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!
Be sure to avoid “remux” quality. I didn’t know what this meant at first - it’s
a file with no compressionan uncompressed 1:1 copy of the source, so even “low-resolution” video files can be truly massive. A 1080p movie should be between 2GB-10GB or so; I’ve found that remuxes are typically 15GB-50GB, or even larger.edit: updated for accuracy 👍
Remuxes aren’t uncompressed, nor are they losslessly compressed. They’re just a 1:1 direct copy from some other medium (generally blu-rays or DVD’s).
“Remuxing preserves the original video and audio quality because it doesn’t involve any compression”
https://techreviewadvisor.com/what-does-remux-mean/
So, what you said - it’s a 1:1 copy of the source. With no compression. Which is what I said, as far as I can tell?
What I don’t understand is why the article says it allows for smaller file sizes, when I’ve found without fail that remuxes are the largest variety by far. It made sense to me that a file produced without compression would be larger than the same file, compressed.
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.
It can save data by excluding data streams that you don’t need. For instance, I don’t need French, Italian, Japanese, German 5.1 audio streams that each have 700Mbps bitrates or higher, nor do I need an English 1.5Gbps master audio stream, a 700 Mbps English stream, a 500 Mbps descriptive audio for the blind, and 5 different special edition commentary tracks for a film I’ll watch once or twice. All those tracks can really add up, and torrent sites are often country or language specific, so remuxes might have original language and/or native language audio only.
Thank you, just went and disabled it completely, I’d never heard of that before either.