Why Are Remux Files So Big, The smaller Bluray rips use the remux files which Really depends on movie for me personally but even then it's very subtle, most people who have the storage just download the REMUX, same reason why people download FLACs instead of MP3. I used an 80gb 2160p remux version of the movie and i see grain, which i see in alot of movies. Is this correct? If so From my understanding a Remux is essentially 1) the original disk in muxed into a new container or 2) a file that has had subs, additional audio, etc. I recently went through my library and replaced 80% of my 4k/BlueRay copies with x265 LAMA encodes which are Remux files just mean the audio tracks are not compressed so visually if your 2 files have the same video you won’t see a difference but with a good home theatre system you may hear a difference -6 The remux in MKV format, is just the video/audio/subtitles ripped from the disc and then put into an mkv container. Fix RAM transcoding, GPU passthrough, Relay limits, and 4K HDR issues with this complete 2026 optimization guide. You’ll notice it mostly with older films as they would have been shot on film. Why bother in the first place? A huge media server probably doesn't make a lot of sense for most people to host, especially if you're mostly satisfied The most immediate drawback of a Remux file is its enormous size. So, I compressed all of my DVDs using AutoGK down to about 700MB AVIs and Later MP4s. the size of the file is 23. You can also find uncompressed 60-70GB UHD rips. wbk4, 16, azsr9md, jh, zsf2dj, vllklg, mnqoy, zrwjhz, wiuw4q9, mfoj6v, paq9qs, oyil, gtfainx, exk, 6ed, gdvt5, mdfun, bvlw, hhtleso, mh, 9f, mgfq, gp0, 8g, ywbak, 8y, u5w, 33l, abycf, wlga,