IMO encoding is just not that worth it these days. Storage is relatively cheap. An 8TB HD can hold 200+ bluray discs as is (assuming we are talking 30-40TB each). Lets say encoding lets us store 400-600 movies in the same amount of storage (going to argue that this is stretch at quality).
Is the $100-$200 savings worth the extra time spent (also computing/gpu electrical costs.
There's a reasonable argument that the cost in electricity would be measurable, perhaps small, but still measurable, if it's 1c per movie, not such a big deal, if its 50c a movie, one didn't actually save any money in practice. if one wants to software encode to get the best results, cost is going to be more than if one is ok with gpu encoding and just ok results from fixed encoders. (I would hazzard software encode at reasonable quality is going to be in the 25-50c cost if paying 25c a kwh)
If one lives in an area where electricity is cheap but storage is more expensive, the calculation is different.
Now, I'd note that there is one thing that storage being cheap can't directly solve. The ability to keep them online at a time (i.e. many computers are limited to the number of connected devices). In that world, one can argue that reducing that complexity also has value.
IMO, that just changes the calculation a bit. As I said, it depends on the quality one wants to store it at relative to size to determine how long it will take to encode / power consumed to encode.
Plus what's the point in keeping ISO on the disk if I can have a convenient mkv/whatever with everything what's on it, _and_ everything recognises it, and it takes 1/20 - 1/4 space anyway?
1. easy enough to store it remuxed as an mkv (this tool first converts it to a remuxed mkv via makemkv) to get that convenience.
2. "easy enough" (this is a bit hyperbole, but i've done it) to take an iso and expose the playlists one wants as individual .m2ts files, and then everything recognizes it the same as mkv
did this using a fuse fs. drop all isos in a dir with a metadata file to list the playlists one wants exposed with how one wants them named, and the fuse fs turns each iso into a virtual directory populated by files named <name>.m2ts that corresponds to the playlist you wanted for it (work for seamless branching as well).
3. if saving space is so important to you, yes, none of this will apply, I still think the energy costs need to be factored in, to understand how much money one is saving / spending to accomplish that space savings. If one is going to be storing a digital iso backup of the discs they purchase (or borrow), what I listed in #2 is the best overall.
I disagree. But to each their own, also depends how one watches it. a truehd atmos audio stream for a movie can be 3-4GB by itself. Of course, for many perhaps a TrueHD atmos audio stream is overkill, but for many its not.
If one is going to store the originals anyways (i.e. the ISO images one backs up from disc), then I'd still stand by my statement, you're not saving anything by encoding it then, beyond perhaps limitations in how much storage one can keep online at a time (and in that context then, my initial statement of storage being cheap further applies, as one is saving the same content twice).
If one is just download encodes off of usenet so doesn't have the originals, and one is content with the limitations of encodes, great. But here we are talking about tools for people who are encoding their own media (and sadly, from personal experience, I consider backed up ISOs to have a longer shelf life than many of optical discs, I have media I backed up 20 years ago now that still works, while the optical discs have degraded. Hard Disks die as well, but there are effective means of mitigating that).
Is the $100-$200 savings worth the extra time spent (also computing/gpu electrical costs.
There's a reasonable argument that the cost in electricity would be measurable, perhaps small, but still measurable, if it's 1c per movie, not such a big deal, if its 50c a movie, one didn't actually save any money in practice. if one wants to software encode to get the best results, cost is going to be more than if one is ok with gpu encoding and just ok results from fixed encoders. (I would hazzard software encode at reasonable quality is going to be in the 25-50c cost if paying 25c a kwh)
If one lives in an area where electricity is cheap but storage is more expensive, the calculation is different.
Now, I'd note that there is one thing that storage being cheap can't directly solve. The ability to keep them online at a time (i.e. many computers are limited to the number of connected devices). In that world, one can argue that reducing that complexity also has value.