VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    http://tmpgenc.pegasys-inc.com/en/press/14_0108.html

    anyone that has read any of my comments with regards to x265 and the half-assed company behind it will know that i had predicted that x265 was destined to lose out to DivX HEVC or possibly Strongene HEVC encoder in the paid consumer video editing software market. i had predicted that x265, by virtue of being open source and legally free would find favor with free open source apps (both handbrake and media coder have announced that they will be supporting x265) but that proprietary software, like tmpg video mastering works and similar such apps would choose one of the two clearly superior hevc encoders.

    well, my prediction has come to pass, pegasys announced it has licensed DivX's hevc encoder for inclusion into it's software, so it should only be a matter of time before we see a new video mastering works that supports hevc editing and encoding. considering how popular the app is i'm guessing many people will be happy about this development.

    i predict that within 6 months time all the major consumer grade apps will feature hevc editing/encoding via rovi's hevc sdk, i know elecard alread offers alpha support in one of it's products, cyberlink has announced that the next power director will feature hevc support and one has to expect sony and a few others will have products pretty soon.

    i for one couldn't be happier, with the traction being gained by DivX's hevc offering and google adapting vp9 for youtube (iirc google is set to switch over by 2015), one has to wonder how much of a market is left for the x265 folks. they claim they have corporate sponsors, if that's true then those sponsors invested in the wrong horse.

    x265 was mismanaged from the get go and now they are on the brink of being having their significance in the encoding market marginalized. with chinese broadcasting companies supporting Strongene, youtube switching to vp9, ISV's licensing DivX's offering one has to wonder what's left for multicoreware?

    the answer is the free open source app. good luck making a dime from that.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Wasn't that happened with all open source products trying to "compete" on "free" market ...?
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    That's good to see adoption of HEVC progressing

    In the past, TMPGEnc (and other companies like Sorensen, Telestream) added x264 licensing after long standing relationships with Mainconcept/Rovi/DivX . So if x265 continues to improve who says they won't license x265 ? They aren't mutually exclusive

    One big difference I see is between x264 history, and x265 - is x265 isn't being enthusiastically tested by hordes of beta testers. Don't know why :P One thought is maybe the hardware requirements are still too high /encoding too slow. But that's not entirely true because back in the day h.264/AVC was glacially slow on single core CPUs compared to Xvid/MPEG4-ASP, yet still was being used frequently. It wasn't until quad cores that x264 speed became more usable
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Congratulations! I hope this will speed up the conclusion 4K content
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: Freedonia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post

    One big difference I see is between x264 history, and x265 - is x265 isn't being enthusiastically tested by hordes of beta testers. Don't know why
    I do. It's because we've now reached a point where the existing technology is good enough. Yes, I know that you and deadrats do not agree, and more power to you, but I actually work with people and have friends who don't even know this website exists. I've yet to find a single person I know interested in 4k TVs or who thinks that BD is so crappy that it needs a better codec right now. Sorry man, but you guys fall into that category of people where just because something is of interest to you then you think that everybody else is interested in it too.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jman98 View Post

    I do. It's because we've now reached a point where the existing technology is good enough.
    Yes I agree, right now. But people said that about VHS and DVD . People said that about MPEG4-ASP.

    4K is here , there are dozens of consumer and prosumer camera models coming this year. The market isn't always driven by needs, there is a "push" economics where things get commodized. When affordable devices like cell phones record 4K soon (probably by next year) , h.264 just isn't going to be sufficient

    Yes, I know that you and deadrats do not agree, and more power to you, but I actually work with people and have friends who don't even know this website exists. I've yet to find a single person I know interested in 4k TVs or who thinks that BD is so crappy that it needs a better codec right now.


    But maybe you don't have many friends , or at least you run in different circles.

    Nobody said or thinks BD needs a better codec right now, but there is some growing interest in 4K TV's



    Sorry man, but you guys fall into that category of people where just because something is of interest to you then you think that everybody else is interested in it too.
    Sorry man, but you fall into this category of assuming many things.

    Hint : I'm replying specifically on a video board that has a title dealing with video issues ... I'm not replying on a potpurri message board or Olympics message board

    Where did I say everybody else is interested in it? Only tiny fraction of the general population are interested in geeky video issues like codecs and video production. Out of that small subset, there just isn't as much interest as there was in x264 infancy days - that's my observation . And there wasn't any "need" to use anything other than XviD or even MPEG2 at the time. Recall early on in development, x264 was slower, produced worse quality than Xvid, it was criticized for producing "plastic" faces like rmvb - yet there seemed to be much more activity in development at that stage than this early stage with x265
    Last edited by poisondeathray; 10th Feb 2014 at 12:43.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member johns0's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2002
    Location: canada
    Search Comp PM
    The only reason we were happy with vcr and dvd quality was of the tvs we had,now that we have tvs where the average person can afford a 50" I say that the technology has caught up and we really dont need 4k and x265 or HEVC encoding for quite a while.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    One big difference I see is between x264 history, and x265 - is x265 isn't being enthusiastically tested by hordes of beta testers.
    if you followed the first x265 thread on this very forum you would know that there was a ton of interest in x265 with many people eager to alpha and beta test the software. but the x265 team, led by "Tom" threw cold water on the fire by not only refusing to add std::in support but also making the ludicrous that a) there was no demand for such a feature and b) flat out stating that their corporate sponsors bug reports and feature requests took precedence over the general public's desires.

    anyone that has ever run any business knows that you have to strike when the iron is hot, if you get grass roots buzz going, lots of public interest you can't tell the public to go pound salt that your investors come first. while it may seem like the right business decision, your investors/backers are not your customers, they aren't the ones that will generate growth and revenue.

    multicoreware had a great opportunity, they claim they have a team of over 200 engineers specializing in gpgpu and yet they decided to take the reference hevc encoder, shoehorn in algorithms from x264, replace C with hand crafted assembler and basically go down the same road that DS and friends did with x264 which leads to an encoder were only small insignificant portions of the encoder can be gpu accelerated.

    what they should have done is take the reference hevc encoder, port the whole thing to CUDA or OCL and then start adding features aimed at improving performance and/or quality. this would have made them standout from the competition.

    instead Tom, as the public face of MCW decided to spout BS about the lack of std::in demand, spout more BS about gpu acceleration, parroting the same crap spewed by DS and friends for years, crap easily dis-proven by looking at what the folks over at Elemental have done and bitching about the name a guy used for his website in hosting buildbot aimed at offering binaries of their crappy encoder because evidently they can't be bothered to offer official builds.

    as i said before, they are destined to be also rans, these guys hoped to replicate the business model employed by DS via x264 LLC, who managed to generate some revenue by virtue of their encoder being used by major sites for streaming and a few small time broadcasting companies in other countries. what they didn't count on was google ass plowing them by moving to their free vp9 for youtube, chinese companies embracing Strongene, Elemental already having a commercial gpu powered encoder capable of encoding 4k hevc in real time and Rovi/DivX getting all those licensing deals with hardware support for their codec in all the DivX certified players (which in all honesty MCW should have expected).

    their investors/backers will lose significant amounts of money on x265, it's like watching the Seahawks/Broncos superbowl and knowing when it was only 5-0 that the Broncos were done, you could see it coming a mile away.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Yes, many people don't "need" HD now either, and are perfectly happy with SD / DVD

    That' s no reason to stop testing and developing codecs by video geeks now for when there is tremendous "need" in the future. I think it's great that Pegasys has licensed DivX HEVC

    Mass adoption will only occur when prices for 4k devices and displays are commoditized - we're not there yet but there are "cheap" 30Hz 4K displays available right now. The early adopters and enthusiasts will help drive down the prices

    The lack of true 4K content is an important point that comes up often, but there are over a dozen 4K camera models being intoduced this year. Terrestrial and Sat broadcasts with "only" 1080 infrastructure play less important role than before with internet emerging in importance as a content provider

    So I think "quite a while" will be a lot sooner than HD adoption because of the sheer number of devices that will be 4K capable (like phones).






    @deadrats - yes, I loosely followed the drama, but this board makes up only a small percentage of beta testers . There are many more potential testers on, for example, anime forums , who tend to be early adopters of everything. For example, they were rabid early on with x264 even with it's early problems, 10bit x264 . It's a lukewarm reception for x265 . For the end user, they probably don't care what flavor of HEVC they use as long as it works well (fast, good quality, inexpensive or free)

    I believe one of the strengths of open source model is "hordes of beta testers" . Problems are identified much more quickly , and more suggestions are made faster. It helps to accelerate the develpment process, almost like rapid prototyping. While maintaining control over branding and IP is important - snuffing out easy access to binaries isn't going to help that beta testing cause. Some people don't know how to, or can't be bothered to compile binaries
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member hech54's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2001
    Location: Yank in Europe
    Search Comp PM
    My TVs are HD....but I don't own anything "Blu Ray".
    And I honestly don't know what constitutes "HD" since this term has been used and abused since forever.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jman98 View Post
    I do. It's because we've now reached a point where the existing technology is good enough. Yes, I know that you and deadrats do not agree, and more power to you, but I actually work with people and have friends who don't even know this website exists. I've yet to find a single person I know interested in 4k TVs or who thinks that BD is so crappy that it needs a better codec right now. Sorry man, but you guys fall into that category of people where just because something is of interest to you then you think that everybody else is interested in it too.
    i can't speak for pdr but i fall into the category of people who know that the real driving force behind technology is companies that need to stay solvent.

    existing compression technology is nowhere near "good enough" for streaming HD content, much less UHD content. forget about 4k tv's or hevc for BD for a minute, one major reason we need better compression technologies as quickly as possible is because Verizon won their net neutrality lawsuit against the FCC and as soon as they did the reports started surfacing that they had started throttling their download speeds after 4pm. many users reported that their netflix content was suddenly of lower quality and what happens is neflix and similar sites adjust the quality of their streaming content based on internet speeds of end user. businesses like netflix and hulu have two options, either they lose subscribers do to customers being dissatisfied with reduced quality downloads or they find better compression technologies to be able to offer the same quality with less bandwidth.

    http://hothardware.com/News/Verizon-Allegedly-Already-Throttling-Customers-After-Net-N...rality-Ruling/
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    I believe one of the strengths of open source model is "hordes of beta testers" . Problems are identified much more quickly , and more suggestions are made faster. It helps to accelerate the develpment process, almost like rapid prototyping. While maintaining control over branding and IP is important - snuffing out easy access to binaries isn't going to help that beta testing cause. Some people don't know how to, or can't be bothered to compile binaries
    exactly, you seem to understand something the folks over at MCW don't and that's exactly what i was saying. Tom and Co resisted adding std::in support for quite a while which made beta testing x265 practically impossible. and they continue to prevent mass testing by refusing to release official builds and complaining about the one guy that had a site dedicated to regular builds.

    i don't get it, it's like they don't want to succeed, which may be the plan all along: develop the codec to a point where it's reasonably usable and then cash out by selling the IP to 3rd party with deep pockets.
    Quote Quote  
  13. I guess the main reason behind the lack of interest in x265 is because we don't really see a steady improvement like we did at the early stages of x264. The encoding speed improved, but often at the cost of quality/efficiency, and what's the point of having a reasonably fast HEVC codec, if it's still slower than the precious generation codecs while the quality is often worse?

    The reference encoder has very impressive quality, so i had high hopes for x265, but it just doesn't really seem to go anywhere.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member x265's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2013
    Location: Sunnyvale, CA
    Search Comp PM
    There is no lack of interest in x265. Quite the opposite.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    develop the <product> to a point where it's reasonably usable and then cash out by selling the <product> to 3rd party with deep pockets.
    Isn't that the business plan of most startups?
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by x265 View Post
    There is no lack of interest in x265. Quite the opposite.
    I'm not talking about software companies or things like that. I was trying to answer this:

    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    One big difference I see is between x264 history, and x265 - is x265 isn't being enthusiastically tested by hordes of beta testers. Don't know why :P
    Codec testers and ordinary users are not really interested in x265, and in the previous post i was talking about what i think is one of the reasons for that.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    develop the <product> to a point where it's reasonably usable and then cash out by selling the <product> to 3rd party with deep pockets.
    Isn't that the business plan of most startups?
    i don't know, i was always of the mind set that the purpose of developing IP like this was to monetize it by getting it to the point where there is significant market demand and then license the IP to 3rd parties and/or sell a high demand product built around the technology.

    this gives investors a sustainable return on their investment, a long term return.

    but the more i think about it, the more i realize that Tom never said they had investors, he said they have corporate sponsors, this is a very different thing. an investor gives you money in return for a stake in the company and in the event of a cash out, they get a piece of the action.

    but with a sponsor, they give you money but they don't own a piece of the IP, the company or any resultant products, there is no return to them other than presumably the right to use the IP under favorable terms. but if these guys cash out, they basically scuttle the company and leave their sponsors with nothing, not a dime.

    these guys are running MCW like one of those small startups that are a scam from the get go, out to fleece investors with the plan being all long to take the money and run.

    i don't know, for some reason these guys remind me of the Phantom game console.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Wasn't that happened with all open source products trying to "compete" on "free" market ...?
    - Not all products,
    - Not only Free Market.

    Some Open Source free market products/fruits compete and out-perform, just excellent (way better than commercial) in Commercial Zone too! While, at the same time couples of Open Sourced products are TAR-Colored got dirty by ill-minded and self-centered community, who just launch an Open Source flavor to favor some BiG B's on the back. Even Some closed source Free Apps performs far better than commercial. As everyone had already noticed many products, no need to name coz list very big, and i do not want to miss a single one which is really good, in fact, personally I am very thankful to those who invested their time, efforts, and energy in developing such products which made middle-class people's computing world easy to roll.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads