  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | 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. | |
|
 | | | Re: Great... Um..check your math. | |
|
| | | | Re: Great... Um..check your funny bone.  | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Hargray Cable
| Re: Great... LOL he's sooooooo serious...... | |
|
| | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | 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? | |
|
| | | |
| | |  djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | I think the codec you speak of will be called "H.∞"  | |
|
| | |
| | | | said by StatGuy :Um..check your math.
You must be the life of parties. | |
|
|  skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | The would be 25% (1/2 of 1/2) | |
|
| |  BigBlarg
join:2008-02-10
Longueuil, QC
kudos:1 | Re: Great... We have a winner! | |
|
| | .264 files With good compression and video quality You can turn a 25GB blue-ray into a 9GB file. Not to shabby! | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: .264 files 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 | |
|
| | | bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | Re: .264 files My DPM server has a buttload of 2TB drives in it. And no pirated content I assure you. | |
|
| | | | | said by Kearnstd:They would never ever do that.
Come again? | |
|
| | |
| |  John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:5 | said by MaynardKrebs: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.
The law will make it legal to only have no more than 7 movies on them. 
Oh, and you must click each time for a movie...no 'autoplay'.
One click = one movie.
Of course, there are people who want to ban movies altogether ("think of the childrens!!")...or make you change the hard drive after watching each movie, but they're extremists and Congress is not likely to sign on to that position.
Well, at least not until they see more money...
--
Nothing makes an American want to do something more than telling them they can't.
| |
|
| | | | | Re: .264 files said by John Galt:said by MaynardKrebs: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.
The law will make it legal to only have no more than 7 movies on them. Oh, and you must click each time for a movie...no 'autoplay'. One click = one movie. Of course, there are people who want to ban movies altogether ("think of the childrens!!")...or make you change the hard drive after watching each movie, but they're extremists and Congress is not likely to sign on to that position. Well, at least not until they see more money... ^^ 2nd!!! ^^ | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| |  GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | 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 | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| Re: .264 files You got me I used the wrong terminology, however.
I can tell the difference between DTS and DTS-HD, DTS is a slightly better than AC3, but it's nowhere near the Lossless audio formats.
And I know AC3 can technically be used on a blu-ray, but that's only used for older movies for which lossless audio is not available. Newer movies almost always include lossless audio.
To most consumers, doesn't concern me, most consumers are listening via the tinny speakers in their TV.
My post assumed based on the 9GB filesize comment, that AC3 audio was used, that's the only way to retain decent video and audio.
My point was that you can't get lossless audio into a 9GB file, and I watch HD files with AC3 or DTS audio as well as owning a lot of blu-rays with lossless audio. On my home theather setup, the difference is definitely noticeable. | |
|
| | | | GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | Re: .264 files 9GB rips from a place like HDBits would probably still use DTS; assuming a 2 hour movie, you've got a total bitrate of 10.2 Mbps, so going from 640 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps on the audio isn't going to impact the video that much.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org | |
|
| | | |  aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
·Verizon FiOS
| said by MovieLover76:You got me I used the wrong terminology, however.
I can tell the difference between DTS and DTS-HD, DTS is a slightly better than AC3, but it's nowhere near the Lossless audio formats.
And I know AC3 can technically be used on a blu-ray, but that's only used for older movies for which lossless audio is not available. Newer movies almost always include lossless audio.
To most consumers, doesn't concern me, most consumers are listening via the tinny speakers in their TV.
My post assumed based on the 9GB filesize comment, that AC3 audio was used, that's the only way to retain decent video and audio.
My point was that you can't get lossless audio into a 9GB file, and I watch HD files with AC3 or DTS audio as well as owning a lot of blu-rays with lossless audio. On my home theather setup, the difference is definitely noticeable.
DTS being better than AC3 or the opposite was beat to death back in the 90's. AC3 is a more efficient codec than DTS since the DTS bitrate was usually much higher to achieve the same quality as AC3 at a lower bitrate. | |
|
| | | | | said by Guspaz: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.
All my rips have their audio transcoded to 640Kbps 5.1 AC3 in an H.264 MP4 container. Even though DTS-MA and TrueHD aren't supported in an MP4 container, I cannot tell a difference anyway.
Of course, I don't have a high-end surround sound system either, due to neighbors. | |
|
| | | | | Re: the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable.
Really huh? Buy a high end pair of speakers and the difference is like night and day. | |
|
| | | | aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: .264 files said by ChuckcZar :Re: the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable.
Really huh? Buy a high end pair of speakers and the difference is like night and day.
For the vast majority of the population, they will not be able to tell the difference in a double blind test. | |
|
| | | How big will a 25GB compressed blue-ray be on x265? | |
|
| | | Problem is a pair of discerning eyes such as mine can tell the difference in an instance in video quality. | |
|
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. | |
|
| |
| | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Re: But how lossy? ATSC HDTV is a set standard | |
|
| | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Re: But how lossy? 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. | |
|
| | GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | 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 | |
|
| | djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
 ·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by MovieLover76: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.
TFA suggests that H.265 produces equivalent video to H.264 in 50% of the bandwidth. As we know, lossy codecs are highly dependent on perception.
That begs the question - how does H.265 work? What was removed to gain such compression? And is H.265 at 50% truly equivalent to H.264? When you work with compression tools you'll often see things like "DVD quality", "CD quality", and the results are never anywhere close to those things.
Perception is tricky. If the people who created H.265 want to look good on paper, they'll survey a bunch of non-technical people, sit them in front of a 27" HDTV, 10 feet away, and ask them if they can notice a difference or not.
The scariest thing I ever saw was a poll about the sound quality of Sirius satellite radio (sorry, I've long forgotten where it was, I think it was a car enthusiast forum). There were at least 100 response. 50% thought it was as good as CD quality. 5% thought it was BETTER than CD quality! 
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.
| |
|
| | | I think Directv and others use MPEG-4, which is less efficient then h.264. | |
|
| GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | 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 | |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
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 | |
|
| | 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. | |
|
| GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | 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 | |
|
| | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: Let see if ATT Old Fashion Telephone lines can handle 4K TV, said by Guspaz: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.
They would have no problem hitting 120 - 150 Mbps with a bonded setup. Add in Vectoring and that could be pushed upwards of 180 - 200 Mbps. | |
|
| | | | Problem is Bell's 50/10 VDSL2 is redundant since no one can afford it. Also Bell's futile efforts to keep up with cable speeds are a joke on wheels something to be laughed at. | |
|
| | | Lets see at&t actually handle above 24/3 like they've talked about for years...... | |
|
aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA | How long until.... devices are available that can decode H.265? | |
|
| pb2k
join:2005-05-30
Calgary, AB
kudos:1 | 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 | |
|
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. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | What is the point of 4K .... when you can't even get 1080P uncompressed. Maybe someone will come up with a converter box that takes a 4K channel (which by the time all the compression is done on it really turns out to be 2.5K), and convert it to a true 1080P uncompressed picture. You would not have to buy a new TV, and you would get a much better picture than what is offered today. That is what I hope to get out of 4K.
H.265 is 50% more efficient. At what, hiding your picture degradation that is obviously there. Data gone is data gone. | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
| | Netflix This is great news for Netflix users as at some point (maybe a few years), Netflix will start using this codec giving us much better video quality than currently available. | |
|
 EUSKill cancerPremium
join:2002-09-10
canada | Proprietary or open? From the list of companies in the article, it doesn't seem open source, but it's not clear.
--
~ Project Hope ~ | |
|
| mworks
join:2006-06-13
Faison, NC | Re: Proprietary or open? It is open source, but under license.
All the files are on the svn site:
»hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de/svn/svn_H···ranches/
Includes working encoders and decoders for those that want to play around with the codec. | |
|
|
|
