Selfhosted

40113 readers

1041 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

File size preference for Radarr? (lemmy.world)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I only download 1080p unless it's something like LOTR that I'll splurge on space for. A comedy doesn't need spectacular visual fidelity.

Just downloaded a 44gb file for a 1080p version of Forest Gump, and I'm just kinda not interested in filling my hard drives with excessive file sizes. Noticed that some other films are 20gb and 13gb, etc, still way too big for what they are.

Any way to maybe have radarr have a file size preference? Like, for 1080p I don't need it to be any bigger than 3gb, and most movies can be 1.5gb and be fine

Edit: I have to say, I asked a beginner/basic question and no one here has tried to belittle me, or come at me with hostility, I've only gotten helpful advice. Thank you all!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Ah, it looks like we have a small misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about uncompressed video, which is enormous. This is only used in HDMI cables for example. A 1080p60 uncompressed video is 2.98Gbit/s, or about 1.22 terabytes per hour.

A remux is “uncompressed” in the sense that it isn’t recompressed, or in this case transcoded. A remux is still compressed, just to a lesser degree than a transcode. This means the files are indeed larger, but the quality is also better than transcodes.

To clarify the article’s confusing statement: they claim that remuxes can reduce size by throwing away some audio streams, while keeping the original video. This is true, but the video itself hasn’t gotten any smaller: you are simply throwing away other information.