Comments on: The Future of Encoding is Almost Here: HEVC (H.265) is Coming to 1 Billion Devices

By: H.265 is Now Officially Approved, is 4K Streaming and Broadcast Just Around the Corner? - NoFilmSchool

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:19:40 +0000

[...] these tendencies of advancement seem to inform High Efficiency Video Coding, A.K.A. H.265 — the successor to that other codec with which we’re all quite familiar (H.264). Improving efficiency by around double, H.265 [...]

By: P337

P337 — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 04:39:38 +0000

Unfortunately I expect it’s more likely that our recording bit-rate will be halved :( Same old cameras, same old quality but the footage would be taking up less space.

But maybe a generous manufacturer or “High-end” model will throw us a bone and give us back 25 or 48 Mbps in HEVC :)

By: P337

P337 — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 04:29:29 +0000

Right, but wouldn’t that only apply to editing straight on H.265? If we transcode to ProRes, edit on that then export to H.265 again would that not be just like using H.264 except with more image detail being retained per bit-rate?

We’ll have to wait and see but I think overall it’ll be better, I think I’m just really sick of working with AVC now lol.

By: Simon Falkentorp

Simon Falkentorp — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:56:17 +0000

The good thing is, that camera processors become faster and faster. So if for example the new codec doubles the quality, and the processor at the same time is say twice as fast, the bitrate can be doubled (I presume). With less compression, an more than double the overall quality?

By: Simon Falkentorp

Simon Falkentorp — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:51:55 +0000

P337: It’s heavier because when editing in that codec applying an effect means encoding a new “layer” of that particularly piece of video. So the harder a codec is to en- and decode, the harder it will be to edit, particularly with all kind of effects.

By: The Future of Encoding is Almost Here: HEVC (H.265) is Coming to 1 Billion Devices - NoFilmSchool | Digital Convergence | Scoop.it

Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:21:47 +0000

[...] The advancements in lossy video encoding have been both consistent and amazing. [...]

By: sam

sam — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 00:51:00 +0000

I think you find Adobe media encoder used multiple cores for encoding h264

By: Raymond

Raymond — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:41:42 +0000

It has less to do with the actual editing times and more to do with the final render from the native raw file format. The harder “thinking” would take place when you’re exporting to H.265 and if you’re working from a high resolution file stock then your machine will have to figure out what information to get rid of since in order to get to the final high image quality low/er bit rate output. More compression means longer processing on your export.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 16:36:27 +0000

They don’t got over 2.2 MBPS. So it looks that compressed.

The bigger problem is that since it’s on Youtube, the entire video goes through Youtube’s compression pass as well.

By: taz

taz — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 16:18:14 +0000

I feel like I’ve seen H.264 looking way better than what it looks like in this video… and H.265 will probably be just as annoying to work with as H.264. meh, we’ll see

By: Kraig

Kraig — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:14:02 +0000

Haha! EPIC Fial ;)

By: P337

P337 — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:52:30 +0000

I understand that H.265 is a “heavier” compression than h.264 but exactly why would that make it harder to color grade in post? Or is that not what was meant by “…messier situation for pushing the grade.”

I thought HEVC would be easier because it appears to hold more details, kinda like AVC with IPB frame compressions.

Is IPB footage harder to grade than IPP frames? I just assumed they were both equally bad.

By: Kevin Tostado

Kevin Tostado — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:07:33 +0000

Who created that image? It doesn’t bode well when you misspell efficiency in your product logo, and it’s already on sites around the internet (see http://goo.gl/xUV5B).

By: Blah

Blah — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:27:41 +0000

I would imagine so, at least in comparison to transcoding H.264 video.

By: Dimitri

Dimitri — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 02:17:09 +0000

I’m hoping this will bring 4K DSLRs to the market in 2013

By: Will S

Will S — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:20:24 +0000

Guys, this bit could be very important:

“the major example of the latter is HEVC’s optimization for parallel processing, which basically means you can decode multiple parts of the media at the same time”

I’m unclear what this means, but what I HOPE it means is that the codec will do what Pro Res does, and leverage multi-core processors for encoding and decoding (H264 doesn’t do this – one of the main reasons it takes so bloody long to encode versus proper post codecs).

By: Space Captain

Space Captain — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:20:42 +0000

Simply, more complexity requires more math which requires more computing power. Just because an NLE supports a codec has nothing to do with transcode times. H264 & H265 are delivery codecs and while fine for the average consumer who will do simple cuts or no editing at all, they are terrible for acquisition as they provide for little manipulation in post. That’s why raw is still ideal but has it costs in storage and post.

By: Kenny Stevenson

Kenny Stevenson — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:42:39 +0000

“because even though it means you save storage space while improving quality, more complex compression tactics mean potentially longer transcode times”

Why would this signify longer transcode times, especially in an era in which NLEs like Premiere will most likely support this codec natively?