this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
33 points (94.6% liked)

datahoarder

6795 readers
2 users here now

Who are we?

We are digital librarians. Among us are represented the various reasons to keep data -- legal requirements, competitive requirements, uncertainty of permanence of cloud services, distaste for transmitting your data externally (e.g. government or corporate espionage), cultural and familial archivists, internet collapse preppers, and people who do it themselves so they're sure it's done right. Everyone has their reasons for curating the data they have decided to keep (either forever or For A Damn Long Time). Along the way we have sought out like-minded individuals to exchange strategies, war stories, and cautionary tales of failures.

We are one. We are legion. And we're trying really hard not to forget.

-- 5-4-3-2-1-bang from this thread

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I know for photos i could throw them through something like Converseen to take them from .jpg to .jxl, preserving the quality (identical visially, even when pixel peeping), but reducing file size by around 30%. What about video? My videos are in .h265, but can i reencode them more efficiently? im assuming that if my phone has to do live encoding, its not really making it as efficient as it could. could file sizes be reduced without losing quality by throwing some processing time at it? thank you all

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rouxdoo 31 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is not the helpful answer you were looking for, sorry. I'm fairly certain that the consensus among data hoarders is that the answer is more storage space not smaller files.

[–] SzethFriendOfNimi 10 points 1 month ago

And utilities for identify the eventual duplicates to save space (while still ensuring you don’t have only 1 copy that can be corrupted)

Like anything else it’s always trade offs.