While copying a bunch of 20GB blu-ray rips, it occurred to me that I once decided to only rip my MP3s in 192kbit instead of 320kbit, just to conserve a bit of valuable disk space.
That probably was a ridiculously short-sighted decision...
In related news: it's about time I start archiving everything in 4k, x265. Right? Right.
@Michcioperz @fribbledom ooooo i have much to learn...
Hm, you're probably right. Sadly, that often means transcoding / re-encoding everything.
At least my CPU should support hardware accelerated encoding... if I'm not mistaken (need to check that actually works fine on Linux)
@fribbledom any decent quad core is fine these days, i bought my cheap ass i5-6400 because it does reasonable video performance
@fribbledom
I still have a bunch of music I ripped in 128 kbit... 😅
Luckily I still got most of the original CDs so I just need to be sure to re-rip them while I still got a optical drive...
@fribbledom well... yes, if the medium you have is 4k? I don't see the value of upscaling it at this point. Though you should also check out VC-1 if you want to future-proof :)
@petko Oh, of course, upscaling would be silly. I'm talking about ripping and, uhm, otherwise "acquiring" new material.
@fribbledom
>VC-1
Slightly worse coding format than h264 without it's own x264 because of it?
Do you mean AV1 with it's exorbitant encode time atm(I really like it, but come on)?
Or h265(x265)?
@Skoll3 I really meant AV1... And hey, just making sure fribbledom@mastodon.social does not kick himself in 5 years for not using the better codec ;)
@fribbledom I always archive in same quality as I got them, no reencoding. FLAC for CDs and ISO for DVD, BR.
You fool, that's just what the hard drive manufacturers want you to do!!1 😆
@fribbledom Well, but I never have a feeling like "That probably was a ridiculously short-sighted decision..." 😁
Hah, come 2035, I totally expect you will rub my nose in this toot.
@fribbledom
so you're worried about getting *flac* for the encoding being too lossy? ;D
(how many times can I make this joke before I get fired)
@fribbledom my understanding of the state of the art is that you probably still get better results out of x264 (although 4k makes x265 more competitive).
av1 might be interesting, once the encoder gets a year or two of optimisation.
@fribbledom I took one of my favorite photos ever in half my camera's MPix compressed in low quality JPEG.
talk about shortsightedness
@fribbledom I did all mine at 160kbps. But I was young, and I didn’t know what ears were then.
Do we have 4k bluerays yet?
@windmills Sure, so called "4k Ultra HD" / "UHD" blu-ray discs.
@fribbledom Yeah, way back when, most of mine was ripped in 128 or 160 :s
I keep threatening to go back and re-do the originals, but with hundreds of CD's, it's going to take far too long.
@fribbledom I've seen multiple sources that suggest 10-bit x264 beats everything right now. It sounds weird (compressing 8-bit input in a 10-bit codec works better?) but the explanations and benchmarks seem sound.
@fribbledom Back around 2006-2008, I'd share the occasional track with friends on LJ, straight from my own rips, optimised for minimal storage space.
96kbps AAC of 2006 apparently sounded surprisingly bad. *sigh* (In my defense, my headphones at the time were basically "free with two box tops", so I couldn't tell the difference. I've since improved on them =:)
@fribbledom VP9 and webm!!