>>106838416
>ANALOG technology
In the pre-transistor era, to emphasize.
4chan Search
2 results for "5943e0cadf8a71ce0042a359e6938bc6"
>>106240371
>most people were talking out of their ass when criticizing YIFY technologically-wise
They are very good with x264.
They've been spotted with x265 encodes, mostly for 4K (fun-fact: That's also the specified codec for 4K Blurays, for 1080p it's H264), and the art-form is there a step higher, because you also have to transfer colorspaces.
If you watch H265 with that one new colorspace name that escapes my mind, it will look 'bleak.'
VLC on Windows did not have a default transfer function, meaning you got desaturated 4K if you just played the remux.
Video and codec technology is incredibly complex, retards are here arguing about mp4 vs. mkv, completely oblivious to the fact they're both containers, not codecs (which is worth debating in and by itself, but the tards are discussing which has 'better visual quality,' not understanding that that's the codec's credit).
It *is* a rabbit hole.
Have lots of time or be ready to let go and give up.
>most people were talking out of their ass when criticizing YIFY technologically-wise
They are very good with x264.
They've been spotted with x265 encodes, mostly for 4K (fun-fact: That's also the specified codec for 4K Blurays, for 1080p it's H264), and the art-form is there a step higher, because you also have to transfer colorspaces.
If you watch H265 with that one new colorspace name that escapes my mind, it will look 'bleak.'
VLC on Windows did not have a default transfer function, meaning you got desaturated 4K if you just played the remux.
Video and codec technology is incredibly complex, retards are here arguing about mp4 vs. mkv, completely oblivious to the fact they're both containers, not codecs (which is worth debating in and by itself, but the tards are discussing which has 'better visual quality,' not understanding that that's the codec's credit).
It *is* a rabbit hole.
Have lots of time or be ready to let go and give up.