Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54577 readers

286 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

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

116

Are movie and show file sizes more efficient than they were years ago? (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This may be a stupid question, but I just got back into pirating some shows and movies and realize that many of the QxR files are much smaller than what I downloaded in the past. Is it likely that I am sacrificing a noticeable amount of quality if I replace my files with the smaller QxR ones?

For example, I have Spirited Away from 2017 at 9.83 GB, but I see the QxR is only 6.1 GB. I also have the office from 2019 and the entire show (no bonus content) is about 442 GB, while the QxR version is only 165.7 GB. Dates are what they are dated on my hard drive, can't speak to their actual origin, but they would've been from RARBG. (Edit to add: I also can't really speak to the quality of the downloads, back then I was just grabbing whatever was available at a reasonable size, so I wasn't deliberately seeking out high quality movies and shows - a simple 1080p in the listing was enough for me).

I did some side by side on episodes of the Office (on my PC with headphones, nothing substantial), and I don't notice any differences between the two.

Thoughts on this? Are people better at ripping/compressing/whatever now that they can do so at a smaller size without sacrificing noticeable quality?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Licensing, probably. H.265 is very not open and you have to pay the MPEG piper to actually use it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder what the implications would be for us consumers & pirates.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Nothing, the licenses are for content providers and equipment manufacturers, obviously in the end you pay the license when purchasing the goods but the amount is small.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They have licensed countless other codecs and tons of cameras adopted it before they supported it. These aren’t some FOSS hobbyist projects. These are professional NLE’s for Hollywood level work. There’s no excuse if you ask me. Hell Resolve had it like 2-3 years prior I believe.