this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
29 points (91.4% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

67941 readers
92 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):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

FUCK ADOBE!

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Zoom in x200

Left: 720p x264 --> 0.25 GB

Right: 1080p x265 --> 1.11 GB

I tested watching both on my phone:

  • Without zoom, I didn’t notice much difference in visuals.
  • The audio is stronger at the same level on the x265 version.
  • I need +15 volume level (Android) to make the x264 sound equal.

What do you think, guys? Is it worth 4 times the file size?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 days ago (7 children)

Bitrate and resolution being equal, 264 is gonna be about half the size of 265. It’s an older codec, so it decodes easier on older hardware (like 10 or more years old). If you have anything recent-ish, 265 will save you space… all other things being equal.

Because 264 saved less space, people used lower bitrates. With 265, they’re using higher bitrates because storage devices have gotten bigger. Blu-ray rips that were 4-5GB in 264 are like 2-3GB in 265 and look better.

With 720p you’re reducing the resolution so that takes down the size too.

It’s really hard to say if you have no control over the encodes. Learn handbrake (honestly it’s not hard, handbrake intermediate users know like 90-95% what handbrake experts know, it’s a very easy and straightforward tool to use) and take control of your encodes. Tweak the settings as you like 5-10 seconds at a time until you find a setting that meets your size and performance needs, then save it as a preset and encode more stuff with those settings.

[–] kieron115@startrek.website 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

hardware doesn't even need to be that recent! i'm using an i7 8700K for my plex server and it can transcode h.264 into h.265 on the fly.

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's nice if it is for some things, but there's a generation, it may be 8th (what you have) where hardware transcoding got a lot better, and that generation or later is considered ideal (at least, among Intel processors) for Plex for hardware transcoding.

My last server was on a 4th gen Xeon. It was good for 1080p, but tended to choke on 4K transcoding. I was always getting "server not powerful enough" errors. (Current server is a Mac mini, M2 Pro. I think it's roughly equivalent to a 12th or 13th gen i5? Apple M-series tend to beat Intel on power per watt (being ARM64 rather than x86-64) but I'm not sure how they play out in a benchmark. Both are more than enough for Plex though. And of course, don't bet against Apple for multimedia stuff (not gaming). Professionals in media/animation tend to prefer Apple machines for a reason. So it follows that they would at least be capable for Plex.

[–] kieron115@startrek.website 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yup, coffee lake is when intel quick sync gained HEVC 10-bit. I had a 6th gen in my server for a while and that one needed h.264 content.

load more comments (4 replies)