Codec question H265

[ro2124]

Anyone know anything about Codecs?
Usually I have been using H264, but noticed there is a H265 on media coder. Did a bit of research and apparently its 50% better in terms of smaller file sizes.
So recoded file which in theory should be 50% smaller than H264.
So did a test with short video but there seems to be no difference whatsoever, in fact the H265 was actually slightly bigger so something is not right.

[Cornucopia]

[ Filesize = Bitrate * Running time] so check your choice of bitrate.

Scott

[Baldrick]

Did you use constant quality/quantizer encoding? Try increase the value or try set the bitrate exactly.

But I doubt you will get 50% smaller with same quality.

How are you playing your files? Many portable devices may have problem with h265.

[ro2124]

For my test made sure Bitrate was the same for both 264 and 265.
Files played back on laptop using Media Player Classic quality is OK, just the file sizes are the same whereas I expected smaller with 265

[jagabo]

If you specified the same bitrate you expect to get the same file size. That's the whole point of bitrate based encoding. If you want a smaller file use a lower bitrate.

[ro2124]

@jagabo
MMh Yeah dont know what to make of this? perhaps I got confused by the research stating H265 provides sizes up to 50 % less. This is what was stated:
-------------------------------
1.It is approximate 2X as effective as H.264

2. Reduces file size up to 50% with the same quality

3. Supports resolution up to 7680 × 4320 (8K)

4. Reduces video noise and increases dynamic range

5. Extend far greater video quality experience compared to H.264 encoded sequence at same bitrate.
--------------------------------------------------
Perhaps what was meant H265 produces same quality if reducing bitrate by 50% ??

[KarMa]

You set both H.264 and H.265 to the same bitrate, which as expected gave you close to the same filesize. Since bitrate is just a measurement of data over a certain amount of time, like a second.

[Cornucopia]

It CAN give you an increase in quality - at the same bitrate.
or
It CAN give you a decrease in bitrate - for the same quality.
or
A mixture of the 2.
But not BOTH in full.

For your test, you chose the former. You seem to want the latter. Redo your test correctly (using either lowered bitrate, or using CQ/CRF-based encoding at an appropriate quality level).

Scott

BTW, that "50% less" is an ~ideal. Not truly measured as such in praxis yet. More like 20-30%. Which is still significant. This, of course, all depends on the type of material being compressed AND the settings chosen. It's quite possible to choose settings that don't help, and in fact hurt the compression efficiency, regardless of the codec.

[ro2124]

Ok guys some useful info there altogether...so thanks to all

[Cornucopia]

Understand also that just having them be smaller won't help if you don't have something that can play them well/easily - h265 requires more computer horsepower to decode than h264 (just as h264 required more than MPEG4-2, and it more than MPEG-2, etc). If you have hardware-accelerated decoding that supports h265, that helps a lot.

Scott

[jagabo]

Many devices don't support h.265 at this point in time so you're losing a lot of compatibility with devices other than a computer -- Blu-ray players, for example. And most h.265 encoders aren't meeting the promise of the same quality at half the bitrate of h.264 at this time.

[jagabo]

the research stating H265 provides sizes up to 50 % less... Perhaps what was meant H265 produces same quality if reducing bitrate by 50% ??

It's the same thing. You specifically asked for the same file size so you got the same file size -- but with better quality. You may not have seen that better quality because once quality gets beyond a certain point the visible difference is negligible. If you had asked for the same quality the file size would have been less.

[PuzZLeR]

Getting some serious déjà vu here... This thread feels like a re-run from the early H.264/x264 days when we talking about it in comparison to MPEG-4 Pt 2/ASP/DivX/Xvid....

[Cornucopia]

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

Scott

[ro2124]

@jagabo

>It's the same thing. You specifically asked for the same file size so you got the same file size -- but with better quality. You may not have seen >that better quality because once quality gets beyond a certain point the visible difference is negligible

Yeah I think you more or less hit the nail on the head there Looking at the two test vids, really cant spot much of a quality difference,so might as well continue with H264 for the time being Anyway at least learned something from all this, so thanks again to everyone

[PuzZLeR]

@ro2124:

I always say that it doesn't really matter what you encode to, H.264, DvD, H.265, DivX - whatever - as long as:

1) it meets YOUR playback needs. (Or your friend's, client's, etc.)

2) you keep the Source.

Having said that, in your case, just use H.264. I think it will more than meet your needs today, especially since H.265 isn't really ready for prime time yet. It still needs some more time.

Also, look into quality based encoding, that would be CRF with x264.

Let me also share some humble wisdom (that I've said before here, and have been agreed with). Not that I'm some major expert, but after being around a generation, or three, of such codecs, from my experience these - encoding for perspective current playback requirements, keeping the Source, and quality based encoding - are three of the top Fundamental Axioms for me that have made this hobby, and even business, at least a hundred times better, with higher quality results and easier decision making. Most important, they've spared me many, many headaches.

[pandy]

So recoded file which in theory should be 50% smaller than H264.
So did a test with short video but there seems to be no difference whatsoever, in fact the H265 was actually slightly bigger so something is not right.

H.265 is relatively new and immature codec - it may reach 50% bitrate reduction (when compared to current H.264 implementation after some time (even few years from now)) - 50% is not warranty it means that statistically, perfect H.265 encoder may reduce bitrate by 50% when compared to H.264 - beware that H.264 also constantly evolve and it may never happen that 50% bitrate reduction.