42 Responses to "[RR/NF/UL/OL/CU] Thank You For Your Service 2017 720p BluRay HEVC x265-RMTeam (363MB)"

Oldest First Newest First

01/10/18
23:26:57

TheFlashx265

The main difference is that MkvCage uses the x264 codec which tends to result in a larger file size for similar quality when using HEVC x265.

That being said MkvCage is more consistent than rmteam in terms of quality. There's some really good rmteam encodes and then much poorer ones whereas you can rely on consistency with MkvCage. In this instance for example 455kbs is quite low. You would probably expect something around the 800mb- 1gb mark for such a 720p Bluray movie source and so i would say MkvCage as usually remains consistent whereas this would be quite a drop off for rmteam from their better encodes. It's probably still watchable if you absolutely need the lowest file size possible but 455kbs/363mb is insanely low for this even with HEVC. MkvCage's consistency wins out on this one in my view.

01/10/18
23:30:52

TheFlashx265

In addition look at the source being 4gb. If it's HEVC you generally would be looking at something around 60% of the source file size and so it would be something around 1gb-1.5gb for a good quality HEVC encode. 4gb to 333mb is beyond low to the lowest it can go.

01/11/18
00:56:16

TheFIashx265

Sorry for my blather, I very now right drunks and meth.

01/11/18
01:16:38

TheFlashx265

Bro. What do you mean "irrelevant to the question" that's all relevant in establishing the differences between the two. If there was a good quality MkvCage encode and an rmteam presented for example purposes there wouldn't be much of a distinguishable difference between them and so further context is necessary.

Except i should point out once you get to a certain point like maybe 8-12gb source and above then it stops being about percentages and you can then benefit from applying a two-pass as proven by Tigole's encodes which stays consistently around the 4gb mark each time using a two-pass and maintains being some of the best encodes around.

What rmteam and MkvCage cage are attempting to achieve though is not a good encode but rather obtaining the lowest file size they can while still maintaining a "decent" quality and so it will be on the lower end and so that's why they will have similarities between them. The HEVC encode should for all intents and purposes be superior to the x264 encode though, and so that's why explaining more in depth is necessary. If i was doing a personal backup file encode i would much prefer my own 1.5gb HEVC file instead of a 800mb MkvCage file in that same line of thinking. MkvCage would achieve a smaller file size using x264 but that's not to say it's a good encode and so that's what was trying to be pointed out. It's MkvCage's consistently that is good despite using x264 vs rmteam's inconsistency, and that ultimately is the difference in this example because HEVC should be the preferred choice unless compatability with various devices is the only concern.

01/11/18
01:54:48

HELLDAWG

@TheFlashx265

Sorry but your numerous deficiencies are not worth my time. Perhaps you should earnestly direct your issues to a professional who can help you.

01/11/18
01:59:16

ChrisMac71

MkvCage is honestly the best no matter which encode is it like 1080,720 x264 MKV,or even MKV HEVC x265! Their movie quality not only stands up to the huge 4-8 GB size files,but in my opinion surpasses them! The video quality of MkvCage is shockingly stunning!! No word of a lie. They're VERY quick on "NEW" releases,and fast on "REPACK'S" as well! Though they hardly need to do them! Whatever you choose I hope it's MkvCage!

01/11/18
02:05:03

TheFlashx265

I think you're mixed up in what you find interesting vs relevance.

MkvCage doesn't use HEVC as was explained.

To establish a specific difference then context is necessary. Just stating something like this one has a higher bitrate isn't enough to establish anything.

I don't care if they were trolling. I find HEVC and the way it applies to encodes interesting as i have experimented with it a lot on my own backups in attempts to cut down on space vs previously using x264 for my backups. I've also checked out external encodes such as rmteam/mkvcage for examples and so i have a pretty good grasp on the various differences in this question.

Good day ladies and gentlemen.

01/11/18
03:15:45

ChrisMac71

I am entitled to an opinion like everyone else. I'm not "SPAM" What difference does big file size matter to me? Actually it doesn't especially since stupid HEVC's only play mostly on computers with the right codec. DIVX Player only plays them on mine. I like the manageable file sizes because they fit more files on data discs and usb's which I use on my Samsung home theater blu-ray player..and on the t.v. the video files look astonishing. And I did try the larger file sizes which don't play on the blu-ray. And why waste storage space on my computer with big files? I don't know what everyone else uses so how can that be relevant to MY situation?

01/11/18
03:27:18

TheFlashx265

Mr. X.
I don't see you naming these supposed wrong things and providing a correction. If there's something in there you think is "wrong" it's more than likely something you don't understand and not wrong as you think. Not to mention some of it is subjective and cannot be wrong.

01/11/18
03:42:00

ChrisMac71

"Mr. X" You're on the rag because you're a little girl. So shut-up don't try to sound intelligent when you're being rude,insulting,discriminating,childish and hypocritical. Intelligent people don't insult. Dummies do that. And how idiotic can you be saying I'm "Advertising" when that is clearly to "Sell" something..so idiot "Know it all"(but you don't)How can you sell something that's free? Well tell me? And what is going on here? But meaningless idiocy on men's part who act like little boys

01/11/18
03:49:23

ChrisMac71

Everything on MkvCage's site is free,and this one as well so why would anyone especially me advertise something that's free? And why advertise anything that's not financially benefiting me or anyone else? If I like something I CAN share that and if no one likes it FINE! Why all the dumb insults? Because I can do that too. Fuck sakes some people ALWAYS MEN act like assholes here on this site? People try to voice opinions on here and some retard ALWAYS has something ignorant to say. WHY?

01/11/18
03:51:10

ChrisMac71

"Mr. X" I don't give a fuck how "Hyped" up my comment is! How does your look? Like an asshole

01/11/18
03:54:24

TheFlashx265

Haha. Okay bro. The person is wrong who provided in depth substance on the matter vs the person who has provided nothing. I do all of my personal backups in HEVC and tested many different settings on my own and have seen the data firsthand. I have tested every various HEVC encode to help me in research finding good settings. In my opinion Team UTR has the best encodes and so that's the basis i try to follow with my backups. It's a bit on the larger side compared to a lot of the others but i think it's worth it.

If you're going to sit there and tell me that taking that 4gb source down to 363mb is a good encode. That's just ridiculous. The program i use would probably uninstall itself if i tried to input settings to create that.

01/11/18
03:56:55

ChrisMac71

Thanks "kevin" I don't know if we can have friends here,but I would be your friend

01/11/18
04:28:58

ChrisMac71

"Mr.X" Now you're trying to sound patronizing the rude comments actually were for the "Troll" that had the name "@ Mr. X" not you. People are rude to me,I'm rude to them. And if you are "Mr.X" why are you calling yourself "kevin" also? Any wonder why anyone would be confused? This shit is just getting weird now,what's the point? Go back up and read what the "Troll" said to me,then you will know why I said it. If you didn't say "chrismac71 is on the rag" Then I would never purposely be mean to you

01/11/18
04:30:56

ChrisMac71

Oh someone said that "MkvCage doesn't do HEVC"? and they do. Here's a link-http://www.mkvcage.com/thank-service-2017-720p-brrip-hevc-700mb

01/11/18
04:40:29

TheFlashx265

If you're Mister X which is weird that you're using two identities you definitely shouldn't be telling others they're wrong when you're saying things like,

"The best source will usually be a x264 file around 5 GB that was ripped from a Blu-ray disk"

That is far from the best and on the lower end of things. 1080p/25gb and above is "the best", 12-15gb is good, the rest around the 5-8gb range is decent as far as movie sources go.

Then you go on to say,
"Also, regardless of who releases files and re-codes them, it's often best to focus on each file. After comparing many files this way, you may learn that things are so random that it's hard to compare rmteam vs mkvcage."

It's mainly only rmteam that is like this. Most others have consistent settings they use. If you look at Pahe, MkvCage, djahmed, MkvCage, UTR, PSA, and even YIFY, etc, etc... all of them have a consistent settings basis. They're sources tend to be what changes things up.

And then you go on to say you don't even care.
"Personally, I don't care much and often take what I find of x265 in 720p - 2ch AAC. Ease of use and DL speed of the file host is often my biggest concern."

That's all splendid but with that mindset you shouldn't be calling others who do care and spend a lot of time experimenting and researching wrong. If you just want to check out a quick and easy small file encode there's nothing wrong with that but there's also no need to make it out like it's a good encode. These have their place for a specific purpose and they value size over quality.

01/11/18
04:43:30

ChrisMac71

"kevin" That's all right! Just a misunderstanding not directed at someone who is obviously kind like you!

01/11/18
05:01:21

TheFlashx265

ChrisMac71.
I stand corrected on that then. I've never seen them use HEVC before. If you check their torrent page it's almost all x264. Even that same movie being discussed is x264 on there.
Thank.You.for.Your.Service.2017.720p.WEB-DL.850MB.Mkvcage
Thank.You.For.Your.Service.2017.720p.BRRip.999MB.MkvCage

Both are x264 for example.

Okay, so they have used HEVC i'm not sure how long they've been doing some hevc encodes but it's still like 95% at least where they use x264 in nearly all of their torrent releases but i'll admit i was wrong saying they don't use HEVC.

01/11/18
05:02:36

ChrisMac71

Yes "TheFlashx265" was right about many things! I guess everyone is right in their own way! Have a nice evening everyone!

01/11/18
05:07:40

TheFlashx265

I'm willing to be corrected on anything if there's evidence to the contrary. I'm not arrogant. Go for it. I'm happy to learn MkvCage is doing HEVC encodes. I've long since dropped x264 and hope more people embrace HEVC so i'm happy to be wrong on that.

01/11/18
05:16:32

TheFlashx265

What's up with this though?

In mediainfo it states the filename of the x264 release
Movie name : Thank.You.For.Your.Service.2017.720p.BRRip.700MB.MkvCage

...but lists the source from Geckos. Did x264 encode the Geckos source and then re-encode that x264 with HEVC?

If that's the case does that technically make me wrong still?

01/11/18
06:01:56

TheFlashx265

I didn't do anything to challenge you. I didn't even know you were Mister X until you revealed it and didn't say anything about your posts until you said something about mine.

You stated "best" which to me implies what it says literally. If you said the best on this site i would've taken it that way although i do think they use higher sources than 5gb on here from time to time. I don't follow rmteam's movies very much though. I mainly check here for hard to find stuff like 1080p encode of Celebrity Big Brother or something like this.

If you have a 1080p/25gb file... you would do what Tigole from UTR does and use a two-pass which allows you to control your bitrate and filesize. What it does then is create an initial run through where it maps out data like for example how it will need more bitrate in a high motion area here and less bitrate in a low motion there and this will give the second pass a very good accuracy and you should be able to hit your target size with this method. In my opinion you should aim for about 3-4gb at around 3.5/4kbs from that source with a two-pass. If you wanted to hit 1GB you could try to do so using the same method just lowering the bitrate down and maybe a slower speed as well. I only go that low though if it's something i don't feel needs a lot of bitrate behind it. For any movie backup in that file size range i stay around the 2.5-4gb range but that's me.

This would be using something like Hybrid, Megui or Staxrip with up to date apps and not Handbrake.

This of course is adjusted depending on source material.

Anything that isn't judged to need a controlled bitrate/file size such a tv episodes can be used with "quality mode" crf and that's where more experimentation comes in. Different source types and settings all can lead to different results. I have my own settings that work for me and others have theirs and that's where it becomes subjective depending on each person's preferences of what quality they can tolerate, how big their viewing screen is, what size they are comfortable with, etc.

01/11/18
07:58:32

TheFlashx265

A lot of the stuff you're saying isn't very clear until you later clarify to what your asking or saying. I can't know what's in your mind.

Yes. These people who encode movies at around 800mb-1gb they usually take someone else's rip and then proceed to do a simple re-encode with handbrake. It is usually as you say the lower end x264 rips that they use for a source that is already on the lower end like in the 3gb-9gb range.

My point was simply that is far from the best though, or arguably even what is considered as good quality. These are meant for people who generally prefer lower file size over quality. None of these are going to be the same as Tigole's encodes in the world of HEVC.

I'm not saying i don't know how to encode a movie to 1GB. It's far more easier to do so than what i previously explained. I was just saying that i don't see any reason to do this if you have a high quality source available. I thought you were asking how to obtain a good quality encode from a 25gb movie backup. There's no reason to try and make a 25gb into 1gb. You would already be saving 20gb of space by making it 4-4.5gb while still maintaining a pretty good quality not quite as good as the original but at that bitrate/size with HEVC it's pretty good and is that really not enough?

There's nothing wrong with preferring size over quality if that's a priority. There just becomes a line of when is it too far when sacrificing quality for size. In my opinion taking a 4gb source down to 363mb is crossing that line into extremes. My 20min sitcom episodes are around that size.

Like i said earlier though it's all about preference. Maybe there's someone out there watching on a tiny screen and doesn't have much bandwidth and likes these type of thing. Too each their own i guess.

All i was trying to do was give a little context and substance to why there's differences between encodes.

01/11/18
09:54:18

sucky

"A lot of the stuff you're saying isn't very clear until you later clarify to what your asking or saying. I can't know what's in your mind."

No, your mistake was that you were off topic from the start, assuming other things. If you knew what the topic was, then it's all there, not too hard to see.

In fact, much of what you say is ambiguous. For example:

"What's up with this though?

In mediainfo it states the filename of the x264 release
Movie name : Thank.You.For.Your.Service.2017.720p.BRRip.700MB.MkvCage

...but lists the source from Geckos. Did x264 encode the Geckos source and then re-encode that x264 with HEVC?

If that's the case does that technically make me wrong still?"

WTF?.. "the filename of the x264 release" - what release, where?

"Did x264 encode.." What the fuck does that mean? Like "x264" is a person?

And then like that has something to do with how you were wrong or not as ChrisMac71 pointed out? I don't see it. Looks like confusing subterfuge.

Then you say, "Yes. These people who encode movies.." - Who are you agreeing with? Not me, not my point and not addressing my question, again.

"I'm not saying i don't know how to encode a movie to 1GB." - So? How does that answer my question? It doesn't.

Then you say "There's no reason to try and make a 25gb into 1gb." Not true. Where do you think 1 GB movie Blu-ray rips come from? The file from the disk is big, and if you want a 1 GB, there you go, like I said. As for what method is better or not, I never got into that, as that's another subject. I clearly asked you how many steps are usually involved, but you didn't know for 1 GB, and now you act like that's not even a thing a reasonable person would do, ha!

In the end, I get it, you know what "best" is and you want everyone to know, regardless of the topic or the questions.

02/06/18
09:32:23

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

03/06/18
23:50:10

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

05/03/18
15:10:33

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

05/11/18
16:00:26

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

08/01/18
21:03:34

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

08/03/18
21:50:02

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

08/07/18
21:30:08

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

08/09/18
22:40:01

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

08/14/18
21:00:10

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

09/04/18
22:01:32

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

09/06/18
19:50:13

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

09/08/18
22:50:02

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

09/10/18
01:50:59

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

09/12/18
12:00:06

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

09/14/18
22:50:41

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

09/16/18
01:30:03

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).

09/18/18
08:20:09

Admin

RapidRAR re-uploaded with new RAR file(s) (users who couldn't download some parts need to download all parts again).