Luigi_Gamer | 123 points
Any pass = the name of this subreddit
[-] LL_Cruel_J | 10 points
Hey, Paisanos!
[-] kaching335 | 3 points
Thanks!
[-] grognakbabarian | 1 points
What's the point of making x265 DVD rips? I get it for Bluray rips, as it will severely reduce the filesize, but good quality DVD rips can already be small, filesize reduction will basically be moot at that point.
[-] [deleted] | -31 points
[removed]
[-] darkshadow6400 | 28 points
Nothing except reduced banding and increased compression due to the encoder being more precise.
That is a retarded misconception. You can't reduce 8-bit banding by reenconding into 10-bit just like you can't reduce 8-bit audio artifacts in MP3 by reencoding in 16-bit.
The increased compression is also a lie that stems from comparing MPEG-2 to HEVC, not HEVC 8bit to HEVC 10-bit.
Basically you're another retard who's spreading misinformation.
[-] darkshadow6400 | 7 points
Sorry but you're wrong. Of course the source isn't going to magically become 10bit, but when you encode an 8bit source using a 10bit encoder you do get better compression and less banding compared to encoding with the same settings using an 8bit encoder, as the encoder is more precise and results in less rounding errors.
Just to make sure you don't think I'm comparing different codecs again, I'm talking about both x264 8bit vs x264 10bit, AND x265 8bit vs x265 10bit.
I'd suggest you do a bit of reading up on how the encoders read and calculate data before trying to insult others.
[-] grognakbabarian | 1 points
If an encoder can't reduce banding in an 8bit encode then it just shows that they're incompetent.
but when you encode an 8bit source using a 10bit encoder you do get better compression and less banding compared to encoding with the same settings using an 8bit encoder
No, you don't. If you have a black-and-white gradient (1-bit, 2 colors) no matter how many bits you encode it with, it will remain two colors, 1 bit. Same with 8 bit, if you have 256 bands they are going to remain as 256 bands, no matter how many bits you add.
I'd suggest you do a bit of reading up on how the encoders read and calculate data before trying to insult others.
How about others do some reading? Because that brain-dead-simple example shows exactly what happens when you encode a lower-bit-depth image as a higher-bit-depth image. You gain nothing.
[-] darkshadow6400 | 6 points
I feel like you're missing the point, and your example is too simple. I'm not talking about creating additional colours, I'm talking about retaining the existing colour data.
When you encode anything, there is data bring thrown away, due to the lower bitrate. Sometimes you lose information from a smooth gradient, which is what introduces banding. With an 8bit encoder, this is more common, as the 8bit encoder has less of an colour space to work with internally and often leads to rounding errors, resulting in a less smooth gradient.
With a 10bit encoder of the same codec, it's much easier to retain the data in the gradient, as the encoder has a higher internal precision, due to the additional steps existing between each colour in the same colour space. This in turn leads to a smoother gradient in the final output.
So it's not so much that 10bit magically reduces banding due to making more colours, it's just more efficient at retaining the existing data due to its higher internal precision.
[-] VyndrosNoldor | 2 points
If you have existing banding in the source you can also use filters to correct that (such as f3kdb which works pretty damn good).
I don't understand why the OP is against 10-bit encoding unless he has a machine from 15 years ago that has trouble with newer technologies.
[-] petrocity06 | 59 points | Feb 14 2018 18:23:11
WELL EXCUUUUUUUUUSE ME PRINCESS
permalink
[-] OkayDragon | 22 points | Feb 14 2018 20:23:30
I came here for this comment. Was not disappointed.
permalink
[-] chriscrowder | 12 points | Feb 14 2018 21:09:14
I came here to say this. Got beat :(
permalink
[-] redrosebluesky | 3 points | Feb 15 2018 03:47:48
MUH BOI
permalink