Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

New H.265

Recommended Posts

The future codec for DSLRs is coming.


Was sent this by email today, thanks Tero

[url="http://techreport.com/discussions.x/23429"]http://techreport.co...ussions.x/23429[/url]

This will be more efficient at the same bitrate and this means better image quality. For example 24mbit would look something like 44mbit on current codecs.


[color=#000000][font=trebuchet ms', sans-serif][size=3]Over the past few years, H.264 video compression has permeated just about every corner of the tech world—YouTube, Blu-ray, cable and satellite HDTV, cell phones, tablets, and digital camcorders. Could it be just a year away from obsolescence? According to a [url="http://www.ericsson.com/news/120814_mpeg_244159018_c"]news release by Ericsson[/url], the Moving Picture Experts Group (a.k.a. MPEG) met in Stockholm, Sweden last month to "approve and issue" a draft standard for a next-generation video format. That format, dubbed High Efficiency Video Coding, or HVEC for short, will purportedly enable "compression levels roughly twice as high" as H.264.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=trebuchet ms', sans-serif][size=3]Ericsson's Per Fröjd, who chairs the Swedish MPEG delegation, comments, "There's a lot of industry interest in this because it means you can halve the bit rate and still achieve the same visual quality, or double the number of television channels with the same bandwidth, which will have an enormous impact on the industry." HVEC could make its debut in commercial products "as early as in 2013," claims Fröjdh. He expects mobile devices will be the first ones to make use of the new format, with TV likely to lag behind.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=trebuchet ms', sans-serif][size=3]That all sounds rather exciting. Halving bitrates while maintaining image quality would be fantastic for streaming web video. It might be advantageous for devices with high-PPI displays, as well, if they can offer better image quality at today's bit rates. However, hardware support could impede early adoption, since the hardware H.264 video decoders in today's mobile processors might not be compatible with the new standard[/size][/font][/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
i believe i already said this somewhere in this forum but 24MBit H.264 isnt all the same. it depends on the encoder (x264 being currently the best) and obviously on the internal settings. thats why x264 gives you different presets. the slower you go, the smaller your video file will be with comparable quality. cameras have to encode in real time thats why they need high bitrates because they dont have the option to do it slower. however its easily possible to encode 44MBit H264 video at about 10MBit (depending on the footage) without any visible lack of quality loss.

that means if H.265 can deliver videos 50% in size, but needs more processing power, its not twice as efficient. you can do the same thing with H.264! choose slower presets and speed up your processor to get smaller videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Elliot M
      Hi all,
      Hoping someone can help with this edit workflow question:
      I currently shoot video on Canon DSLRs (in H264 MOV format), and edit on a late 2009 iMac (2.8ghz i7 processor, 16gb memory).
      The films I make are mainly for web rather than TV broadcast, and beyond basic colour grade / tidying up, have minimal effects added (no CGI).
      Until recently, I used Final Cut Pro 7, using FCP's Log & Transfer function to import and edit footage in Pro Res 422 format.
      Having just moved to Premiere Pro CC 2017, I'm trying to figure out the most efficient workflow with the best resulting image.
      Should I import and edit in native H264 MOV? Or ingest and edit as either Pro Res or DNxHD?
      If Pro Res or DNxHD, what's the best way to ingest (or import / transcode)?
      I've been reading mixed things via Google; mainly Adobe-related articles explaining a native workflow, vs various articles sponsored by transcoding software companies, saying that transcoding will have a better result.
      Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
      Thanks!
      Elliot
    • By Dee Joslin
      I captured a screenshot of side by side NX1 files. The one on the left is the H265 file being played by VLC. The right, the H264 conversion played with Quicktime. In the conversion, some of the color and detail are lost. You can see it in the VLC VLC version as well.
       

    • By LunyAlex
      Good Day!

      I'm new to the site and new to video work, but I've been lurking around the forums and Review Articles for a while now, trying to figure out what camera I should pick.
       
      While totally new to serious videography, I've been doing photography and very light video on the side for about 6 years, so I wouldn't say I'm blind to the more enthusiast thresholds of acceptable quality.
       
      With that in mind, I've narrowed it down to two models. Well... one. Two. Maybe just one. Possibly two. 

      GX7.
      Or GH3. 
       
      Currently I'm heavily leaning towards the GX7 as:
       
      - I assume focus peaking for someone that isn't trained in the art of manual focusing would be nothing short of magical(?).
      - I will not be needing high quality external audio (for the foreseeable future) (I'll probably mostly be doing artsy montages with music on top,heh...).
      But I've seen the GH3 recommended over the GX7 for video quite a few times because of:

      - Bitrate
      - Codec
       
      I have read Mr. Reid's (predominantly positive) thoughts on the GX7 and that strongly weighed into me currently leaning towards it. 
       
      My question is:
       
      Has anyone who has tried both the GX7 and a more codec-competent (higher bitrate) solution ever been strongly frustrated with the former at any point?
       
      Like going "THAT WAS THE PERFECT SHOT! GOD HIMSELF PARTED THE SKIES AND UNLEASHED THE MOST HEAVENLY RAYS OF LIGHT THAT DUCK HAS EVER SEEN. YOU HAD - ONE JOB! " when you came home to realize that the water ripples in your perfect shot created the occasional blocky codec artifact? 
       
      I guess my question can mostly be boiled down to "Bitrate Vs. Focus Peaking". I hope it isn't overly redundant. 
       
      Any advice and personal input would be really really appreciated. Like...
       
      ...this much > [                                                                                                                                                                         ]
×
×
  • Create New...