AR_Ahmed | 175 points
Mission: Impossible (1996) 1080p 10bit BluRay x265 HEVC English 3.20 GB [z97]
Mission: Impossible II (2000) 1080p 10bit BluRay x265 HEVC English 3.07 GB [z97]
Mission: Impossible III (2006) 1080p 10bit BluRay x265 HEVC English 4.31 GB [z97]
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (2011) 1080p 10bit BluRay x265 HEVC English 3.64 GB [z97]
Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015) 1080p 10bit BluRay x265 HEVC English 3.67 GB [z97]
....................
Link:
x265 really saves alot of space and bandwidth..idk why it's hated by those encodes maniacs.
[-] ScyllaHide | 6 points
thats what i always get to hear: x265 still needs another year to be close in quality compared to x264. (not talking about size!)
well i prefer x265 too, dont understand the argument above too.
[-] OtochimarU | 5 points
I did find a 4k x265 encode of the martian and that thing is around 4gb, and looks incredible, so my guess is the encoder, the code itself can do wonders but the encoder has to know how to put the parameters to achieve smallest size with best video results, I haven't encode a file since 2006 so I have no idea the best settings but back then, I remember having a preset for anime, another for hollywood movies another for TV shows and another for JDrama and so on. I lost this preset with the PC before my last encode so I had to do the last one from memory and had some issues during panning.
[-] ScyllaHide | 4 points
presets are of course the key and i guess TIgole has no presets at all.
4GB for 4k and martian is quite good.
[-] OtochimarU | 6 points
I think Tigole has presets but he changes them every now and then, either he is still tweaking or it has to do with how dark the movie is, if you notice on these, the encoder, z97, has most of them on the 3.5gb size mark and #3 is 4.3gb size, looks like they do have some sort of setting but depending of the darkness and or fast scenes things might change on the encoding settings, the same with Tigole encodes of these movies #3 is the second biggest of all 4 movies at 2.48gb but #4 is the biggest at 2.76gb
[-] Moongose83 | 2 points
Well the algorithm still needs some tweaking to be as efficient as it could be. Meaning quality/size. But for me it's ok. If you want top quality it'll be x264 remux. But I don't have that kind of space on my HDDs. BTW how do you guys compare these rips here with the Tigole ones?
[-] ScyllaHide | 5 points
the size of a remux is insane, not buying twenty HDD to store them and most important the traffic amount i would need.
think they compare how the action scenes look in both, how the gradients look like, how black scenes are encoded, etc.
the more the algo is used the better it will be in the end.
the x265 are awsome for the size.
[-] Moongose83 | 3 points
Yea, the gradients and black scenes are the biggest pain on x265 imo. But as you said, its awesome for the size. I can live with visible gradients in movie.
With me not just space but also bandwidth.. My bandwidth is severely limited by 100 GB quota a month can you imagine and of course low speed..
So this big sizes are big no for me by the way I made comparison between a remux of 27 GB and an encode x265 of 1.8 GB by Joy .can you imagine how many gb were saved?.i found that picture quality is very close to it not the same but very close ..its by far better than streaming services yet manages to he very close to the original blu ray so this is a clear win for x265 encodes.
[-] Moongose83 | 2 points
Ouch, I feel your pain. Can't imagine having 100GB for month. x265 is your savior then! Definitely check PSArips site. He has(They have?) imo the lowest size and good quality rips.
I saw some of there encodes but I think UTR group makes better quality encodes..while psarips it's not bad but it seems more quantity than quality.
[-] Moongose83 | 2 points
I agree that UTR makes better quality, but on the other hand their rips are almost always bigger. I just meant if you need to save some bandwith.
I did get some of there encodes..but I always prefer UTR whenever I can ..at this point there's no meaning in saving 500 to 300 mb just..as sacrificing any loss in quality at this point became critical... x265 can compress to a very small sizes but when we are talking about less than 1000 kbps it's just really reaching its limit.
Can someone ELI5 how they works to me?
[-] Moongose83 | 6 points
Here is picture what says it all. Basically the algorithm tries to find "similar" pixels next to each other and group them as one and therefore it needs less space to save.
[-] quarterburn | 1 points
I can tell you for some movies I'm very hesitant to replace my x264 simply because a lot of them sacrifice too much quality for saving room. I'm partial to film grain but that takes up a ton of space so a lot of x265 encodes smooth it out to save space. Here's an example of when I was comparing two versions of Seinfeld:
not that big of difference at all considering the difference in file size .its only minor detail plus some noise is difference here.
[-] quarterburn | 3 points
Unfortunately when you smooth out that grain you introduce color banding because it isn't there to dither the image. In the end it all comes down to your own personal threshold. It's pretty great that we even get to choose between high quality and space saving.
Put the link on http://links.snahp.it to protect it.
How does that protect it? I know it hides the actual link but any intern at Sony can figure it out, or are there bots that search these kind of things?
[-] Tattootempest | 3 points
Pretty sure the encoding is mainly to stop bots. Hidden links and 64b ain't gonna stop a real person reading the post.
[-] OtochimarU | 3 points
Bots are usually looking for these stuff, snahp.it and other sites prevent people without the pass to access such links
[-] mrcoolguy1_1 | 4 points
What the actual fuck
I just started this series last weekend and last time the quality was shit so I was checking here for uploads
[-] Moongose83 | 3 points
There are also Tigole rips, but considering their sizes(they are smaller), they'll have lower bitrate.
[-] mrcoolguy1_1 | 3 points
Yeah that's why I'm furiously downloading these lol
[-] Moongose83 | 3 points
Let me know if it's noticeable difference! I'm still unsure if I want to sacrifice another space on HDD.
[-] mrcoolguy1_1 | 3 points
It seems to be better because of the x265. If your watching on a big tv it might be. Otherwise probably not.
[-] Moongose83 | 5 points
Tigole are x265 too. But I see your point. I'm going for it. thx :)
edit: Ok, I just downloaded Ghost protocol and the difference is insane. Even on my 17" 900p laptop screen.
[-] mrcoolguy1_1 | 3 points
Oh shit I didn't realize that lol
Yay!
[-] OtochimarU | 3 points
Really? cuz tigole are 10bit, i'll get these and see.
[-] Moongose83 | 2 points
Links here are 10bit too. But I meant mostly the sharpness of image and yea the difference is big imo. 8/10 bit is color depth if I get it right?
The difference on what ..you mean this one is better than tigole right?
[-] Moongose83 | 2 points
Yes. This one is better than Tigole. :)
As expected as this one had higher bitrate ..but really I always thought tigole is the least Quality wise encoder there in the UTR group... I compared it to Joy and Joy always wins even in smaller bitrate....its tigole encodes are more popular because he's the one with the biggest number if encodes.
[-] King-fannypack | 2 points
Thank You My Friend!
[-] OtochimarU | 2 points
Thanks Btw.
[-] bigbobbarker199 | 1 points
I just need ghost protocol, I'm still new to this. Can I download just the one film?
[-] plain_dust | 16 points | Feb 21 2018 20:42:35
dude put that in a link protected password so its harder to be taken down!
permalink