Windows 10: Do I need to buy Windows Server 2016 or can I used old Windows 8?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
  1.    28 May 2018 #11

    Well, you could install ubuntu server and run plex media server. I have a windows server 2016 running serviio BUT, I have set up a ubuntu server running plex media server and I really like it. I tried the plex media server on the windows box but it did not work as well. Anyway, something else to think about.
      My ComputerSystem Spec

  2.    29 May 2018 #12

    I actually already have a Synology NAS which acts as my main server to hold my work files. On this same NAS, I also downloaded my movie collection on it but my movies storage is starting to get out of hand. I have 20 TB of hard drive space but after applying RAID, the amount of space decreases dramatically. (I don't use handbrake to decrease the size of the movie because I do see a difference when you decrease the size of a blu ray from 20 gigs to 4 gigs, especially when you play it on a 50'' TV screen.)

    So, I'm running out of space. Bursting at the seams with my NAS at literally 97% capacity. And, 4k movies are starting to come out!

    I figure getting a NAS extender or another NAS is just an expense I'll try to do without. My original Synology NAS was pretty expensive so I'm thinking it'd get pretty expensive if I try to put all my movies on 30 TB. I have a feeling that I'll even need a lot more space than that once every movie starts being re-released as 4k. (Quality looks awesome btw on a high DPI computer monitor.)

    So, I figure the cheapest option is to get one of my old computers that is lying in the corner and ram about 30+ TB of hard drives into it, run it in RAID (as well as upgrade the video card to play 4k and install a 50 gig SSD for system files so the startup is fast and movies play smoothly) and move ALL my current and future movies onto it. That way my work files and other storage will stay safe on the NAS with its dedicated antivirus, encryption/decryption, VPN, etc.

    While my movies (although not as safe and backed up), at least will be in a dedicated device which I can connect to the sole TV in our house and look great. (I don't care if someone hacks my network and steals my movies.)

    I read recently that when buying a computer, you should really try thinking about dedicating it for only a few purposes. If you try to make it do too many things, the background programs really start slowing things down these days. I'm starting to think that this is correct. Thought I would dedicate a device just for movies but a NAS for 30 TB would be kinda expensive...hoping an old upgrade computer would look better and be cheaper.


    slicendice said: View Post
    @CerebralFreeze
    I don't know if this is what you were looking for, but it really is the best alternative although it can cost quite a lot.
      My ComputerSystem Spec

  3. Bree's Avatar
    Posts : 8,793
    10 Home x64 (1809) (10 Pro on 2nd pc)
       29 May 2018 #13

    CerebralFreeze said: View Post
    I don't use handbrake to decrease the size of the movie because I do see a difference when you decrease the size of a blu ray from 20 gigs to 4 gigs, especially when you play it on a 50'' TV screen...
    There are many ways to reduce the bit rate, some are less noticeable than others. I use the command line utility FFmpeg and have found that using a Constant Rate Factor (CRF) at the slowest possible preset gives the best results. There are also presets to tune it to suit the type of video (Animation, Film, etc.).

    The range of the CRF scale is 051, where 0 is lossless, 23 is the default, and 51 is worst quality possible. A lower value generally leads to higher quality, and a subjectively sane range is 1728. Consider 17 or 18 to be visually lossless or nearly so; it should look the same or nearly the same as the input but it isn't technically lossless. The range is exponential, so increasing the CRF value +6 results in roughly half the bitrate / file size, while -6 leads to roughly twice the bitrate.
    https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/H.264

    I find a CRF of 28 suits my needs, for your large screen you may want a lower value. Experiment, you'll probably find a CRF of 23-26 can give you a worthwhile size reduction without noticeable artefacts.


    You don't need FFmpeg, you can use CRF in Handbrake too...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CRF Handbrake.PNG 
Views:	20 
Size:	17.9 KB 
ID:	190565
      My ComputersSystem Spec

  4. slicendice's Avatar
    Posts : 3,515
    Windows 10 Pro x64 v1809 Build 17763.55 (Branch: RS5 Release Preview)
       29 May 2018 #14

    There are advanced multi pass encoding techniques, that can reduce a 20GB BluRay movie to about 1.5-2.5GB in size and during playback you would not notice any difference between the two, even on the sharpest and biggest TV/screen available today. There's just one BIG drawback, it takes ages to re-encode the movie. Playback however is as fast as usual.
      My ComputersSystem Spec

  5.    29 May 2018 #15

    What does "ages" mean? You mean like days?

    I'm wondering. If it could play with a lower amount of gigs, why didn't the original blu ray disc store it with lower amount of gigs?

    slicendice said: View Post
    There are advanced multi pass encoding techniques, that can reduce a 20GB BluRay movie to about 1.5-2.5GB in size and during playback you would not notice any difference between the two, even on the sharpest and biggest TV/screen available today. There's just one BIG drawback, it takes ages to re-encode the movie. Playback however is as fast as usual.
      My ComputerSystem Spec

  6.    29 May 2018 #16

    I'll check out your advice and see if it makes a difference. I played around with it a while and did see some differences, especially when you blow it up on a bigger screen.

    I'm just thinking that if it could be played with less gigs, why didn't the original disc contain less gigs in the first place?


    Bree said: View Post
    There are many ways to reduce the bit rate, some are less noticeable than others. I use the command line utility FFmpeg and have found that using a Constant Rate Factor (CRF) at the slowest possible preset gives the best results. There are also presets to tune it to suit the type of video (Animation, Film, etc.).

    https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/H.264

    I find a CRF of 28 suits my needs, for your large screen you may want a lower value. Experiment, you'll probably find a CRF of 23-26 can give you a worthwhile size reduction without noticeable artefacts.


    You don't need FFmpeg, you can use CRF in Handbrake too...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CRF Handbrake.PNG 
Views:	20 
Size:	17.9 KB 
ID:	190565
      My ComputerSystem Spec

  7. slicendice's Avatar
    Posts : 3,515
    Windows 10 Pro x64 v1809 Build 17763.55 (Branch: RS5 Release Preview)
       29 May 2018 #17

    CerebralFreeze said: View Post
    What does "ages" mean? You mean like days?

    I'm wondering. If it could play with a lower amount of gigs, why didn't the original blu ray disc store it with lower amount of gigs?
    CerebralFreeze said: View Post
    I'll check out your advice and see if it makes a difference. I played around with it a while and did see some differences, especially when you blow it up on a bigger screen.

    I'm just thinking that if it could be played with less gigs, why didn't the original disc contain less gigs in the first place?
    I don't know any real numbers for how long it currently takes to convert 4K BR video to something much smaller, because it all vary, depending on your hardware. On my laptops, it would be measured in days, while on some more efficient hardware, it would be measured in hours.

    Why BR discs contain so much data:
    It has all to do with encoding and decoding standards, backwards compatibility, predictability of how many minutes/hours of content you can exactly fit with constant quality on a single disc and finally how much CPU/GPU power is allowed to be used during encoding and how efficient the decoding will be and how much strain is allowed to be used by the media player that decodes the recorded/encoded video. And a lot more that is involved in the standardisation of quality etc...


    Another driving force is licensing cost. The more efficient the codec, the higher the price will most likely be.


    There are ways to squeeze almost any type of data into extremely small space, if given enough time to crunch the numbers.
      My ComputersSystem Spec


 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Related Threads
Hi there I'm trying to create a VM on a HYPER-V 2016 server system. The HYPER-V server installed OK, network seems working and gives IP address 192.168.1.12 and all the DNS stuff seems fine so networking should be OK and enabled remote access on...
Read more: Microsoft delivers final public test builds of Windows Server 2016, System Center 2016 | ZDNet See also: What's New in Windows Server 2016 Technical Preview 5
Source: SharePoint Server 2016 and Project Server 2016 Release Candidate available - Office Blogs
Read more: Windows Server 2016 leaks reveal Nano Server, protected VM role plans | ZDNet
Read more: What's next for Microsoft's Windows Server 2016 | ZDNet
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 10 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 10" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:34.
Find Us