Himechi | 36 points
http://links.snahp.it/747jim.bond.killin.gnatsys
Password is the name of this subreddit.
Spectre is the most-recent James Bond film and like Skyfall is beautifully photographed and scored. Unlike Skyfall, it got mixed reviews.
Following up on recent comments/complaints, this time I've encoded the audio as AC3 passthru instead of raw passthru. Hopefully, the sound is up to snuff. If not, feedback would be appreciated. :)
The soundtrack is 320kb/s mp3
The Sam Smith single Writing's On The Wall is in mp3 and m4a (two copies).
[-] Askjeevesisgay | 2 points
[-] Green-Moon | 2 points
Thanks brah
edit: hmmm it seems like I'm just getting a green screen and audio
Some VLC users have reported that problem. Try using Media Player Classic.
[-] Green-Moon | 2 points
Thank you!
Director(s) | Megalinks MegaDB Director(s): Sam MendesWriter(s) | Megalinks MegaDB Writer(s): John Logan, Neal PurvisCast | Megalinks MegaDB Cast: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Ralph FiennesPlot | Megalinks MegaDB Plot: A cryptic message from Bond's past, sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organization. While M battles political forces to keep the Secret Service alive, Bond peels back the layers of deceit to reveal the terrible truth behind S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
^This ^summary ^is ^taken ^from ^imdb.com ^| ^For ^feedback ^or ^suggestions ^contact ^/u/indigo6alpha
[-] mteg | 3 points | Dec 11 2017 20:30:30
You can't really go wrong with AC3, it's a bit less efficient than AAC and Opus, but 1. the file difference isn't that much on a ~5GB movie and 2. it's only a couple 100MB more to download while still easy for someone to convert to AAC/Opus if they need the few MB (which they won't, not much point unlike some True Audio tracks).
Slow preset with x265 isn't just slower, on my end it also produces bigger filesize, so I wouldn't fret about not using it. If/when x265 matures it should definitely give slightly smaller encodes, but since it doesn't work like that at the moment I also encode everything in medium, even stuff I wouldn't mind spending a few days to encode.
Spectre is a good movie. I remember hating it after the stellar Skyfall, but having watched it again recently I changed my mind about it. There was probably too much expectations going into its reception, while it's not the best Daniel Craig's Bond it's definitely a solid one.
permalink
[-] Himechi | 1 points | Dec 12 2017 02:05:10
Are you sure about that? My one experiment with it resulted in a smaller file size. x265 12bit even netted a faster encoding time. I wouldn't call that definitive but I would be surprised if the numbers tilted the other way for larger encodes. Did you do your encodes with CPU or GPU? I've been CPU only.
permalink
[-] mteg | 2 points | Dec 12 2017 02:37:35
CPU only, but I was talking slow preset vs medium preset both at 10 bit. I didn't bother with trying 12 bits, since support is almost nil and there's no indication it will change.
At 10bit depth, CPU only (4 cores/8 threads), _crf 14-19 1080p encodes from a few BR Remux I tried gave bigger file sizes with the slow preset than the medium. If you've seen the opposite, maybe it depends on the crf (or bitrate option).
Edit: just checked your experiment and you're comparing bit depth, not preset. My post was about the slow preset, not the 12 bit depth.
permalink
[-] Himechi | 1 points | Dec 12 2017 03:02:48
That occurred to me midway through reading your reply. Oops. I can try a Preview comparison tomorrow and see how Slow and Medium compare. It won't be the same as a full rip but it will be something.
It's so strange to read your comment, though. I thought the theory was that slow encodes gave software more time to choose how to best encode each frame. Maybe that's just the difference between RF and bitrate - bitrate is a cap. RF is freer to chase rabbits and run up the file size.
permalink
[-] mteg | 2 points | Dec 12 2017 03:11:52
That's the theory. It works wonderfully with x264, but from experience x265 hasn't reached that level of maturity yet.
Only explanation I have is that x265 has trouble defining precisely the crf level, and thus the slower encodes, while slightly bigger, may have slightly better quality as well, but it's too small to really discern. Thus why I trust medium preset more, since it's more tested.
permalink
[-] Himechi | 1 points | Dec 12 2017 03:47:18
I'm not sure if this quite fits what you mean, but recently while ripping The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest in x265 12bit I did my preview tests and was shocked at the difference. I did one preview and the bitrate came in at around 4MB/s. I try to aim for about 5.5MB/s for a 2 hour movie. I think the RF was 24. I did another preview one notch down, so RF23 and the bitrate of that sample was 10MB/s. I know the RF isn't linear but that was crazy. I dropped back to RF24 rather than spend time exploring further.
permalink
[-] mteg | 1 points | Dec 12 2017 04:04:18
I wouldn't use 12 bit encoding for archiving purposes, it's not used enough to warrant that bugs are squashed, unlike 8 & 10 bit which are used professionally so there's money and a huge amount of tests behind it. Even for testing, you'd be testing the x265 implementation, not 12 bit encodes for themselves.
"I try to aim for about 5.5MB/s for a 2 hour movie"
Never aim for a bitrate. Aim for a quality that represents a good trade-off over many encodes.
You will end up with varying sizes, but unless you're still using 10GB hard drives it will not matter since it's the average of sizes you're concerned about, not the size of a particular movie. With your method you end up wasting a lot of GB for movies that compress easily, while also getting poor quality on movies that are harder to encode.
Edit: to be more precise, settle on a quality for movies you really care about, and another for movies you don't care as much. That's the best way to do it, not reducing the quality of a great movie just because you don't want to spend the occasional GBs when they're needed.
For example great movies I set crf16 (and try to get a remux as a source), for common movies crf17-19 depending how good the movie is, never caring if I end up with a 13GB encode or a 5GB encode. My favorite movie, Blade Runner, compress so well I have crappy movies that take more space, but quality wise I know I'm getting the best quality already so no need to inflate the crf.
permalink
[-] Himechi | 1 points | Dec 12 2017 04:43:17
I'm not archiving. I'm trying to crank out the best picture I can while respecting Mega's 5GB cap. I have been very impressed with 12bit's picture quality and haven't seen anyone complain about it here.
I think you've misunderstood my MO. I'm encoding to respect Mega's 5GB cap. That means trying to wobble towards a rough bitrate depending on the length of the movie. I don't want to constraint the encoding by using Average Bitrate so I use the RF and try to wiggle close to 5MB/s in a preview before committing to a 20+ hour encoding. The method is about as precise as hitting a watermelon with a baseball bat and there have been times I missed it badly, like with WarGames and Backdraft but I've been very lucky lately at coming in just under 5GB. These rips aren't primarily for me, although I do keep them for my htpc to reduce the mileage on my discs. When I sit down and start fiddling with the GUI I'm thinking about who will be downloading it from megalinks.
permalink
[-] mteg | 2 points | Dec 12 2017 18:01:34
Sorry I misunderstood your intent. Yes, some users prefer movies below the limit, although I'm not sure it's that much a problem - 24 hours during a day to dl, even with the limit and not trying to bypass it that's 15-25GB a day.
permalink
[-] Himechi | 1 points | Dec 13 2017 04:33:52
The new preview comparison is done. 4 minutes from War of the Worlds (2005) when the tripod rises up from under the street and attacks.
Ripped in x265 12bit at RF19.
Medium - 530MB
Slow - 626MB
Scale that up from 4 minutes to a 2.5 hour movie and that's a helluva difference.
permalink
[-] Himechi | 1 points | Dec 12 2017 05:32:43
To address your first part, I settled on AC3 as it seems to have greater compatibility than AAC. I was also expecting that once the bitrate got high enough, any difference between the two quality-wise would be negligible.
permalink