Selfhosted

40132 readers

542 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

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

File size preference for Radarr? (lemmy.world)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

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

[–] jalsk@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yep, this is a good option for reducing file size at the expense of compatibility and CPU time. Every time OP downloads a file they'll then have to reencode the file, which can take significant time, depending on the CPU of their NAS box, the file size, etc. It's also worth noting that reencodes are lossy, so some amount of quality will be lost (although the quality difference may be imperceptible).

If disk space is the only variable we're optimizing for, then you're 100% correct, but I think it's worth calling out that this definitely isn't without tradeoffs.

It might also be worth considering how they're consuming this media. If the client isn't capable of playing back h265 then this will need to be transcoded again to play it back. Many media servers (like Plex) handle this automatically, but it's definitely worth testing this out with your setup on a couple of files before doing this on your whole media collection.

[–] chandz05@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Thanks for calling those points out! You are 100% correct. I think I take it for granted that at this point, all of this "just works" on my setup :)