Most Subsplease, Erai-Raws, Nandesuka, NC-Raws, etc... Web downloads are from crunchyroll, and by extension groups that reencode (Judas, ASW, Ember, etc...) those are still crunchyroll albeit worse. Unless you only watch BDs, TVrips or other rarely better streaming services you are watching crunchyroll.

The textwall going really thin ;)

Anyway if you use hevc which have better results quality/size than avc you can have less bloated files with same quality and if you want to argue about this then at least you have to admit that if the files above were same size as they are now but encoded in h265 then they would looks even better then they are, so why even using h264? For 3rd world devices lol? ;)

This is false. HEVC compression gains were always extremely exaggerated. Reality often shows that comparable quality encodes between AVC and HEVC actually often end up with the HEVC being bigger file size.

Im not sure what you watch your media on but from my experience with buying top of the line tvs since 2010 all I know is from the hundreds of movies Ive seen in 264 and 265 Ive yet to see any 265 media that looks better than 264. maybe it does on the cheap tvs I dont know. Never had a cheap one. Most of the 4k media is in 265 these days so yes Ive seen a lot of 265 but the 1080p 264 has much better color and clarity. Im not going to get into a debate but if 264 looks way better than 265 on top of the line tvs then thats all the proof I need. Ive heard this argument over and over and even with the anime Ive downloaded 264 looks better on my tvs. Anyway Im just stating my own observation. I do know that there is a distinct visual clarity difference and distinct clor depth difference between top of the line range tvs compared to mid range and low range tvs. I have a 65 LG CX currently before that I had a Samsung led and a Samsung plasma. Nothing like a top of the line oled. Well plasma was close but they were like fireplaces and suffered burnin like a motherfucker. Still nothing to this day nothing compares to plasma when it comes to motion they topped out at 600hz. Nothing since has come close to that. If they wouldnt have ran so hot wed probably still be using that technology.

color not clor.  
Oh and by the way no I'm not rich not even well off. I do have good credit though so I can always get interest free payment plans so I buy high end. When you have a 12 months to 18 months interest free to pay things off it helps.

Did you know the codec should never be used as a quality measure for anything? You should take into consideration the encoding parameters of each video and judge that rather than the program used to achieve the result.

Not sure who the comment was  directed to. My first comment was the long one about my  observation with the LG Cx and other high end tvs. I dont judge anything except what I see.

I was majorly athletic but had a back problem in 1999 and a doctor punctured my spinal cord in 2000. I ended up retiring in 2008.

I only mentioned that because lof that permanent injury now most of the time Im laying down with the computer on or watch tv, movies and anime so I watch way more tv than most people since 2008.

Ive seen a ton of 265 micro anime and a few micro movies. Ive downloaded a lot of 265 and 264 anime and movies.


My point is not to brag about tvs its about noticing differences in quality and on a high end i can say from my point of view 264 is better. If you have a high end tv that cost an arm and a leg most would prefer to go with the best media quality they can find. Most people wont spend $2400 to $4000 for a tv but there is a very noticeable difference in color quality and clarity over midrange and low end tvs. Especially picture clarity. You see a lot of things with high end you wouldnt on lower end.

That said 265 is great is pretty damn good and it does save a lot of space.  I have like 40tb of media. Around 65% of it is 264 and the other 35% is 265. Some of the 265 is micro and some of it 4k.

Again Im only going from, my own observations. Being I'm kind of forced to watch tv now or stare at the wall or read books I believe  my observations are legitimate but hey that just me. Others may see differently and some may actually know differently with technical  meter testing that shows completely different than what I see.

generally if you remove information when encoding you are sacrificing something. A lot of people are misreading 265 and thinking its automatically better. here is a copy and paste that states it more clearly.

"File Size: H.265 encodes the same information with lower bitrates but the same video quality when compared to H.264, which means H.265 delivers a significantly better visual quality when compressed to the same file size or bitrate. 

Compression Ratio: The compression rate of H.265 is almost twice that of H.264. With H.265, videos with the same visual quality take up only half of the space."

Basically what its stating that since 265 has better compression and you can get the same or near the same quality with a smaller file size. its not stating 265 is better than 264 unless they are around the same file size. If the file sizes are similar 265 will look better if the encoding is good.

Those stating that smaller half the size or less 265 files are better quality than 264 have been completely misunderstanding what they've been reading.

HEVC compression gains are extremely exaggerated.