dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-01-29 08:41:26: A study group within the International Telecommunication Union has given the green light High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)/H.265, a video codec the ITU claims should be about 50 percent more efficient than the current H.264/MPEG-4 standard. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

1 recommendation

Great...

...now that I've just transcoded all my video to H.264 they come out with H.265. I may just wait until H.266 comes about and save the other 50%. Then my videos will take up 100% less space than before.

brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL
kudos:1

.264 files

With good compression and video quality You can turn a 25GB blue-ray into a 9GB file. Not to shabby!


StatGuy

@mchsi.com
reply to cdru

Re: Great...

Um..check your math.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to brianiscool

Re: .264 files

said by brianiscool:

With good compression and video quality You can turn a 25GB blue-ray into a 9GB file. Not to shabby!

Yep. Fit 111 pirated Hollywood movies on a 1TB disk.
Next step is Hollywood lobbies Congress to declare H.265 a "weapon of mass terror" and they make it illegal to possess a movie encoded with it, or even to possess the following characters - H.265 - any where, in any order, on your disk drive.

SunnyD

join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL

But how lossy?

I'm already disappointed in the current "broadcast-quality" compression that cable and satellite are using. I'm also not terribly fond of the compression artifacts that are visible on some DVD titles (granted I don't watch a lot of BluRays yet). I'm just worried on what this efficiency comes at the cost of.


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to brianiscool

Re: .264 files

Technically yes, though you are severely downgrading the audio quality, normally from HD audio to DTS or AC3 and regardless of what people may say, it's no longer blu-ray quality. It's often not even HDTV quality.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to MaynardKrebs
They would never ever do that. It would not be profitable.

Instead they would lobby congress to require any media greater than 750gb have a fee attached per 100gb over the 750 limit be charged to cover piracy. Because in the eyes of Hollywood the only reason anybody needs a 4tb drive is piracy.(They forget that people who have Steam or do graphic arts can chew up terabytes.)
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to SunnyD

Re: But how lossy?

HDTV quality is what it is at the moment ATSC HDTV is a set standard, some providers like FiOS don't recompress it, some cable operators compress it really bad, hopefully for normal HDTV if they deployed H.265 video they'd keep the bit rate the same and increase the quality, this could help streaming sevices like netflix whose HD streaming is even worse.

Their's no point in going up to 4K, if they don't keep the bitrate high, much higher than blu-ray.
I myself would actually be happier to see this improved compression to current 1080P HD like streaming and HDTV.
instead of 4K. Eventually 4K will come, but their is no rush as even the sets are like 25K


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to cdru

Re: Great...

The would be 25% (1/2 of 1/2)


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

Oh crap...

...now we have to drop out monthly caps by 1/2 to defend our overpriced video services.

-Your friendly neighborhood MSO

Boilermaker

join:2001-12-20
Carmel, IN

3 recommendations

reply to StatGuy

Re: Great...

Um..check your funny bone.

siouxmoux

join:2007-09-25

Let see if ATT Old Fashion Telephone lines can handle 4K TV,

But I Highly doubt it, the best case scenario for uverse is one overly high compress 1 UDTV stream.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

1 recommendation

reply to MovieLover76

Re: .264 files

There is no such thing as "blu-ray quality audio", nor is "HD audio" a codec. Blu-Ray supports a variety of codecs, including AC3 (AKA Dolby Digital). It's part of the spec, so AC3 is by definition "blu-ray quality".

What I think you probably mean is that the quality is not as high as the lossless codecs. Bluray supports three of those. LPCM, which is uncompressed, and Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD for compressed. Either of those three will provide identical quality, since they're all lossless.

To most consumers, the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable. For those with both a high-end home theatre system and a discerning ear, higher-end blu-ray rips often include lossless audio, although these rips are often not much smaller than the original blu-ray themselves. You'll sometimes find the audio transcoded to FLAC, another lossless codec which is more efficient than Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD.

The most typical scenario you find is the rip will simply include the regular DTS or DD+ stream. I'm not sure that anybody can actually tell the difference between DTS and DTS-HD in practice. You'll get a much bigger difference in audio quality from the quality of your AV decoder's DACs than you will from the DTS/DTS-HD difference.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

o2cool8

join:2002-04-19
Miami, FL
reply to SunnyD

Re: But how lossy?

I think Directv and others use MPEG-4, which is less efficient then h.264.


BigBlarg

join:2008-02-10
Longueuil, QC
kudos:1
reply to skeechan

Re: Great...

We have a winner!

bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY
reply to Kearnstd

Re: .264 files

My DPM server has a buttload of 2TB drives in it. And no pirated content I assure you.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

1 recommendation

reply to StatGuy

Re: Great...

said by StatGuy :

Um..check your math.

How dare you tell me to check my math. I challenge you to prove to me that my yet-to-be-invented fictitious H.266 codec can't achieve 100% compression. It obviously would not be a lossless codec. It would be lossy but it's something that many I think would exchange for near infinite compression. I even have several different resources to back up my claim. What evidence do you have?


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

How long until....

devices are available that can decode H.265?


PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
reply to Kearnstd

Re: .264 files

said by Kearnstd:

They would never ever do that.

Come again?

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to MovieLover76

Re: But how lossy?

ATSC HDTV is a set standard

In so much as it's a 19Mbps stream, yes. However, the broadcaster can do what ever they wish in that space... one high rate HD stream, one lower rate HD and two SD's, etc. FCC rules prohibit cable systems from modifying OTA broadcasts -- they have to broadcast what they're handed. (the broadcaster can hand them a different stream than their transmitter, and that's ok. PBS does that around here.) And ATSC (8VSB) is MPEG-2, and so's the US cable network.


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
reply to cdru

Re: Great...



djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to cdru
I think the codec you speak of will be called "H.∞"

pb2k

join:2005-05-30
Calgary, AB
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TELUS
reply to aaronwt

Re: How long until....

said by aaronwt:

devices are available that can decode H.265?

Probably a few months till we see software decoding. Native hardware decoding on devices such as smartphones and media players depends on how quickly the standard is adopted. I wouldn't expect to see devices en mass till at least Q2 2014

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to cramer

Re: But how lossy?

There is an entire website dedicated to keeping track of the compression/bit rate being used by DirecTV and it will show you what shows are being shown at what rate.

I dont recall what it is, but I am sure your friend Google can find it for you.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to SunnyD
That depends entirely on the bitrate. Blu-ray is typically perceptually lossless (humans can't tell it apart from the uncompressed original), but it's using much higher bitrates (up to 40 Mbps for BD versus ~10 Mbps for DVD) and a much more efficient compression algorithm than DVD did (h.264 versus MPEG-2).

The point of a new codec is that it can either provide higher quality at the same bitrate, or the same quality at a lower bitrate. How that reduction in required bitrate is actually used is up to the person doing the encoding. A cable or satellite company could use it either to increase the quality of their existing feeds, or to fit more channels into the same amount of space.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to Skippy25
I wasn't talking about DISH and/or Directv -- who use MPEG-4 and various patented variable field compression Magic(tm) to reduce the bit rate even more. Or Uverse who use low bitrates and smoothing (aka "blurring") to reduce their bandwidth. (if all you watch is Uverse, you won't notice it.)

I was talking about ATSC (over-the-air) and CABLE broadcasts -- which are MPEG-2, still.


Sammael1069

join:2011-06-20
united state
reply to MaynardKrebs

Re: .264 files

He he

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

And cable...

is still using MPEG-2. Maybe they will jump on the HEVC bandwagon, and start to bring the quality up. If it's really 4x as efficient as MPEG-2, they could run 8 HD's per QAM without losing quality over the original.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

1 recommendation

reply to MovieLover76

Re: But how lossy?

4K can be done at less than Blu-Ray bitrates. ATSC broadcasts are roughly 18.3 Mbps after overhead is taken into account, and that's typically MPEG-2. h.265 can produce the same perceptual quality (measured by PSNR) at about 5.5 Mbps. If you go for a simple quadrupling of bitrate to account for the quadrupling of pixels, you'd get equivalent ATSC quality (pixel for pixel) for 4K video at about 22 Mbps.

In practice, however, bitrate and pixel counts don't scale in lockstep like that. If you double the number of pixels, you don't need to double the bitrate. There are a variety of reasons for that. For one thing, as resolution increases, the compression artifacts shrink (in real-world size, not pixel-size), making it harder to discern them. For another thing, there's only so much detail in an image, and resolving a low-detail area in higher resolution might not require any extra bits at all.

I don't have any numbers to say what the reduction would be... but in any case, the point is that decent looking 4K video can be done at substantially lower bitrates than blu-ray supports. Of course, in practice, blu-ray movies use substantially lower bitrates than blu-ray supports anyhow, so I suspect it would come out in the wash.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to siouxmoux

Re: Let see if ATT Old Fashion Telephone lines can handle 4K TV,

If you just want to say "phone line" without specifying UVerse, Bell Canada is doing 50/10 on a regular phone line (VDSL2 with FTTN), and line-level bonding should be able to break the 100 Mbps mark over a single 4-wire phone connection. 4K broadcast video with h.265 should require at least 20 Mbps or so to match the current perceptual quality of ATSC broadcasts on a pixel-for-pixel level.

In short, 4K video over telephone lines should really not be a problem, at least for users very close to the DSLAM.

I'm on 25 meg VDSL2 right now, and my line stats show an attainable speed of 62 megs, and Bell is selling the 50 meg tier today, so this isn't some pie-in-the-sky future thing.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org