Media Storage: High Pixels or Low Compression

[CtrlAltELITE]

Hey folks

 

So I've seen this question debated in the past on A/V forums, the basic premis is:

When storing large quantities of media (I.e movies) what preference do you have for your encodes, in the 2-4mbps bit rate range which seems to be the most common (think 1.5-3gb movie sizes) size chosen for collections there appears to be 2 schools of thought:

1. Standard definition (360/480p) with very little compression, meaning the image is consistent, yet decidedly low quality

2. High definition (720/1080p) with high(er) compression, meaning that stills are sharper and more defined, but much quality is lost during some scenes, normally those of intense movement.

 

Of these schools of thought based on statistics from download sites (*cough*torrents) it appears the silent majority subscribe to the 2nd school with the high x264/265 compression 720/1080p copies being the most used. However every time I see this question debated there is always, what seems like a very vocal minority who favour the consistent SD standards and claim high compression dilutes the viewing experience somewhat.

 

I know many here have their own grand collections of media for using with services like Plex I would be interested in hearing about your own methods of storage.

 

For the sake of prosperity I should mention, this thread should only be about the discussion of means of storage of media, such as that ripped from personal DVD collections, discussion of procurement of media via less legal means contravenes the forum rules and as such shouldn't be discussed.

 

I'm also leaving out the 3rd option of lossless storage and just buying more hard drives as I believe that is a part of a different debate.

 

Look foward to hearing folks reponses and justifications.

CAE

[Sniperfox47]

Edit: oops apparently I can't read. Different debate NVM.

 

I prefer lower definition with higher bitrate because I can't stand the artifacts I see with compressed video. But that's just me.

[CtrlAltELITE]

Haha Sniper, was about to post before you edited.

 

Honestly I think its a less realistic option, and ultimately a part of a different debate. True lossless content, especially with a blu ray source will be pushing 30-60gb. With some modern movies pushing up close to 100gb. This is not a realistic storage size for a collection for the vast majority of people. So a comprise must be made. For some this compromise may not be as great with 5-10gb HD copies being used however even in this case the same debate occurs,  do you downscale from 4k to 1080p or do you run a light 264 or HEVC compression and suffer a slight loss of fidelity during some scenes.

 

The debate of pixels vs compression is the same regardless of the bit rate unless you are talking about some truely loopy file sizes. This is why I left this option out.

 

[Sniperfox47]

2 minutes ago, CtrlAltELITE said:

Haha Sniper, was about to post before you edited.

 

Honestly I think its a less realistic option, and ultimately a part of a different debate. True lossless content, especially with a blu ray source will be pushing 30-60gb. With some modern movies pushing up close to 100gb. This is not a realistic storage size for a collection for the vast majority of people. So a comprise must be made. For some this compromise may not be as great with 5-10gb HD copies being used however even in this case the same debate occurs,  do you downscale from 4k to 1080p or do you run a light 264 or HEVC compression and suffer a slight loss of fidelity during some scenes.

 

The debate of pixels vs compression is the same regardless of the bit rate unless you are talking about some truely loopy file sizes. This is why I left this option out.

 

Yeah. I guess I'm not really an average use case where I have a huge NAS that I just dump stuff on.

 

Ultra high compression systems like DivX and XVid make me want to cry when I see them. Same with H.264/VP8 on higher resolution video.

 

H.265 is much more acceptable from an appearance state for me, but it's patent encumbered so I don't touch it. Same reason I don't touch H.264.

 

If people offered more video in high quality VP9 I think I'd have a nice middle ground that I'd be tempted to take, but until then...

[CtrlAltELITE]

Ummm could this be moved back to general? It has very little to do with hard drives.

 

 

[Zoravar]

9 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Yeah. I guess I'm not really an average use case where I have a huge NAS that I just dump stuff on.

I'm probably not an average use case either.  I go for high resolution and low compression.  So naturally that leads to some large file sizes, but I don't mind because I have a lot of space.   Eventually, I plan to move my Plex install off of my main computer and into a NAS, in which case I will have even more storage  

[AshleyAshes]

 

Actual screen shot of a folder on my server: (Disclaimer: I really am a Prime subscriber)

 

 

The poll seems short sighted as it doesn't cover other possible answers.  Also the usage of 'High Compression' is a little vague, the wording 'High Bitrate' and 'Low Bitrate' would be more clear and accurate.

 

I also remux my own Blu-Ray discs for the server, so the files aren't re-encoded and the bitrate is the same as what's on the disk.  This results in films ranging from 15-30GB, depending of course on the bitrate used on the disc. 

[CtrlAltELITE]

On 12/11/2016 at 10:31 PM, AshleyAshes said:

 

Actual screen shot of a folder on my server: (Disclaimer: I really am a Prime subscriber)

 

 

The poll seems short sighted as it doesn't cover other possible answers.  Also the usage of 'High Compression' is a little vague, the wording 'High Bitrate' and 'Low Bitrate' would be more clear and accurate.

 

I also remux my own Blu-Ray discs for the server, so the files aren't re-encoded and the bitrate is the same as what's on the disk.  This results in films ranging from 15-30GB, depending of course on the bitrate used on the disc. 

 

Haha, my grand tour is sitting on a very moderate ~1gb per episode, must admit would love to admire more of Clarksons wrinkles in glorious 4K :D.

 

Anywho I use the term compression in this context because bit rate is directly tied to pixel count, without compression more pixels = more bits. What compression/encoding does is attempt to group pixels together somewhat in order to make storage easier. So in this context saying compression or 'More compressed encode' would be more accurate for the question at hand.

 

I also covered why I dont include 'just buy more hard drives' in an above post as it is a part of a different debate.

[AshleyAshes]

7 minutes ago, CtrlAltELITE said:

Anywho I use the term compression in this context because bit rate is directly tied to pixel count, without compression more pixels = more bits. What compression/encoding does is attempt to group pixels together somewhat in order to make storage easier. So in this context saying compression or 'More compressed encode' would be more accurate for the question at hand.

I work in the film industry and this has to be the worst attempt at explaining lossy video compression that I have ever read...