+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 64
excerpts from above link...
It's possible that this technology could come to consumers at some point—we'll eventually start seeing more 4K content as TVs that use the standard begin to replace their 720p and 1080p predecessors. However, streaming video services combined with new, more efficient video codecs may reduce the need for this kind of high-capacity optical disc in the home. Blu-ray sales aren't growing fast enough to make up for the continuing decline in DVD sales, and an even more expensive, higher-capacity storage medium is unlikely to reverse this trend.
Eh, maybe it's just me, but so what? They issued a spec for an "Archival Disc" format. Anyone care to guess if/when we actually see it available for purchase? I shudder to think how long it would take to burn a 1 TB disc, considering how long it takes to burn a BD25 now. No thank you, I'll buy some more hard drives.
The latter part of the article is a little more interesting. I mean a 4k/UHD optical disc format. Everything I've read leads me to believe that *IF* one is launched, it's likely to be H.265 on a BDXL disc. It's a big if though; it's quite possible that content providers would prefer streaming or downloads to a server, like the Sony.Pull! Bang! Darn!
Again they want to lock all of us. Japanese brain. And pay for hiroshima and nagasaki. Bluray disc is enough for atleast 15 years from now. U can even put 8k easily on it with exceptional quality with this new format h.265. They want to take us for ride.
h.265/HEVC gives practically about 25%-33% better compression vs h.264/AVC. You are overestimating power of new compression format
My test encodes created from a 40 second 181 MB uncompressed AVI (no audio)...
x264.exe 2.95 MB
[*] Beginning dub operation.
[i] Dub: Input (decompression) format is: RGB888.
[i] Dub: Output (compression) format is: YUV420.
[i] VideoEnc: raw [info]: 3200x1800p 0:0 @ 25/1 fps (cfr)
[i] VideoEnc: x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 Cache64 SlowShuffle
[i] VideoEnc: x264 [info]: profile Constrained Baseline, level 5.1
[i] VideoEnc: 992 frames: 12.16 fps, 622.66 kb/s
x265.exe 1.66 MB
[*] Beginning dub operation.
[i] Dub: Input (decompression) format is: RGB888.
[i] Dub: Output (compression) format is: YUV420.
[i] VideoEnc: yuv [info]: 3200x1800 fps 25000/1000 i420 unknown frame count
[i] VideoEnc: x265 [info]: HEVC encoder version 0.8+40-889edfd2c4c3
[i] VideoEnc: x265 [info]: build info [Windows][GCC 4.8.2][32 bit] 8bpp
[i] VideoEnc: x265 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 Cache64 SlowShuffle
[i] VideoEnc: x265 [info]: Main profile, Level-5 (Main tier)
[i] VideoEnc: x265 [info]: WPP streams / pool / frames : 57 / 4 / 2
[i] VideoEnc: x265 [info]: CU size : 32
[i] VideoEnc: x265 [info]: Max RQT depth inter / intra : 1 / 1
[i] VideoEnc: x265 [info]: ME / range / subpel / merge : dia / 25 / 0 / 2
[i] VideoEnc: x265 [info]: Keyframe min / max / scenecut : 25 / 250 / 0
[i] VideoEnc: x265 [info]: Lookahead / bframes / badapt : 10 / 4 / 0
[i] VideoEnc: x265 [info]: b-pyramid / weightp / refs : 1 / 0 / 1
[i] VideoEnc: x265 [info]: Rate Control / AQ-Strength / CUTree : CRF-28.0 / 0.0 / 0
[i] VideoEnc: x265 [info]: tools: cfm esd rd=3 lft
[i] VideoEnc: encoded 1000 frames in 545.89s (1.83 fps), 346.25 kb/s
X265 was almost twice as good at compression as x264.
Yes x265 is good at very low bitrates because it smooths everything away. It's almost like applying a strong denoise filter
But how relevant do you think your tests were ? Those are very low bitrates (<1Mb/s for 3200x1800) . Did you think retail HEVC or next gen BD's will use those bitrates?
Do we take your word for it? What are the numbers supposed to indicate ? You have different frame counts, different bitrates but no indication of quality, objective or subjective
But my tests show basically the same thing at low bitrates. x265 excels
Last edited by poisondeathray; 11th Mar 2014 at 18:02.
I don't have the patience to wait around for the finshed product. It took 10 minutes to encode the 40 second DivX265 file. I would've used the other DivXHEVC encoder which is a lot faster but I can't get a playable file from it. The studios might have time to create a high bitrate file but most of us won't.
I created a DivX265 file in Virtualdub from the same avi and it was 8.85MB so unless DivX Labs makes this encoder faster, it will come in 3rd for lack of speed and lack of compression.
I don't know why x264 dropped eight frames.
Here is mediaInfo from the DivX265 encode...
ID : 1
Format : HEVC
Format/Info : High Efficiency Video Coding
Codec ID : V_MPEGH/ISO/HEVC
Duration : 42s 667ms
Bit rate : 1 739 Kbps
Width : 3 200 pixels
Height : 1 800 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 24.000 fps
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.013
Stream size : 8.85 MiB (88%)
Default : Yes
Forced : No
You have a slow computer,my speed would be 4x times yours in encoding.I think,therefore i am a hamster.
DarrelS - Thanks for sharing some observations, but tests are less useful when they are not set up properly or variables are not controlled
How are you measuring "compression?" What is your endpoint? Are you measuring filesize without measuring quality ?
You mention DivX265 "lack of compression", and "X265 was almost twice as good at compression as x264. " but again how are you measuring "compression?"
Those statements are problematic, because they are unqualified. There is no measurement or endpoint measuring compression (you need to measure something, like SSIM, PSNR or even subjective assessment) . For example , if I encode 1pass ABR at 2Mb/s and 1Mb/s with the same encoder and settings, does it mean the 1Mb/s yields "twice as good compression ?" - Without an accompanying quality assessment those statements are pretty much meaningless. What is usually implied when people talk about "compression" is compression efficiency. To measure that, you need an endpoint like "quality" .
Note AVC "Constrained Baseline" profile means no b-frames are use, which reduces compression efficiency on average by about 50%
I guess it's time for another benchmark thread for x265.
You do realize that my test file is 3200x1800. 12 fps with x264 isn't that bad for a file that big. I thought others in the x265 thread were getting decent speeds then I'd look at their file and it would be like 160x120 resolution.
Back to the BD replacement offering. It's inevitable, but I certainly hope no one hands Sony the keys to the license-kingdom again. And again. And again.
The earlier comment about "length of time to burn" remains an issue, plus the volatility of BD-Rs which is largely a relativity event. But that's based on the incredibly finer laser for writing and reading, plus all the manufacturing of the BD-blanks themselves. Storing that much more data in the same physical size - something's gotta give.
Now, the Archival will increase it by many times? I therefore assume "volatility of media" will be equally impacted. I love the marketing claims of "50 years or longer" when we heard the same hype before. Now, most of us have a grudging understanding that DVD Rs might be 3 years, maybe 10 or hopefully 20 but no one's holding their breath beyond that.
And BDs? Yeah... right... the "hundred years" promise sounds more like a racketball in a tiny court.
I didn't even read the article because I've heard this crap under a couple different names a dozen times in the past decade. First there was "tapestry media" which used holographic optical tech to achieve hundreds of gigs of data on a disc the same size as a DVD, it was supposed to come out in 2006. It never came. Then there was hype about HVCs with storage capacities of 300GB to 6TB which were supposed to be out in 2007, then 2009 then 2012. It never came.
I wouldn't be surprised if this new tech also talks about some 3D or "holographic" technology. I'll believe it when I see it, 'nuff said.
To be honest, who the hell even uses optical media anymore? Optical discs are an outdated concept. Latency is too high, speeds are too slow and most of them are pathetically unreliable and disposable with short life spans. I've had CDs that I literally only used twice in 6 years that are now completely corrupt.
Flash media is the future, I love my 64GB USB sticks with fast random access speeds and where I can easily update or remove files unlike read-only optical media or even shittier less reliable re-writable discs. I can fit 100 high quality movies on one of them. Who the **** thought you'd find that on some tiny plastic stick someday?
@DarrelS, I can compress your video to a way lower bitrate with MPEG-2, I guarantee it'll have far better compression and I also guarantee it will look like complete and utter SHIT just like your x265 video with a lowbitrate looks like.
Stop acting like a troll.
I am presently an avid x264 believer before that I was an avid xvid/avi believer and before that a divx/3,4,5,6 believer and before that I was an avid mpeg4/asf believer..If the x265 codec becomes mainstream and used in hardware media players then I will be an avid user and encoder of that codec..Also if the end files are smaller and the quality is equal or better then x264 and the encoding time is as fast or slightly slower then x264 it will then and only then have me hooked on it...As of right now x265 can only be viewed by some software computer players and saving space is nice but its not as important as it was a few years ago.Hard drives are larger and cheaper now..Seems like the same old arguments always arise when a new codec comes out...~
Originally Posted by rappinrod
SO if you have at least a 1.5ghz quad core tablet you can run it.
And you could probably easily transcode it and stream it using tversity or something else. It wouldn't be totally impractical.Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
Here is a frame from my last encode created with the DivXEngine. It doesn't matter what bitrate I choose for an encode. I chose 25000 for this encode but the encoder seems to only use what it needs and encoded this file at 2426 Kbps. Click on the picture to view at 3840x2160. It looks good to me.
Someone get Mephesto a cranberry juice. He's on his period again.
i dont understand why people are even bothering with optical media these days when most HD tv's have built in media players running off a usb port, and most of them these days support most video formats.
i shoot weddings in 1080/50p avchd and some high bitrate ProRes, and i never once had to output any wedding to a bluray, because nobody i know, nor my clients, owns a bluray player, most either use a portable usb powered hdd plugged into the tv, or they use a hdd based media player like i do (because they are far superior to the tv built in player)
it even amazes me that when stores sell a new HD led tv to a customer, they neglect to tell them what the usb port is for, then try to sell them a bluray player, and most people wont because they are still happy using their dvd player to watch movies from a dvd.
anyway, thats my take on it, and as for 4k video for consumer use, wont ever take off for a very long time, especially 4k consumer grade video cams, they will be too expensive to buy, they will have crappy sensors in them, they will produce inferior quality video, and the average user will not have a pc good enough to handle the video, and maybe not even afford to buy a 4k tv.
i for one will be shooting my weddings in 1080/50p avchd for a few more years yet, and until h265 becomes "mainstream" in a fw years time, i will still be using h264 at its recommended bitrate of 24 to 28Mbps, which is what both my cams shoot at.
time to move on people, we live in 2014 not back in the dark ages.
Last edited by glenpinn; 16th Mar 2014 at 19:19.
Here's one at 7680x4320 resolution.
I bought a CD player a couple of years ago because it had usb and my old cassette deck finally wore out (well it didn't wear out, a tape got stuck in it and I had to tear it out and it wouldn't play after that). I've played a handful of CD's since I've had it and either listen to the radio or play music off of one of my thumb drives.
EDIT: ...and I loaned my DVD player to my brother since he has a lot of DVDs and I don't have much use for it with my WDTV media player..
big capacity ssd might be the near future. Optical media is dying...hacking the Net using typewriter :D
Optical media won't die for a long time,long as people still use their cd/dvd/blu-ray devices.I think,therefore i am a hamster.
It is actually exiting time, you can capture 4k. Run some BAT file to get proxy with a click of a button, edit that, but replace it for originals before actual 4k render, or fullHD downscale .
I had HD camcorder but no HD TV for a while in the past, because there was media player who downscale it for me to CRT. So the same goes for 4k. Just watch for first 4k media players, this year maybe, that will downscale to fullHD (sounds weird ) , but 4k original is on hardisk for time to come ... I want to say that there is no reason to wait for 4k TV. That TV might be in our living room in 5 years, or whenever old TV dies, or 4k TV will be much cheaper, but 4k footage can be gathered tomorrow ...
so to be on topic, optical disc is not needed for this 4k enterprise ...
most HD cams that are bought over the counter at retail stores are in the $300 to $500 range, what i call budget HD cams, and the reason why they buy them is because they are cheap, and they shoot full HD video, which is what most people want, as long as it is cheap and looks ok, thats what they buy, and it is these same people who will continue using and buying HD tv's because they are cheap.
with consumer grade electronics, it is all about the cost, people will not buy new technology that costs a fortune when they can still get decent full HD tv's and cameras very cheap.
i know this because i deal with these people every single day, and even right now (today) i am outputting 2 of my 1080/50p avchd wedding videos to dvd for 2 of my clients so some of their family members can play them on their old dvd players, and will probably watch them on a full HD tv, so go figure, thats the way it is out there with many people who buy the new HD tv's but wont move on from dvd, and are not aware that their tv has a media player built in.
Last edited by glenpinn; 16th Mar 2014 at 20:06.
We all thought SD was fine until the government forced us to go HD to make the multimedia industry lots of money. Same thing will happen with 4k when the time comes. The government controls the media and media controls the government.
SD is still very widely used all over the world, and even tho i am one for change, even i can understand why some people buy a new HD tv but keep their old dvd players, especially when they can still play a commercial dvd movie on big full HD tv, it still looks very nice, and dvd players are pretty good at upscaling dvd's to the higher resolution, and in many ways who can blame them.
i live in australia, and i can tell you that our government here had absolutely nothing to do with forcing us to move from one format to the other, so why you are blaming the government for this, even in your own country is beyond me.
technology improves, so the electronics people improves with it, so too does the television and movie industry, but nobody has forced anyones hand here, you either upgrade as technology upgrades, or you stay with your older tech.
i dont see governments forcing its people to move from their older car to a new one, well the video/tv/movie industry is the same, nobody is forced to move on.
Last edited by glenpinn; 17th Mar 2014 at 00:26.
Well, it happened here in the United States. Forced broadcast TV to go HD at the same time, stopped manufacturing SD television sets.
First of all, the US government did force a TV transition but it was from analog to digital. Digital broadcast supports standard definition resolutions. The reason the government forced this transition was to free up the broadcast frequencies used for analog TV and sell them with the idea that the public could benefit from the some of the proposed uses of the sold broadcast spectrum. TV was not "forced" to go to HD. The digital broadcast standard the US settled on (ATSC) supports HD and SD resolutions and as the public became very interested in larger, thin, light weight HDTVs, there became in interest in HD programming due to consumers already having TVs that could handle the signal, so might as well make use of it.
Second, the government did not stop the manufacture of SD television sets. A manufacturer could theoretically still make one, but nobody wants it. And old SD type tube TV would be heavier, more expensive and have a smaller screen size than an LCD HDTV. Being only to display SD video would result in a product almost nobody wants. This is just the marketplace saying what it wants, not the big bad old government forcing innocent manufactures to do its anti-capitalist bidding as you imply.