unpaq | 97 points
BY REQUEST, langbard's encode:
An international team of scientists and military personnel discover a Stargate network in the Pegasus Galaxy and come face-to-face with a new, powerful enemy, The Wraith.
BASE64 ENCODED MEGA LINK:
aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWdhLm56LyNGITBmWW5CVERMCg==
PLAINTEXT (NOT BASE64) MEGA DECRYPTION KEY:
d43Zv4cDC_ijUZ2Tup1Fqw
ZIPPYSHARE | MEDIAINFO | STARGATE SG-1
[-] meandmymanycats | 11 points
Thanks alot, any chance you also have SG-1?
[-] Rednedivad10 | 3 points
I second this, would love to see a good x265 copy of this.
[-] UncleMike69 | 7 points
Thank you! Any chance of getting the other SG series? Would love to get SGU.
Oooo and it's 10bit color depth with that x265, thanks for this, really.
If there is a 10bit color depth source, right?
Also, rock on OP!
Generally, but you can also just lower the max possible black in an encode and raise the whites (same with the color channels), essentially just raising the contrast to emulate larger contrast ratios within a 10bit depth encode that was a 8bit.
It won't look as good as true 10bit source sure, but it is how a lot of these are made. I am unsure if this is from a true 10bit source, but if a bluray remaster rip, unlikely I'd assume, a 10bit x264 encode would be absolutely massive.
How is this compared to the this version: https://www.reddit.com/r/megalinks/comments/6mvqk1/tv_stargate_atlantis_season_15_720p_bluray_x264/ ?
It's going to look obscenely better. For one it's 1080p, not 720p. :)
If you're going off the file size, which I suspect you might be. I get where you're coming from, why is this upload only 120gb when the 720p upload from before is 218gb? That is because this version is x265 not x264. With a x265 you can save the same data at about 1/4 the file size as x264, yes it's that much more efficient. That is why you can see 1080p x265 encodes with way smaller file sizes than say a 720p x264 encode.
I must stress as it's a common misconception about x265, there is zero quality difference between an x264 and x265 encode if all other specs kept are the same, only a file size difference. It's just the format (without going further into it) that is different, holding the same exact package within.
There is a trade off for it however, only a few video players can play x265 videos (more are adding support as time goes on, VLC is the most popular), and it uses far more processing power to run playback, due to your processor needing to decompress the more sophisticated x265 at 24fps.
[-] [deleted] | 5 points
[deleted]
[-] smut_throwaway_77 | 1 points
It's going to look obscenely better.
Except it wont.
While this release
While the release linked above (the x264 720p) has an overall bit rate of 7 109 Kbps, nearly twice the bit rate of this release.
If you're strapped for size. This release is good quality for half the size. But in no means is it
[-] doot_doot_doot_doo | 2 points
I'm with you.
These posts come up time and again. The data says x264 vs x265 all things being equal (ie. same bit rates) and you save about 20-30% file size at an incredible compute time.
So what does that mean in regards to this? As seen with the fan edit star wars movies, higher bit rate 720p will almost always be superior to lower bit rate 1080p even with regards to x264/x265
The higher quality x265 movies are still considered to be about 25% smaller than their x264 equivalents (so an 8GB SPARKS br rip would equate to a 6GB x265 rip ideally)
Yes things are compressed more, but no x265 is not some magic sauce that can make up huge bitrate differences.
That said, it can do wonders in low bit rate situations (when compared to similarly low bit x264s like yify releases)
[-] Axelstrife | 2 points
Thanks you just saved me 98GB of storage lol
[-] thisisfuxinghard | 1 points
I am being asked for a zip password for S02E17, does anyone have that password?
[-] Aldierx | 13 points | Jan 03 2018 01:25:03
Fucking Cheers Mate.
permalink