No. Not because x265 or Blu-ray is bad, but because:
The real better approach:
In legitimate video encoding (HandBrake, FFmpeg, professional workflows), x265 is objectively better than x264 at the same bitrate — typically 40–50% smaller file for the same perceived quality. However:
Real measure of “better”:
Verdict: It can be better than older x264 1080p releases if:
However, without release group reputation or verified specs, you should compare it to known good releases:
| Release Name (examples) | Quality |
|------------------------|---------|
| Sherlock.S02.1080p.BluRay.x264-DON | Excellent, large (8-12 GB per ep) |
| Sherlock.S02.1080p.BluRay.x265.10bit-Tigole | Excellent, smaller (2-3 GB per ep) |
| Sherlock.S02.1080p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP5.1.x265-FLUX | Good, but not “BluRay” |
| sherlocks02multi...light...h4s5s (your string) | Unknown – test first | sherlocks02multi1080pblurayhdlightx265h4s5s better
This appears to be a custom release tag for a pirated video file, probably an episode of the TV series Sherlock (Season 2). The naming follows conventions used in P2P groups to describe the video source, quality, codec, and other technical details.
It looks like you’re referencing a specific release name from a file-sharing or torrent context.
Here’s a breakdown of what that string likely means, followed by a write‑up explaining it. The real better approach:
multi typically includes:
Better for: International viewers, language learners, or anyone who dislikes dubbing but wants subtitles.
Worse for: File size purists – each extra audio track adds 50–300 MB per episode.
If you don’t need multiple languages, a single audio release might yield the same video quality in a smaller file. Better for: International viewers