Does someone have a script that converts all videos files from 264 to 265 and changes the name?

Even an attempt at it would be appreciated

looks like I will not convert anything at all.

It is definitely not worth converting x264, even less x265, to av1, if you are the only consumer. Just think about it. To get any “significant” space gains, while keeping a close to original quality (you will inevitably lose some detail), you need to spend maybe at least 3-4x more time encoding than the actual total video length, probably more, maybe 5x. Taking an average of 3GB/hour, 2TB is about 650 hours. x5 that’s like 3250 hours. An 8 core ryzen will have like 150W total system load encoding av1. 3250h * 0.15 kWh =~ 500 kWh. 500 kWh * 0.15$/kWh (I took an optimistic electricity cost for these days, might be a lot more depending where you live) = $75 in electricity costs. Setting encodes, moving files around, will also take up some significant amount of time. You will gain maybe 1TB, if compressing audio to opus as well, less than that you will have significant video quality losses. 1TB of hdd space is worth $15 these days. And you don’t waste time/electricity+money/video quality.

So it’s only worth to get existing published encodes of the material you own, of if you are planning on publishing yourself. Or just for fun, if you want to experiment and encode one movie to see what’s the best you can get out of av1.

source: https://www.reddit.com/r/AV1/comments/ymrs5v/id_like_to_encode_my_entire_library_to_av1/

  • alphacyberranger@lemmy.worldEnglish
    81·
    11 months ago

    Kind of. But this is encoded using CPU and will be time consuming. Search for FFMPEG GPU acceleration. The installation (building) will take some time but the time saved during mass conversion of videos will be worth it. I believe FFMPEG supports RCOM on Amd and Cuda on Nvidia . So any gpu should be fine.

    • SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      11 months ago

      I generally think that for storage/archiving you should use CPU encoding and only use GPU for things like transcoding where real-time results are crucial.

      GPU encoding is a lot worse quality than CPU, and you can’t change the settings to what you want. Better to just accept the extra time requirement to get a better result.

      • desentizised@lemm.eeEnglish
        4·
        11 months ago

        This. Also unless you have raw BluRay sources recompressing already compressed video isn’t exactly a great idea either way. The space savings will never be worth the loss in visual quality. If you were to retain the quality the space used would probably be similar even with a more efficient / newer codec.

      • db2@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        11 months ago

        GPU decoding is the way to go, it frees up the CPU to do the encoding so you’re still cutting down time without adding GPU weirdness to the output.

      • alphacyberranger@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        11 months ago

        I agree with you. With GPU encoding the options to tweak are less and the quality drop is noticeable if the source ain’t that great. But if you try to encode a full movie on a weak CPU it’s going to take ages.

        • SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          11 months ago

          I personally would not use it for anything that is being saved on your drive. Using cpu encoder is slower but I just let it run over night or whatever and it will be done later.

          Save GPU encoding for when you need it smaller right now like when you are transcoding on the fly.