I’d like if someone from Plex could answer this question please. I have asked this question before but never received an answer. Today when I buy a DVD and convert it to a file format, I do 2 things. I copy the original version of this conversion to a folder I call “Originals”. I then Optimize the original version for TV and place that in my Movies folder that serves as my Plex Media Server Movies Library. Then, if I think it’s a movie my kids will like, I optimize the original version again for Mobile so they can view it on their mobile devices.
I do this pre-optimization so the transcoder shouldn’t have to do too much work when streaming the movie thus improving performance and eliminating buffering.
My question is, is this best practice or is this unnecessary? Maybe it’s just me, but I seem to get a lot more buffering when attempting to stream a 1080p movie in mkv format then if I stream it pre-optimized for TV in mp4 format.
The trade-off of course is I eat up a lot more storage space. But with storage being so cheap these days, it’s a trade-off I’m willing to accept if it means all of my movies and TV shows will stream flawlessly.
My environment: Latest Plex Media Server version installed on a QNAP TS-451 with 8GB of RAM and a Seagate 8TB NAS HDD SATA 6Gb/s NCQ 256 MB Cache Bare Drive streaming across a Netgear AC5300 Nighthawk X8 Tri-Band WiFi Router.
@Degenaars said:
My question is, is this best practice or is this unnecessary?
It’s not a best practice question. Your environment, your media and your usage are not going to be the same as others so basing decisions about it on generic recommendation is not the best idea.
What happens if you don’t follow the process you are doing now? Does it work better or worse for you and your users?
If you have the time, and the storage space, to cater to your current process, it sounds like it is working pretty well for you?
1 comment though, no matter how fancy your router may be, streaming to wired devices will always yield better results. Having more buffering issues with a 1080 movie v an SD one is expected behaviour when wifi is used.
I disagree that there isn’t a recommended best practice. I have found a way to make it work in my environment as you mention and I am pleased that it is working fine. If I don’t follow this process my results are sometimes good, but not always. It’s not a consistent result which is why I was hoping for guidance from the team who created the application and the transcoder engine. My question is really whether or not pre-optimizing does indeed limit the transcoding during streaming or if my assumption is incorrect.
To directly answer the question in the end of your last post. It sould. As long as the optimized files works with your end clients. But as the other poster said this is all about your use case. Your Qnap device doesn’t function the same nor can it as lets say my DIY home server with a Core i5 2400 CPU and 8GB of ram. Because of the increase in CPU, my system can generally handle any file i through at it so i rarely optimize anything. The only thing my system struggles with is 4k video and to be honest what doesn’t. The rare occasions where i have done some optimzing is for occasions i am going to be remote from my server allot. Also if i had several remote users then would probably consider it more strongly.
Just to be clear the reason i don’t is because additional compression means lower quality video. It may not be much or visiable depending on your clients but it is. And i would much rather save the space and retain the quailty and transcode on the fly instead of immediately giving up the quality.
So it is all about use case and a little bit of compromize.
Any use case involveing a low power NAS with little CPU though will benifit significatly from pre optimzing the content.
@Degenaars said:
I disagree that there isn’t a recommended best practice. I have found a way to make it work in my environment as you mention and I am pleased that it is working fine. If I don’t follow this process my results are sometimes good, but not always. It’s not a consistent result which is why I was hoping for guidance from the team who created the application and the transcoder engine. My question is really whether or not pre-optimizing does indeed limit the transcoding during streaming or if my assumption is incorrect.
Yes it does, that is the design purpose of the optimize feature - but there are too many variables in play to ensure it’ll remove the need completely in all situations.
This is the whole reason the Optimize Media feature is there. To pre-transcode media to fit your client’s needs and to eliminate on demand transcoding on machines that can’t handle it.
I am a BIG proponent of optimizing media to fit the client streaming it. Since storage is cheap, relative to transcoding power, it makes sense to store 2 or even more versions of the media to fit the users demands for it and to virtually eliminate RT transcoding. You very likely aren’t going to eliminate it 100%, but you surely can get darned close to it! And with some research as to the rare causes of transcoding, you can get ever closer to 100%.
Some people whine that they don’t feel they should store more than on version, and that drive space is a premium. But as you yourself said, it’s not expensive… Throwing another drive at a system to store the optimized versions on just makes sense from a cost perspective.
@mavrrick said:
To directly answer the question in the end of your last post. It sould. As long as the optimized files works with your end clients. But as the other poster said this is all about your use case. Your Qnap device doesn’t function the same nor can it as lets say my DIY home server with a Core i5 2400 CPU and 8GB of ram. Because of the increase in CPU, my system can generally handle any file i through at it so i rarely optimize anything. The only thing my system struggles with is 4k video and to be honest what doesn’t. The rare occasions where i have done some optimzing is for occasions i am going to be remote from my server allot. Also if i had several remote users then would probably consider it more strongly.
Just to be clear the reason i don’t is because additional compression means lower quality video. It may not be much or visiable depending on your clients but it is. And i would much rather save the space and retain the quailty and transcode on the fly instead of immediately giving up the quality.
So it is all about use case and a little bit of compromize.
Any use case involveing a low power NAS with little CPU though will benifit significatly from pre optimzing the content.
You’re going to have much better quality for the same file size and bitrate if you pretranscode your files VS on the fly. On-the-fly transcoding uses x264 superfast preset and neglects quality to achieve speed, where you could use higher settings with a pretranscode and get better quality. So, while I could see people not wanting to use up a lot of storage with traffic scored versions, your reasoning is flawed.
