Why NOT use H265?

[sharoni]

I'm going to compress my family videos from the huge files phones and cameras produce (~100-200 Mb per minute) to much smaller files.

1. Why not use H265?
It seems H265 is still used less than H264, while H265 is much more efficient in file size/bandwidth, and the additional computing power required is not an issue for most end users, and most all current devices and major media providers now use/support H265. What am I missing?

2. Verifying: for HD, mainly on decent phones and laptops - compressing with H264/5 to 10-40 Mb per minute will not/hardly be noticed. Correct?

[usually_quiet]

The main reason for not using H.265 more is that there actually are still too many older personal computers and incompatible hardware media players (especially those in TVs and Blu-ray players) still being used. If that doesn't apply to your family, good for you, but it does apply to most of the older members of my family.

[Vidd]

I would suggest buying a large external hard drive and storing all original source files on it. If you convert to another format for convenience to watch, keep the original source. What seems like a good idea today, will sound like a stupid idea in 10-20 years.

Back in the day I converted family VHS to VCD. VCD was the standard and it was what everyone recommended. I am now stuck with 352x240 MPEG-1 video. If I kept the original RAW files I could have used modern filters and techniques to properly filter and upscale the videos. I still have the original VHS, but they most likely degraded and won't be as clean as when I captured them for VCD years ago.

[defbiz]

-Less compatibility
-Unnecessary re-compression specially if it can't be played back on older software
-h265 uses bigger blocks than h264 (less detail)
However it's great for 4K+ and way more efficient than h264 at those resolutions.

[Sharc]

.... I still have the original VHS, but they most likely degraded and won't be as clean as when I captured them for VCD years ago.

I would do some tests if you still have a player. I have 30 years old VHS tapes which have not degraded much. Depends on the tape quality and storage condition.

[Hoser Rob]

The main reason for not using H.265 more is that there actually are still too many older personal computers and incompatible hardware media players (especially those in TVs and Blu-ray players) still being used. ....

+1. I can't think of any other reason not to use x265. It's much better optimized for lower video bit rates than x264.

[4kblurayguru]

Use whatever codec you want. You should read about the profiles and levels as well as what devices can run what levels. Whoever you're sending video to, find out their device and encode to match it.

[lingyi]

All codecs are best used for the original recording, not for reencoding. You ALWAYS lose quality when you reencode. It's possible to trick your eyes and brain with psychovisual effects, but the quality loss is always there.

If you have a sheet of aluminum foil and crumple it to a ball then uncrumple the ball, you'll have creases and folds that weren't there in the original sheet. You can smooth it out with an iron and hide most of the creases and folds, but at some level, minute creases and folds are still there whether you can see them or not.

[lingyi]

Display technology will continue to get better and hide less of the reencoding artifacts we don't see today. Reencoding saves you pennies that you may regret saving years later.

"Grandpa, why are your videos so bad?"

"Grandpa saved 10 cents by reencoding them!"

"Wow, 10 cents must have been a lot in 2022!"

"Ummm..."

[exekutive]

because it takes too long to encode, and the benefits for low resolution video are insignificant.

[exekutive]

-h265 uses bigger blocks than h264 (less detail)

Wrong.
h265 is able to use bigger macroblocks . This allows better compression of low detail areas.
It does mean it ALWAYS does.

[exekutive]

I would suggest buying a large external hard drive and storing all original source files on it.

This!
Large, fast storage is so cheap nowadays.