You're going from a source of an encoded x264 and reencoding (the already encoded file) as x265?? What are the results like?
Most people encode from a high quality source like a remux, rather than an encode
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54500 readers
695 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, a lot of private travelers will not accept doubly-lossy encoded files as a rule. So you can't just go from 264 to 265. You need the original lossless file.
To OP, yeah, you want a seed box. Both to pin the file up and host it for a while, and to preserve your anonymity (the original seeder is under particular scrutiny.)
a lot of private travelers
What's a "private traveler" out of interest?
It's a typo, supposed to say "private tracker"
Auto correct typo of private tracker. Sorry.
Ah I see, thanks for clarifying.
Looks good to me... I'd be happy to take some feedback tho
It will depend a lot on hardware and/or software but I'd bet users would see some artefacting, ghosting, and general noise when they play your x265 file
As another comment pointed out, an encode of an encode is banned on a lot of trackers... Or at least an encode of an already pretty lossy encode (x264) won't be allowed
Does the filesize change much?
I was able to shrink down the whole thing from about 120GB to 90GB