+1 This. All my library is in hevc, I don’t need my transcoding to use inferior codecs in 2022, my 3 years old cpu can transcode several streams to hevc in he. Let’s get on with the times.
2 Likes
This would be awesome for remote streaming. My whole library is hevc and I’m limited to 40 Mbps upload on my ISP. Transcoding a 4K HDR stream to 1080p using h264 is still about 14 Mbps which means I’m quite limited on remote streams. I have a Core i9 9900K which is more than capable with QSV. Would be great to transcode using hevc encoding.
5 Likes
something i don’t understand is why the new Downloads feature is transcoding my .265 videos into 264, wasting bandwidth and hardware time, is there a download original quality button that I’m missing? the settings on the Downloads option on my phone are clearly set to original quality and it is still is transcoding my videos into 3 times the original file size.
@P_D Off topic. Please post your question in one of the existing topics for Downloads with details on your phone and the file.
1 Like
Resurrecting this. I have been waiting for this for 5 years. This is needed due to limited upload bandwidth
2 Likes
Isn’t hardware typically used for Plex very often more than 3-4 years old?
Yes. Posted that 3 years ago though.
Hah. My bad…
We need this, I agree.
2 Likes
I started using x265 encoding after adopting plex. I use an external encoder MCEBuddy which drives the ffmpeg command line and has great results. It does require Windows unfortunately but I just switched to a new Synology NAS and I’m experimenting with scripted ffmpeg options to externally encode the files before handing them over to Plex. I’m pretty confident this can be streamlined as-is but I agree it is long past time Plex should support the new standard for 4k inside the product.
But unless you make several x265 copies of your content (low quality, Mid quality, high quality) you haven’t solved the problem!
The problem is that each device and internet connection have different playback requirements.
The same x265 transcode of your x264 (x263?) transcoding you made is still only one quality
One of the most important features BUILT INTO PLEX is that it will transcode your original HIGH QUALITY (video and audio) and downscale/transcode them to the best “quality” at that moment for that device.
So, you likely destroyed the quality of playback for everyone connected to your media collection (a future 85" tv upgrade in 5 years, 10 years, etc) so they won’t need to transcode and you saved yourself some storage space.
I don’t know about you, but ripping and transcoding my DVD and Blurays once was enough. I wouldn’t want to do it again in 1 or 5 years when Plex (inevitably) adds transcoding to x265 and newer formats on the fly in the future.
2 Likes
re: Isn’t hardware typically used for Plex very often more than 3-4 years old?
NO. That is ludicrous.
I’d argue that most users with a Plex Server have modern hardware OR have upgraded one or two components on their Plex Server to maximize video streaming and/or Plex’s database performance. For example: adding an SSD or discreet graphics card for transcoding.
Plex is the only platform/service that has developed apps for nearly every platform (not to mention, has been able to get those apps into the stores of every major player (Samsung, Roku, Apple, Android TV, Google Play, Xbox, Playstation, ETC).
Anyone who has a collection of videos will choose Plex over any alternative because they, over ANY OTHER, has the means to allow users to playback their collection anywhere on nearly anything.
The small handful or alternative platforms do not have player apps for Consumer Electronics where many people prefer to watch their content (television).
You’re contradicting yourself in this paragraph. You state people will choose Plex over any other platform immediately after saying Plex is the only platform.
Acknowledged and updated to be more clear.
Thanks
I’m gonna say no, it’s not ludicrous. Many people have repurposed old laptops or desktops into dedicated Plex servers to try and get some more value out of the money spent on them years ago. My own Plex server runs on a NAS/server I built brand-new and it’s likely 4+ years old now.
3-4 years isn’t very long when you consider many people have been frozen in time hardware-wise for two years now due to COVID/supply chain issues for new hardware.
We’re currently on the 12th generation of Intel’s Core platform. You can go back four years and have a machine that still meets Windows 11’s (artificially high) system requirements. I saw someone ask about an inexpensive way to run a Plex server just the other day on Reddit and one recommendation was an old workstation PC. The integrated graphics would still be supported for hardware transcoding today. Plus there are many people running Plex servers on Synology NAS appliances that do not have processors nearly as modern or as powerful as your baseline ideas.
HEVC transcoding is a nice feature idea, but it certainly isn’t something that will be workable for real-time encoding on the majority of Plex’s installed hardware base, as it pretty much needs hardware acceleration to be speed practical. Meanwhile you can go back 10 years and find CPUs that can keep up transcoding to h264 even without GPU assistance.
1 Like
absolutely!
but that old hardware is still powerfull enough in many cases (i use 6700k 1050ti)
the problem is i can get better hardware easily, but i cant get a better upload speed unless i move to sweden or whatever
1 Like
This same sort of argument was had in the x264 and vidX days.
However, you can look at the graphs, x265 spending the same CPU time gets better results than x264. HVEC is simply a better codec. 10 year old hardware that can support x264 can also support x265.
I don’t draw that conclusion from those links. Can you share your thinking?
Sure, you’ll have to follow over to part 2 and do some number comparisons.
Given this blog post writer’s CPU and input video, if you look the “ultrafast” setting on x265, you see it runs in 43 minutes and corresponds to a 1200kbps.
For x264 the similar setting is faster (42 minutes) which translates to a 3200kbps stream.
So, as long as your x264 preset is set to anything slower than “faster” you’ll see bandwidth savings (or quality improvements) by using the x265 with the same CPU time.
That time when you can start managing x264 at “faster” comes up quick. 5 year old CPUs are able to live stream HD content at the faster preset. Anything newer than that and you are now in the territory (even with the budget cpus) where x265 makes more sense.
Similar in what way - encoding time? Those links don’t include any comparison of video quality.
I am also onboard for the desire of H.265 as it’s much better at transcoding per the bitrate.
If there are compatibility issues on the client side, having a fallback option of H.264 would be an excellent way to mitigate that possibly?
2 Likes
