New H.265 codec on test - ProRes 4444 quality for 1% of the file size

[dahlfors]

Yes. You'll need dedicated hardware encoding/decoding chips for cameras and mobiles. Maybe we'll have gpus that can do hardware decoding on phones and tablets soon enough, but until then you'll have to rely on dedicated chips. For getting H.265 in cameras, dedicated encode/decode chips are the way to go (unless you have an external recorder with powerful cpu or dedicated encode/decode chips).

[Kays Alatrakchi]

Funny how video acquisition seems to be splitting off, on one side there is raw and uncompressed, trying to get to the unaltered 0's and 1's straight from the sensor. On the other side is even more aggressive data compression where one pixel is effectively representing dozens if not hundreds of others.

 

I'm curious to see where this is all heading, and just like everything else, in a few years we'll look back at what we're shooting right now and it will all look so terrible!

[ZZ VISUAL]

Besides of your arguments, I guess the ultimate advantage of 444/10 bit can be recognized only with the 10 bit screens.

[HurtinMinorKey]

I think as a general rule, all else equal the better the compression method is for delivery, the worse it will be for grading/editing.

[Tzedekh]

. . . H.265 will give us 10bit, small file sizes, 4K and lovely looking footage out of the box on consumer hardware.

 

It could also give us 12-bit 4:4:4 8K (8,192 x 4,320) at up to 120 fps.

[MatthewP]

This is great for distribution, I've got to say, but it's less exciting for aquisition. Why? Well, seeing as most cameras still don't compress to h.264 very well, it's unlikely that h.265 will be any better for at least a few years.

 

A properly encoded 1080p h.264 file can look indistinguishable from a raw video at modest 6-8mbps (seriously). Seeing that cameras shoot at 24mbps yet look worse in most cases, there is still much room for improvement with h.264 even though its been out for years now.

[jgharding]

I'd like to see compressed raw like RedCode available for all capture, and this crazy codec for delivery. That'd be aces all round.

[tokyojerry]

crf24 = youtube quality, crf22 = good quality, crf20 = very good quality, crf18 = to go all out.

 

i wouldnt recommend using lower crf values than 18. you cant see the difference. i have a eye for detail and most often can see a difference between 20 and 18. so using crf18 already gives you a nice safety bump, if you might wanna use the file to create other formats out of it.

 

Thanks for the heads up on this setting in Handbrake.  I use Handbrake in OS-X, but I am unfamiliar with most of these cryptic video specifications and settings except for the most common.  I've always accepted the default of 20 as being OK at least if that is what Handbrake's developers have set as a default.  I would have been clueless as to whether to go to a higher or lower numeric value and what it does.  Your explanation clarifies and clears up some of the fog in at least what is the better (best) setting and which direction to go (higher / lower value).  :-)  

BTW, I just now loaded an ISO image file of a BDrip (7GB+)  I took note that Handbrake arbitrarily assigned it a value of RF 37.75.  Now that is confusing to me based on what you describe and my comment above.  Any thoughts?

[Chad Nikolaus]

I have the Sony FS700. Is it possible that this codec could actually be added to the camera via firmware, to allow us to record H.264 from the 4k sensor without even needing an external recorder? 

[jcs]

FS700: Sony has reserved internal 4K recording via XAVC H.264 for the F55. 2K/HD 10-bit 422 (after 12-bit RAW upgrade) XAVC would be nice but not clear if this is possible (would also step on F5's market).

[Damphousse]

In case you live at 12 Under Rock Drive, the H.265 standard is the biggest codec of the decade.

 

I guess I've been living under a rock because I've never heard of this codec.  I looked it up and Wikipedia says the first iteration of the codec was finalized and published earlier this year.  I wouldn't count on seeing it in consumer cameras for quite some time.

[jgharding]

An interesting piece here on YouTube using VP9 for 4K content.

 

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/youtube-4k-201311203451.htm

 

The licensing hasn't been sorted yet for H265, so yes, it will be a while before we see it.

 

VP9 looks like a good option though

[Franka Mech T. Lieu]

sounds like we are finally getting somewhere with real world possibility of 4K for most of us mere mortals. One thing though I disagree with the point about still using the codec. Might be still off the Video feed it would be. But not specific still capture. Notably we have already better  file format, the RAW file for still capture. Unlike Video a Still Capture is just 1 frame, and 1 frame only. I can see future in camera processed image to go away from the 8 bit file format, but this is not likely to happen for a long while. Not until the display media can catch up. Right now its not like we do not have better still image format. Far from it, we can have loseless PNG full 16bit. But its of little use to the wider market if the display do not match up. File size is not much of a issue with stills. 

[Tone13]

I think you will find that this claim of 1% the size is a complete load of rubbish. H265 aims to halve the size of H.264 not reduce it by 99%.

Not only is it unbeleivable that this misinformation has been unchecked by other sites and re reported, also surprising is how gullible people can be

[dahlfors]

I think you will find that this claim of 1% the size is a complete load of rubbish. H265 aims to halve the size of H.264 not reduce it by 99%.

Not only is it unbeleivable that this misinformation has been unchecked by other sites and re reported, also surprising is how gullible people can be

 

Try reading again.

 

"New H.265 codec on test - ProRes 4444 quality for 1% of the file size". Prores 4444 is quite a lot larger than H.264...

[Tone13]

Try reading again.

"New H.265 codec on test - ProRes 4444 quality for 1% of the file size". Prores 4444 is quite a lot larger than H.264...

And much better quality than h264. Yes, visually the difference might be very little if not anything at all but you don't choose to record in 444 over 422 for the visual difference, people can't tell the difference). You choose to use 444 for post work. I guarantee h265 is nowhere near as flexible as 444. Unless h265 grades and keys as good as 444, then it's not the same quality.

The comparison is silly.

[see ya]

Bare in mind that h264 is not just heavily compressed 4:2:0, there are high profiles available via x264 implementation that offer both 10bit and 4:4:4 and lossless of both.

 

x265 is already going strong and available for testing, http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168814 & https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/overview

 

CineMartin, Cinetec I believe uses ffmpeg as a base, along with SDK's from others for wider format / codec support including x264 I'd guess. I wouldn't be surprised if Cinetec's h265 support isn't x265. Just a hunch but very possibly incorrect.

[hpsauce]

Broadcom making h.265 chippy
http://www.broadcom.com/press/in_the_news.php?p=8&year=0&action=View%20-%2050k

[dahlfors]

And much better quality than h264. Yes, visually the difference might be very little if not anything at all but you don't choose to record in 444 over 422 for the visual difference, people can't tell the difference). You choose to use 444 for post work. I guarantee h265 is nowhere near as flexible as 444. Unless h265 grades and keys as good as 444, then it's not the same quality.

The comparison is silly.

 

However silly it might seem to you, H.265 does 4444, at 8-bit, 10-bit or 12-bit:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Profiles

 

Prores is a lossy compression method, so is H.265. The difference is that H.265 is a recent codec with a lot more focus on compressing filesizes, for the cost of requiring more computing power to encode/decode. This means, for the very same level of quality as with Prores, you'll have far lower bitrate, 4444 included.

 

Also: "and much better quality than H.264". Yes, a Prores 4444 will be higher quality than the H.264 4:2:0 at 8-bit we see implemented in most cameras. However, did you know that there are also H.264 profiles for 4:4:4 at 10-bit color (the specs even support up to 14-bit)? With proper encoding chips, there's nothing stopping cameras from having 10-bit H.265 4444 (or even H.264) that compress far better and has same quality as Prores 4444.

[Tony Hernandez]

 

Cinemartin Cinec has been updated 2 times, the 3.0 and the last is the 3.X

In includes a lot of new features .. check at cinemartin.com/cinec

 

Speciallly for Sony XAVC and XAVC-S users (mxf or mp4 output extension) now Cinec is able to convert that sony videos to prores, enabling users get a superb picture file with a wider standard compatibility and to allow a easy edition on most NLE systems such as Adobe Premiere, Avid Composer, Sony Vegas and so on

 

Here are the link 

 

Convert videos from Sony XAVC and XAVC´S to prores, XAVC adobe premiere compatible

http://www.cinemartin.com/cinec/xavc...res-converter/

 

Also on 3.0 a CinemaDng conversion was added, so user s from cameras like Blackmagic now can process that cinemadng raw files and export to prores to be adobre premiere and other nle systems compatible.

 

Check out how to Convert CinemaDNG to prores 

http://www.cinemartin.com/cinec/cine...res-converter/