steal yify's name for three years.
They finally won.
>>63033024
I only download 1080p that are 12gb or bigger
>>63033249
I have a few, they're all dual language ITA/Eng. They all look good.
>>63034282
nigger I download 24gb faggot
>>63033340
Ah, nice. Looking forward to using this.
I only download 2gb movies, MAX
>>63034175
decoding is a lot slower (although not really a problem for any modern processor). we don't have certified decoding software yet so it isn't optimised.
>>63034407
Remux masterrace reporting in. GTFO with your 24GB.
>not downloading Remux from a private tracker
>>63034510
>implying a remux can't be 24GB
>mfw my 39.9GB Black Swan looks as good as the 12 GB one
![Mulholland Dr. 2001 4K Remastered Blu-ray 1080p AVC DTS-HD MA5.1-CiNEMATiC 00274.m2ts_snapshot_01.49.35_[2015.11.25_19.18.34].png](https://i.imgur.com/NY9GE5O.jpg "Mulholland Dr. 2001 4K Remastered Blu-ray 1080p AVC DTS-HD MA5.1-CiNEMATiC 00274.m2ts_snapshot_01.49.35_[2015.11.25_19.18.34].png")
>>63034720
If you meant remux, you would have said remux. Wannabe.
>>63034809
That's not a remux.. lol.
>10 years from now
>video endcoding is insanely optimized
>4k videos with top quality are only 500mb
>elitist autists on /tv/ still seek out 20gb+ rips because they think it looks better even though it doesn't
>>63036651
gotta get that 32 channel ultra surround mix brah and all the D-Box/4D trigger data
>>63036771
>32 channel
Doubt it. We're moving towards object based audio with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X.
>>63036651
>2025
>Watching 4K rips
How poor are you? Literally got a 16K TV for ¥550 and they look awful on it.
>>63036651
>4k videos with top quality are only 500mb
And 1 petabyte hard drives cost 200 bucks, so hipsters will download 150GB rips of 16K
>>63031199
People watch movies on TV screens not on smartphones.
>>63036771
Enjoy not hearing dialogues and loud music/explosions.
>>63037168
who needs to hear anything when you can be MOVING WITH THE MOVIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ8XwJQZcl0
>>63030700
>literally the plot of silicon valley
jesus, nigger
>>63031199
>not a film nerd
>/tv/ - Television & Film
what are you doing on the film nerd board?
>>63032538
>being this ass backwards and literal
yeah, in 2000 that was the definition of it. funny thing about language, it changes. you should know this.
