this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
62 points (98.4% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54746 readers
222 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

So...yeah. Looking at file size, it clearly beats older 264 or even 265. I don't mind if my server is going to have to transcode for most clients, I think the size difference in size might be worth it. But not sure which groups I could focus to look for these AV1 releases, seem they're quite scarce still?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That is not a transcode you want to do.

Why is that?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Dolby Digital (e-ac & e-ac3) are lossy codecs. So transcoding a lossy codec to a lossless codec, is not a good idea.

You can read more about it here: https://interviewfor.red/en/transcodes.html

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I didnt realise* that they were lossy. Makes sense now.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Lossy to lossless is fine it's just a waste of space.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

It’s extra wasted space because compression artifacts are hard to compress lossless. It’s a shit sandwich, so people advise against it.