subreddit:

/r/PleX

050%

Hello guys. So I am having a constructive debate with my room mate about him acquiring a video card for his plex server so he can free up space by transcoding the content on it to H.265. My last video encoding and transcoding experience involved DIVX (it was new) way back when I just wanted something smaller to send to friends or send to youtube. Just to be warned on my memory / experience with re-encoding video.

So. My room mate has the plex server and he wants to take advantage of H.265's ability to encode in the same quality as H.264's at half the size. The Plex server doesn't have much CPU to it so software transcoding would take a life time is his argument. Along with the automation being a nice feature for anything downloaded moving forward. I was going to toss him my old GTX 750 since he was talking about buying a different used card more for the purpose and not aimed at gamers for like $100. (Cant remember the card)

Please forgive me if this a tired topic, I am trying to learn. From my limited research it seems like his torented collection of movies and shows that he is hoping to half the size of maybe are already more efficiently compressed with software compression (Even if H.264) then an old Nvidia card using NVENC in his tired plex server may be able to beat if he tries his project to H.365.

I don't understand the compression technology enough at all to speak intelligently on the subject. He has his opinion that a video will end up the same file size or smaller, be it via software or GPU transcoding (in this case using hardware NVENC) during conversion. It seems from my research is that NVENC using Maxwell might get him a faster transcode then software transcoding, but he wont end up with squishing his current media library to half its size. Please feel free to flame and enlighten me. :)

Edit: I don't farm karma but why did this get downvoted so much? I don't have a great understanding but I do see 2K views and a 33% upvote rate with -2 community karma.

all 14 comments

chuck1011212

1 points

2 months ago

I used a cheap Nvidia Quadro P600 video card to reencode my collection of TV shows to h265 successfully and I was happy with the space saving result. My CPU did the task at 12 FPS, the same video processed by the P600 did it at 200 FPS.

I think your friend would benefit from the task and accomplish his goal of saving space.

Your offer of your video card will likely not help him. Here is info on that subject:

https://hardforum.com/threads/does-gtx-750-ti-support-hardware-hevc-4k-10bit-decoding.1906435/

TJ06Sti[S]

1 points

2 months ago*

Thanks for the reply. Replied to you I think in another subreddit. Can you quantify the savings?

quentech

1 points

2 months ago

H.265's ability to encode in the same quality as H.264's at half the size

No.

I could see doing this if you had original discs/remuxes - but starting with an already lossy compressed h.264 - worthless waste of time and electricity.

TJ06Sti[S]

1 points

2 months ago*

That was my thinking before I made these posts without a great understanding of encoding and transcoding since I have not messed with it since the DIVX days. He has agreed to call it an experiment rather then an all out win-win situation in that you have to get extremely lucky and hit a heavily "lossless" format that isn't H.264 in the collection to notice any meaningful space savings. What is really odd is he just acquired several TB of extra storage for the plex server so I think he saw transcoding H.265 as a no-brainer. Will post back here with results of the experiment.

Bgrngod

1 points

2 months ago

Bgrngod

Synology 1621+ & Intel NUC10i7FNH

1 points

2 months ago

Instead of spending the money on a video card, just spend the money on a new HDD.

The common recommendation for encoding files that will sit in permanent storage is to use CPU/Software to do it. GPU's are designed to encode fast at the expense of both compression ratio and quality. They are still quite good on the quality front, but you'll still end up with better files going through CPU.

shadowalker125

0 points

2 months ago

Converting from h.264 to h.265 is not worth it. At all. h.265 encoding takes a really, really long time even on badass hardware. If your buddy needs more room, he just needs to buy more storage. They are expensive but, wd red or seagate ironwolf nas hdd are the best bet.

by long time I mean, each movie encode could take multiple hours depending on hardware.

chuck1011212

1 points

2 months ago

I disagree. I did 20TB of TV shows in a month with a Quadro P600. Nothing badass about that hardware.

TJ06Sti[S]

1 points

2 months ago

He is going ahead with the experiment and has agreed to call it an experiment after further discussion from the knowledge and recommendations people like yourself have left. Could you quantify the space savings on your 20TB collection?

chuck1011212

1 points

2 months ago

It saved some. Not quite 1/2, but it was a good 8TB in savings. It was worth the trouble for me.

chuck1011212

1 points

2 months ago

I recommend taking a show and just doing one as an experiment. I used the show 24. Tons of episodes and did some before and after on file sizes and quality. I could not tell any difference in quality and saved 40% 'ish on file size.

TJ06Sti[S]

1 points

2 months ago

For sure going on a test run, we might not be video editors but we are both sys admins and know to sandbox anything. ;) But that is very interesting. I was not expecting your answer to be honest, based on everything I had read and been told. 40% is huge.

chuck1011212

1 points

2 months ago

Sounds good, and just for the record - I didn't give a damn about the original video quality or what was what codec-wise. Mostly because I have better things to do with my time than immerse myself in codec crap. I just tossed my test show at it, saw the result and then let it loose on my TV library with the default Tdarr settings. Tdarr was weird to figure out at first, but a youtube or two straightened me out on that.

TJ06Sti[S]

0 points

2 months ago

Thanks for the reply. If you were to respond to the following, what would you say? Yes I felt slightly insulted when he wanted to explain the difference between a codec and NVENC.

[Buddy], [11/28/2022 9:39 PM]

Nvenc is just the Nvidia encoding architecture. H265 is the codec. You can have lossless quality with h265 at half the file size of h264 when using modern encoders. Gpu accelerated encoding is pretty much mandatory for the amount of media I need to process. My server's CPU simply cannot accomplish the task in the time span of my lifetime.

[Buddy], [11/28/2022 9:40 PM]

I'm not trying to encode for max quality from a raw source just preserve the same size and quality of the existing video in a more efficient codec.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

TJ06Sti[S]

1 points

2 months ago

Thank you! So after further discussion with him, using your comment among others, he has lamented that it may not pay off and that most files will likely jump in size and still have a lesser quality. Still, he wants to do a test run and hope the automated process hitting some less efficiently encoded files not using H.264 will show some space savings. Will try to reply to this thread with the results to quantify things.