New information regarding H.265 on the Panasonic GH5

[tugela]

1 hour ago, joema said:

That is a good question, but I don't think anyone knows the answer. Currently there seems little need for this since few cameras use H265. There is much greater need for updated and new camera formats such as MXF. Apple supports these either in FCPX or the downloadable Pro Video Formats: https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1898?locale=en_US

Like Adobe does with Premiere Pro, Apple has a trial version of FCPX. If Apple added H265 support to FCPX, the licensing issues might force them to make a special "eval" version without H265. This confuses customers since they expect to evaluate the product against all codecs and formats. In fact Adobe claims the trial version of Premiere CC is absolutely full-featured, but it does not have H265 support. There is little Adobe can do about that since the H265 patent holders probably demand royalties from every copy, which conflicts with a free trial version.

No software developer likes making special versions. Even though the source code change may be small, it still requires separate full-spectrum testing for function, performance, reliability and regressions. Adobe went ahead and did this for their trial version, but Apple may have decided it's not worth the expense and effort at this time.

Also H265 is extremely compute-intensive to edit -- much more than H264. Except on a limited set of machines 4k H265 would likely require transcoding to provide good editing performance. The few people who need to edit H265 can already transcode it externally. That is not as convenient but until recently every Premiere user on earth had to externally transcode if they wanted proxy capability. Apple may think the few who need H265 support in FCPX can transcode externally for now.

Actually, H.265 is not included in PP by default, it is only installed when you actually make use of it (most likely, as you said, to minimize royalty payments). You get a pop up message telling you this the first time you ingest footage encoded in H.265.

If Adobe can do this seamlessly and painlessly, then so can Apple.

8 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

This isn't exactly "recently" in our world, it is old news actually, imagine people are already preparing to declare 10bit video recording the absolute minimum even for cheap cameras, because GH5 will be out in a few months, Premiere support of H265 is a reality for a long time now. I personally transcode only when I give footage to FC editors.

As I already said, all the hardware that is coming for the past year and onwards supports H265. Ofcourse Apple doesn't care, they are perfectly fine to sell to normal people, not a few specialized freaks that demand more and more, for less and less!  

IIRC some of the streamed output from game boxes is encoded in H.265, so it is not just the NX1 that is generating content in that format.

[Kisaha]

@tugela Ofcourse not, even cheap security CCTV cameras from Aliexpress (40$), DJI in consumer products and 360 cameras use H265. Apple 6 for Facetime, Google Andoid 5 and above, Qualcomm, Media Tek, Intel, Samsung, nVidia, AMD.

*313 million HEVC mobile handshets in 2015, 1.5 billions estimated by 2020.

Add to all this UHD streaming content in the near future and you get the point.

[joema]

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

... Apple 6 for Facetime, Google Andoid 5 and above, Qualcomm, Media Tek, Intel, Samsung, nVidia, AMD...*313 million HEVC mobile handshets in 2015, 1.5 billions estimated by 2020...Add to all this UHD streaming content in the near future and you get the point.

The question was exclusively about editing H265 -- not watching it or using H265 on a closed ecosystem like Facetime. It's true the mobile phone vendors have been rolling out H265 *hardware* support, but that's because cellular data is so precious they need that extra compression -- typically for their own proprietary video use. But it does no wider good if the other end (e.g, Youtube) isn't encoding and sending H265. This article explains: http://www.dtcreports.com/weeklyriff/2016/01/10/why-smartphones-the-initial-products-on-hevc-rollouts-timeline/

By the time a significant % of video editors need native H265 support and have computers than can edit 4k H265 with good performance, FCPX will probably support that. Until then they can do what Premiere editors did for the past 10 years who needed proxy -- they can externally transcode.

[Kisaha]

@joema maybe Adobe pushed by the VR and 360 movement, to support H265 than any other reason.

What is the question though? Why FCPX do not support H265 yet? or if people are using H265?

Seriously, there is no reason for FC not to support it, as we have proved, there is a plethora of devices and uses for it,

Pinnacle Studio edits H265 for 49.95$, Power Director 53.99$, Aiseesoft Ultimate 9 for 31.50$, and I am sure there will be others too. 

So a 31.5$ editor from a tiny software company can do, and one of the most profitable multi nationals can't. Interesting view of things...

[markr041]

Vegas Pro 14 also supports H265. There is no good reason for software or cameras to not support H265 (hear that Panasonic?) other than greed.

[Ken Ross]

This is kind of a chicken and egg thing. As long as Sony & Panasonic, the key players on the video side, don't utilize H265, we probably won't see universal H265 support on the editing side. With that said, I'd be less than honest if I said I wasn't annoyed that FCP still doesn't support it.

At least with the GH5, there will be some limited H265 utilization. Sony still has none.

[jonpais]

On 3/7/2017 at 8:23 PM, markr041 said:

Vegas Pro 14 also supports H265. There is no good reason for software or cameras to not support H265 (hear that Panasonic?) other than greed.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot here Mark, but do you even know how much camera manufacturers must pay in royalties for h.265? Because if the cost of entry is small, call it what you will, but it can't be greed; if the fees are astronomical, it's not greed but prudence: especially as having h.265 on a phone requires no effort on the consumer's part, whereas editing h.265 can be a hassle for those who don't have the latest and greatest computers. In any case, since Panasonic is already implementing h.265 for 6K Photo, I'm guessing that it's the latter.

[webrunner5]

I said long time ago on here I bet Panasonic would have h.265. They have to. Data is just getting to large for the average person to handle. Not everyone in the world has or can even begin to afford a i7 Intel 1500 dollar CPU. It was, and is inevitable. And they will not be alone in this.

[markr041]

9 hours ago, jonpais said:

I'm not trying to put you on the spot here Mark, but do you even know how much camera manufacturers must pay in royalties for h.265? Because if the cost of entry is small, call it what you will, but it can't be greed; if the fees are astronomical, it's not greed but prudence: especially as having h.265 on a phone requires no effort on the consumer's part, whereas editing h.265 can be a hassle for those who don't have the latest and greatest computers. In any case, since Panasonic is already implementing h.265 for 6K Photo, I'm guessing that it's the latter.

I really do not understand why you are against *choice*. How in the world could having the option to use H265 be bad? You could have made make the same  argument about H264 back whenever it became available - H264 (like the XAVC variant at 100 Mbps) is in fact still hard on many "consumers". Perhaps Panasonic should not offer higher bitrate options, lest someone complain they have to buy a better sd card?

The licensing fee issue is not speculation, nor is it a defensive obfuscation sourced by PR people.

Here is an example of what is being said (no facts, but an indication of there is more to this than Panasonic "protecting consumers"):

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/07/26/0149234/hevc-advance-announces-h265-royalty-rates-raises-some-hackles

And here is a source with some facts:

http://x265.org/hevc-advance-reduces-proposed-license-fees/

The H265 licensing fees are much higher than they were for H264.

Anyway, my principal point is not to hypothesize on the reason for Panasonic and Sony etc. (and Apple software) not adopting HEVC, but to restate that we as shooters want it and I see no good reason why it should not be offered as an option. Certainly no good reason provided on this web site.

 

[jonpais]

55 minutes ago, markr041 said:

I really do not understand why you are against *choice*. How in the world could having the option to use H265 be bad? You could have made make the same  argument about H264 back whenever it became available - H264 (like the XAVC variant at 100 Mbps) is in fact still hard on many "consumers". Perhaps Panasonic should not offer higher bitrate options, lest someone complain they have to buy a better sd card?

The licensing fee issue is not speculation, nor is it a defensive obfuscation sourced by PR people.

Here is an example of what is being said (no facts, but an indication of there is more to this than Panasonic "protecting consumers"):

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/07/26/0149234/hevc-advance-announces-h265-royalty-rates-raises-some-hackles

And here is a source with some facts:

http://x265.org/hevc-advance-reduces-proposed-license-fees/

The H265 licensing fees are much higher than they were for H264.

Anyway, my principal point is not to hypothesize on the reason for Panasonic and Sony etc. (and Apple software) not adopting HEVC, but to restate that we as shooters want it and I see no good reason why it should not be offered as an option. Certainly no good reason provided on this web site.

 

I never said I was against choice. Where did you read that? I would be more than happy to be able to choose between h264 and h265. What I object to is baseless accusations, name-calling that has no basis in fact. You say your point is not to hypothesize on the reason, but you already have by calling Panasonic greedy. I've already given my reasons why it can't be greed: first, because Panasonic has equipped the GH5 with more features than any of the competition, which is the quite the opposite of greedy behavior; secondly, because it appears Panasonic has already paid the licensing fees for h265. Why anybody would be looking for an answer to your question on this website is beyond me: If you bothered to watch the video interview with Sean Robinson, he explains at length why Panasonic hasn't implemented h265 for video. And while I would like the option of having h265, I don't think you can speak for everyone when you say, 'we as shooters want it', anymore than I can say, 'we as shooters want 8K'. You want it, I can go on shooting without it. Incidentally, I use a Mac for editing, and h265 would be very inconvenient for me. Are you going to tell me to purchase another computer?

Edit: Mark, what's your beef against Panasonic, anyway? Why do you keep harping on Panasonic, when you should be asking why none of the major players is offering h265 (Sony, Canon, Fuji, Olympus...)

[markr041]

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

I never said I was against choice. Where did you read that? I would be more than happy to be able to choose between h264 and h265. What I object to is baseless accusations, name-calling that has no basis in fact. You say your point is not to hypothesize on the reason, but you already have by calling Panasonic greedy. I've already given my reasons why it can't be greed: first, because Panasonic has equipped the GH5 with more features than any of the competition, which is the quite the opposite of greedy behavior; secondly, because it appears Panasonic has already paid the licensing fees for h265. Why anybody would be looking for an answer to your question on this website is beyond me: If you bothered to watch the video interview with Sean Robinson, he explains at length why Panasonic hasn't implemented h265 for video. And while I would like the option of having h265, I don't think you can speak for everyone when you say, 'we as shooters want it', anymore than I can say, 'we as shooters want 8K'. You want it, I can go on shooting without it. Incidentally, I use a Mac for editing, and h265 would be very inconvenient for me. Are you going to tell me to purchase another computer?

Edit: Mark, what's your beef against Panasonic, anyway? Why do you keep harping on Panasonic, when you should be asking why none of the major players is offering h265 (Sony, Canon, Fuji, Olympus...)

I am glad you are in favor of Panasonic offering H265 as a choice, however begrudging (see below)

I am not here looking for an answer - you do know what a rhetorical question is, right? The rhetorical question is why in the world does the GH5 not have an H265 option for all resolutions? It is not a hardware limitation, and the "reason" given (repeated by you) that it is not adopted is absurd.

All firms are greedy; that is what drives innovation, but also can lead to collusion and exploitation of market power (segmenting markets, etc.).

You are not correct that my beef right now should be with all of the manufacturers who are not going to H265 - Sony, Canon, Nikon, whatever. There is no evidence that their prosumer/consumer cameras have the hardware capability to do it right now - but the GH5 evidently has. I hope they do create the capability in the future. Note also that I am not arguing that my GX85 should have an H265 option, or any other Panasonic camera.  I shoot with the GH4 and the GX85 - they are great - and have shot with the NX1 using H265, so I have faced the hurdles to using H265 and know what it can do and what the issues are in editing with it. I do not have a beef with Panasonic - this is about their not implementing H265 on the GH5, thus crippling (to some extent, I do not want to overemphasize this) its ability to shoot the best 4:2:2 10bit video that it can.

And there you go again seeming to contradict the point of choice being good - I am not saying to eliminate H264 and replace it by H265, so saying that H265 should be offered should not threaten you at all. And indeed first you say you would be happy to choose, but then you say that H265 is "inconvenient" for you and ask if I want *you* to switch, so it sounds like you have a personal bias against it. Do you really believe my push for H265 implies I want you to use it  and buy a new computer?  I want you to have the option to use it; that should not force you to do anything. However, right now everyone is forced to use the old, inefficient H265 at relatively low bitrates. It is interesting that those who seem not to be enthusiastic about H265 use software that currently cannot handle it.

Another illogical analogy and projection: advocating that Panasonic offer H265 is not like advocating they offer 8K video, because we know Panasonic can implement H265 with the hardware right now (they do not use hardware implementation as an excuse, and as you correctly say it is used in one limited implementation). It is unlikely they can offer 8K in the GH5, it is very likely they can offer H265. It is not pie in the sky to ask for H265, it is not like saying they should make a tiny m43 20X zoom with a constant aperture of f1.4 or do 4:4:4 color sampling or 8K or 3D in 4K. They can do H265.

Why defend Panasonic (or the other guys) over not implementing this option, other than somehow it would be inconvenient to you. Why in the world does the GH5 not have this option? Do not answer.

[Kisaha]

What are the "hurdles" of using H265?

I am finishing a project right now (color correcting, warp stabilizer, and a few other things) with 3 H265, 1 pocket, 3 gopro and 2 video cameras, with additional sound, and I am editing natively in Adobe Premiere on my, almost, 5 years old "middling" machine with no problem at all. And on an external hard drive.

They delay their adaptation because they do not want to pay anything for the format, when companies like Apple, Facebook, Sony, YouTube, that have a gazillion net profit do that, they do not care about the end users "profit", but their own, and that is something I can, and DO criticize.

A bravo to Samsung that didn't care at all about the additional costs and delivered the most future proof cameras of 2014.

Less data, slower (and much cheaper) SD cards for stable 4K recording, are all benefits of this codec. For people like me, "small" video professional on one of the smallest possible markets of Europe, buying 5 simple Sandisks Pro 64BG (the 95Mb ones), and using less GB per project (and for backup purposes), the additional money I can save are substantial. I already have a couple of dozens of hard drives, definitely I need less! 

In the end, all these companies are free to produce a better, more competitive/aggressive and free/cheaper codec, I am all in! But I haven't seen them succeeding yet, and I enjoy my HEVC everything.

[Ken Ross]

I really don't see the rationale in pointing the finger at Panasonic for not implementing (or giving the choice for implementing) H265 across the board, simply because it's used in one iteration of its many modes. 

The rationale for giving Sony the pass simply because they haven't implemented the necessary hardware, is not adequate. Why haven't they released a camera with the necessary hardware? How long has it been since the NX1? If Sony wanted to do this they could, but obviously they don't...for whatever 'selfish' reason.

I'm sorry, IMO Panasonic deserves more credit, not more 'blame' than Sony and others, for at least a partial implementation of 265.

Further, at least in my case, if there was an obvious benefit in PQ (not guaranteed), as the result of H265's across-the-board implementation, I would switch editing programs just as I did with the NX1. Using the argument of more efficient storage utilization, doesn't sway me either. Storage is simply too cheap these days for me to ditch my favorite editing solution for that reason. 

Jost my 2 cents.

 

[Kisaha]

It has been 2 years and some months since the NX1.

Depending your projects, your line of work, where you live, what cameras do you use and your editing solution.

For me it didn't change a thing, as I have abandoned final cut a long long time ago, so one day, I just imported my files to Premiere, and worked, I literally "had" to wait a few months for that to happen, but I hadn't used mine for any project (usually not the cams I prefer for pro video work anyway).

If I was a rich man ("Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum") I would shoot Alexas and Reds all day, so no worries about the little things, actually I would hire people shooting for me, and I would be travelling somewhere to eat local fruits and enjoy the scenery, but as I am now, and when I have to put 2 and 3 cameras of my own on various performances, having 3 X 3 X the most expensive media cards, plus all the space to edit (6-8 cameras in total in various occasions) then it is something to consider!

For me it is an economy of size, I could have bought a much bigger car, but I decided that I wanted something sufficient for my needs, with low fuel consumption, more "eco" friendly in a way (no car is eco friendly, you have to cut a whole forest and use a lake's water for a bunch of them) and lower costs to run through the years. Exactly the opposite with a Humvee (what happened to those?!)! Why to use a less efficient codec?

[jonpais]

6 hours ago, markr041 said:

I am glad you are in favor of Panasonic offering H265 as a choice, however begrudging (see below)

I am not here looking for an answer - you do know what a rhetorical question is, right? The rhetorical question is why in the world does the GH5 not have an H265 option for all resolutions? It is not a hardware limitation, and the "reason" given (repeated by you) that it is not adopted is absurd.

All firms are greedy; that is what drives innovation, but also can lead to collusion and exploitation of market power (segmenting markets, etc.).

You are not correct that my beef right now should be with all of the manufacturers who are not going to H265 - Sony, Canon, Nikon, whatever. There is no evidence that their prosumer/consumer cameras have the hardware capability to do it right now - but the GH5 evidently has. I hope they do create the capability in the future. Note also that I am not arguing that my GX85 should have an H265 option, or any other Panasonic camera.  I shoot with the GH4 and the GX85 - they are great - and have shot with the NX1 using H265, so I have faced the hurdles to using H265 and know what it can do and what the issues are in editing with it. I do not have a beef with Panasonic - this is about their not implementing H265 on the GH5, thus crippling (to some extent, I do not want to overemphasize this) its ability to shoot the best 4:2:2 10bit video that it can.

And there you go again seeming to contradict the point of choice being good - I am not saying to eliminate H264 and replace it by H265, so saying that H265 should be offered should not threaten you at all. And indeed first you say you would be happy to choose, but then you say that H265 is "inconvenient" for you and ask if I want *you* to switch, so it sounds like you have a personal bias against it. Do you really believe my push for H265 implies I want you to use it  and buy a new computer?  I want you to have the option to use it; that should not force you to do anything. However, right now everyone is forced to use the old, inefficient H265 at relatively low bitrates. It is interesting that those who seem not to be enthusiastic about H265 use software that currently cannot handle it.

Another illogical analogy and projection: advocating that Panasonic offer H265 is not like advocating they offer 8K video, because we know Panasonic can implement H265 with the hardware right now (they do not use hardware implementation as an excuse, and as you correctly say it is used in one limited implementation). It is unlikely they can offer 8K in the GH5, it is very likely they can offer H265. It is not pie in the sky to ask for H265, it is not like saying they should make a tiny m43 20X zoom with a constant aperture of f1.4 or do 4:4:4 color sampling or 8K or 3D in 4K. They can do H265.

Why defend Panasonic (or the other guys) over not implementing this option, other than somehow it would be inconvenient to you. Why in the world does the GH5 not have this option? Do not answer.

Why are you preaching the benefits of h265 to me? Tell it to Sony or whoever - I'm already pretty familiar with h265. And why don't you stop twisting my words around Mark? You are pretty slippery, with each new post you say you didn't mean what you said in the previous post. You did say, and I don't need to quote you again, that it was a case of corporate greed. Nothing at all to do with me, whether I want h265 or not. Nothing to do with whether h265 is better or not. You made an unsupported allegation against Panasonic, and I showed you were wrong, and now another barrage of your fantasy world. This may shock you, so please sit down first, but you don't speak for all filmmakers. You may want h265, but don't presume everyone does, not right at the moment anyway. Same as USB-C and Apple, whom you also seem to hold a grudge against. Why don't you just watch and listen to the interview with Sean Robinson and take it up with Pansonic? It's obvious you are targeting Panasonic, you let Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax and Fuji off the hook. How do you know none of them are prepared to implement h265? Are you an engineer for Sony? Anyhow, done talking with you. 

[Vesku]

I think the coming (summer) GH5 Hybrid log gamma profile uses h.265 4k 10bit. I hope it works in 4k 60P too.

[FannieJane]

Premiere Pro can handle H.265, but whether it can perfect handle H.265 depends on your hardware decoding ability of your computer.

Here’s a quick rundown of well-known hardware that includes dedicated HEVC decoding blocks, which definitely support efficient HEVC playback:

Intel 6th-generation ‘Skylake’ Core processors or newer

AMD 6th-generation ‘Carizzo’ APUs or newer

AMD ‘Fiji’ GPUs (Radeon R9 Fury/Fury X/Nano) or newer

Nvidia GM206 GPUs (GeForce GTX 960/950) or newer

Other Nvidia GeForce GTX 900 series GPUs have partial HEVC hardware decoding support

Qualcomm Snapdragon 805/615/410/208 SoCs or newer. Support ranges from 720p decoding on low-end parts to 4K playback on high-end parts.

Nvidia Tegra X1 SoCs or newer

Samsung Exynos 5 Octa 5430 SoCs or newer

Apple A8 SoCs or newer

Some MediaTek SoCs from mid-2014 onwards

[Parker]

6 hours ago, FannieJane said:

Premiere Pro can handle H.265, but whether it can perfect handle H.265 depends on your hardware decoding ability of your computer.

Here’s a quick rundown of well-known hardware that includes dedicated HEVC decoding blocks, which definitely support efficient HEVC playback:

Intel 6th-generation ‘Skylake’ Core processors or newer

AMD 6th-generation ‘Carizzo’ APUs or newer

AMD ‘Fiji’ GPUs (Radeon R9 Fury/Fury X/Nano) or newer

Nvidia GM206 GPUs (GeForce GTX 960/950) or newer

Other Nvidia GeForce GTX 900 series GPUs have partial HEVC hardware decoding support

Qualcomm Snapdragon 805/615/410/208 SoCs or newer. Support ranges from 720p decoding on low-end parts to 4K playback on high-end parts.

Nvidia Tegra X1 SoCs or newer

Samsung Exynos 5 Octa 5430 SoCs or newer

Apple A8 SoCs or newer

Some MediaTek SoCs from mid-2014 onwards

Ehh, to be honest, this post is a bit misleading, you really don't need top-of-the-line hardware for h.265 editing at all. 

 My humble little machine is an ancient (by computer standards) Sandy Bridge-era i7-2600, 16gb of ram and a lowly little GTX 750 Ti, and my PC has no trouble at all cutting h.265 4k in full resolution on my 1080 monitor.

Even adding luts doesn't really slow it down a tremendous amount. If I have to add a ton of stuff in the edit, especially speeding up duration, etc., then sure, I have to use proxies, but really, no need at all to break the bank for HEVC editing.