iPhunwa2 | 213 points
Includes:
Paging: /u/jeremyptw /u/VitaminSex
If you're having trouble downloading from MEGA, or can't bypass the bandwidth limit, use ZippyShare with JDownloader (ZS Mirror). If you're unsure on how to download using JDownloader, read the post I made here.
How is it different from this upload?
Sorry if it's a trivial question, but I'm new to this.
[-] [deleted] | 5 points
[deleted]
[-] Thomas-Kite | 3 points
As far as I can tell, only two episodes (S04E02, S04E05) were from WEB-DL and the rest was sourced from BTN's REMUX upload last year. So aside from those two, that should also be BluRay sourced. A better question would be what makes this source better than that source and why is this x265 better than that one?
[-] C_McButterpants | 1 points
This batch of x265 encodes are practically identical to the BTN release in both quality and size, with 2 caveats:
The 4:3 aspect of seasons 1-4 remains un-cropped (only an issue on non 16:9 displays)...
and it would seem season 5 was encoded too fast on both occasions (only an issue for finicky bastards like myself — I re-did them from the remuxes).
[-] Thomas-Kite | 1 points
I'm sorry, but I'm not quite understanding what you mean by the 4:3 aspect ratio remains uncropped. Isn't that what the show was formatted for? So wouldn't you want it to persevere the aspect ratio and not crop it?
[-] C_McButterpants | 1 points
I mean the black bars to left and right are intact, keeping the frame at 1920x1080... rather than cropping to video only, ie. 1440x1080 (4:3). Play this content on a 4:3 or 16:10 monitor and you end up with black borders on all four sides; unless your player renders with madvr or some such and can detect and adjust.
[-] Thomas-Kite | 1 points
I think I get what you're saying. So you're saying that this cropping issue is a problem for this release, but not the BTN Remux or the BTN x265 reencode?
[-] uwotm8_888 | 1 points
could you upload the fifth season that you encoded.
[-] C_McButterpants | 1 points
Paging doctor u/uwotm8_888
Season 5 HEVC [2.6GB] Link:
aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWdhLm56LyNGIXpNWXpVWnpEIUl5QjdIZm5zRU40c1RGNDVmS2dtcFE=
^^Decode ^^with ^^Base64
[-] uwotm8_888 | 1 points
thanks man
[-] XDark_Dragon | 1 points
First of all, hello, and thank you for the upload. However, the Mega link(s) is no longer working. Is it going to be fixed, or should I try to use ZippyShare instead?
I'm sorry I don't have a backup of the files on MEGA anymore. You'll have to use ZippyShare. I'd recommend using JDownloader, just to make it easier for you.
[-] XDark_Dragon | 1 points
Ok, thank you.
[-] Variability | 0 points
thanks, i requested this a few times.
just found this torrent on btbitDOTorg
be sure to use a vpn if you p2p this.
Sigh... another 10-bit encode of an 8-bit source... will people be stupid forever?
[-] KrangyKrangles | 7 points
I'm not an expert, but from everything I've read from people smarter than me, encoding 8-bit sources into 10-bit actually saves data in the end with no downsides.
A quick search brought me to this pdf and this explanation.
Simple explanation, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that there's technically more "leeway" when encoding an 8-bit stream into 10-bits. Hardcoded dithering, which has to be used in 8-bit encodes to account for potential errors in encoding, uses a lot of bandwidth in compressed media, but when you encode in 10-bit, that dithering isn't needed, thus saving bandwidth.
this PDF
Is an ad by an h265 hardware encoding company that compares h265 and MPEG-2. Of course h265 is more efficient than MPEG-2, h265 was standardized in the 2010s, MPEG-2 was standardized in the 1990s, that's almost two decades of technological advancement. This is not a 10-bit to 8-bit comparison, it's like comparing a smartphone from the '90s and a smartphone from the 2010s.
this explanation
Is wrong. Dithering from 8-bit to 10-bit adds noise.
when you encode in 10-bit, that dithering isn't needed
IF THE SOURCE IS 10-BIT. If the source is 8-bit then the dithering is the same dithering. You can't un-dither an 8-bit source by encoding it in 10-bit. Whoever wrote that "explanation" doesn't understand dithering, for example:
we no longer need to hardcode any dithering
This is IMPOSSIBLE if the dithering already exists in the source, and the "explanation"'s entire reasoning fails, even if it were true at its core. but it's not: there is no bandwidth improvement with 10-bit. Again they're comparing two different codecs, h264 and h265, and not directly comparing 8-bit and 10-bit encoding.
[-] KrangyKrangles | 2 points
Again they're comparing two different codecs, h264 and h265, and not directly comparing 8-bit and 10-bit encoding.
Are they? The final paragraph in that flyer specifically mentions the difference between h264 8 and 10-bit encodes. I suspect this was created before they moved to h265.
If anything, it seems you'd absolutely have an argument that encoding 8bit to 10bit in h264 showed more savings than it does in h265, which seems to be the case, but both of the resources I posted are talking about encoding in h264.
I mean, it seems like it'd be a pretty simple thing to disprove conclusively if it's bothering you so much that people are doing it. Take 8bit source files, encode two videos with all settings exactly the same aside from the 8bit 10bit setting, compare visually to original and compare file sizes.
In fact, seems someone did something similar and 10bit came out slightly ahead on an 8bit file using both AVC and HEVC. I'm sure there's some difference in the data since he's getting the video straight from his phone rather than from a DVD or Blu-Ray source, but I'm sure there are more examples out there to be found.
All of that said, it seems to depend on the input file whether or not an 8bit file will benefit from being encoded into 10bit. I'm seeing a number of people on video production forums saying that encoding 8bit to 10bit will result in lower file sizes in videos with smooth gradients - such as animation - but it can vary using x265 with live video depending on the input.
Again, I'm not sure why, past the information that I've read about hardcoding dithering in an encode, but a bunch of people who are far more knowledgeable about the subject than me seem to be in agreement.
If you can point me to something other than your word that says otherwise, I'd be happy to read it, though. Like I said, I'm totally willing to change my mind considering I'm not an expert and I've got no horse in this race, I'm just going to defer to people who know better than me, and most of them seem to be in agreement that 8bit files encoded into 10bit will often result in smaller files.
[-] hizzlekizzle | 0 points
Once the data's been thrown out, the 10-bit re-encode can't reconstruct it, can it? Like if you encoded a 1080p video to 480p, you couldn't turn around and re-encode that at 1080p and get that lost information back just by re-encoding.
[-] cjh808 | 9 points | Jan 30 2018 13:08:59
Have the original 4 seasons been released on bluray? whats the source
permalink
[-] LordSparko | 9 points | Jan 30 2018 13:44:43
Yup the whole show has a remastered Blu-Ray box set in the US - somebody posted the remux version late last year if I recall correctly. This is a nice compromise if you like good quality and a smaller size though.
permalink
[-] cjh808 | 2 points | Jan 30 2018 15:14:44
wow, i just finished seasons 1-4 in 480p... oh well
permalink
[-] drinkordie_ | 4 points | Jan 30 2018 17:50:26
Source:
Samurai Jack - Complete 2001 1080p Blu-ray AVC DD 2.0/5.1-BaggerInc (195.2 GBs)
permalink
[-] pcc2048 | 1 points | Feb 04 2018 19:33:13
Any tips on acquiring the BaggerInc release?
permalink
[-] drinkordie_ | 1 points | Feb 04 2018 21:51:39
Don't have it myself. You could look into private torrent trackers.
permalink