Author Topic: NEW H.265 CODEC (Read 51451 times)

arrinkiiii · « **on:** November 18, 2013, 11:32:33 AM »

http://www.eoshd.com/content/11534/new-h-265-codec-test-prores-4444-quality-1-file-size

Andy600 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 18, 2013, 11:59:51 AM »

There are a few H.265 projects and encoders/decoders popping up online plus source code for devs: https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/wiki/Home

The Cinec encoder with HERC/H.265 (v2.7) doesn't appear to be available yet. Still showing v2.5

Divx has a working 1080p HERC encoder http://www.divx.com/en/software/hevc-plugin

arrinkiiii · « **Reply #2 on:** November 18, 2013, 03:23:09 PM »

Here come... this kind of questions

-It's possible to implement this codec in ours machines and have better compress video?

-The problem is how to access the h.264 chip? The dedicated chip don't have enough power.

-Will be illegal?

-Impossible, but why? The dedicated chip don't have enough power.

-How i can start to make reverse engeniere for the chip that contain the h.264 codec of our beloved cameras?

Greg · « **Reply #3 on:** November 18, 2013, 05:35:34 PM »

Quote from: arrinkiiii on November 18, 2013, 03:23:09 PM

-Will be illegal?

I think it's illegal, copyright, such as MP3 codec, we can not use it for audio playback or record. We need to use WAV files.

arrinkiiii · « **Reply #4 on:** November 18, 2013, 05:55:22 PM »

Quote from: Greg on November 18, 2013, 05:35:34 PM

I think it's illegal, copyright, such as MP3 codec, we can not use it for audio playback or record. We need to use WAV files.

Did't know that mp3 is copyright... it's allover the internet. God to know this =))

spider · « **Reply #5 on:** November 18, 2013, 10:41:54 PM »

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/357754-%5BHEVC%5D-x265-EXE-mingw-builds
Here are binarys of x.265 and a GUI

But I can't get it work. I think I use the wrong cmd.

arrinkiiii · « **Reply #6 on:** November 18, 2013, 11:03:03 PM »

how i wish to know a lite bit of code...

"SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Hardware: AVX capable CPU recommended
At least 8GB of RAM
Software: Win7/8 x86_64
Microsoft Visual C++ Redistributable Update 3 "

Not even this i got in my pc...

It's amazing the sample that you can see with this codec, damnnn

Andy600 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 19, 2013, 12:03:21 AM »

I tried the DivX HERC convertor on a 2.8gb DNxHD 10bit 1080p (1m 48s) and it took about 10 mins to convert. It's visually losses to my eyes and file size is down to 80mb. Very promising but needs to get much faster and it eats CPU/GPU.

I can't see this being an 'in-camera' codec for some time yet and 3rd party recorders will have to become much more powerful to record to H.265 externally. When that day comes 4k and 8k will become totally viable IMO.

arrinkiiii · « **Reply #8 on:** November 19, 2013, 12:14:44 AM »

Yes, indeed. The big camera manufacteres don't want to spend money in new power processors... they prefer to (how i going to say this in english) they prefere to lik/drop2 drop until sometihng new come and they think... "ok, they busted us, we need to upgrade..." and with this "frenessim" of evolution in video world if they not, they will stay behind.... i remeber wend im a kid that grundig (german) and sony are the main leader of TV's... and look now. Remember, dslr are for photo... or was to be?

spider · « **Reply #9 on:** November 19, 2013, 12:24:23 AM »

Quote from: Andy600 on November 19, 2013, 12:03:21 AM

I tried the DivX HERC convertor on a 2.8gb DNxHD 10bit 1080p (1m 48s) and it took about 10 mins to convert.

This means 0.5 fps.
I think at this speed it is not usable even not for uploads on slow internet connections.

spider · « **Reply #10 on:** November 19, 2013, 12:13:04 PM »

With the DIVX h.265 I get 2.6fps on a Xeon E3 1230v3 @3.7GHz
The x.264 is 10 times faster on a slow preset.

Audionut · « **Reply #11 on:** November 21, 2013, 07:52:08 AM »

Quote from: spider on November 19, 2013, 12:13:04 PM

With the DIVX h.265 I get 2.6fps on a Xeon E3 1230v3 @3.7GHz
The x.264 is 10 times faster on a slow preset.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=141352

Quote

Conclusion: Very nice. The last few years have brought an extra 10 fps each year with an increase in quality regarding metrics.

spider · « **Reply #12 on:** November 21, 2013, 12:56:43 PM »

12 fps in one year would be nice.

21.11.2014 should be marked in my calendar

arrinkiiii · « **Reply #13 on:** November 21, 2013, 10:11:01 PM »

Quote from: spider on November 21, 2013, 12:56:43 PM

21.11.2014 should be marked in my calendar

lololol

ItsMeLenny · « **Reply #14 on:** November 22, 2013, 07:34:24 AM »

MP3 isn't copyrighted, it's patented.

It's only illegal in the countries where mp3 is patented.

Also, the xiph project (ogg, opus, etc) are coming out with their own open source version also of a HEVC.

ItsMeLenny · « **Reply #15 on:** November 22, 2013, 07:36:32 AM »

Also, the h265 is less crisp than the prores.
That's either because h265 uses smoothing to compress OR
because h265 is 4:2:0 for most part. Depends what they converted to.

Audionut · « **Reply #16 on:** November 22, 2013, 09:29:20 PM »

It's probably a little early to make quality comparisons that are meaningful at this stage, no offence intended.

H.265 is only in it's initial development cycle. If memory serves me correctly, xvid beat x264 in a number of situations early in it's dev cycle. Of course, most people probably didn't use all of the encoder optimisations in x264 when it first arrived since on the then current hardware, it was painfully slow.

I haven't had a chance to test a H.265 encoder yet, so the above is merely speculation based on past experience.

ItsMeLenny · « **Reply #17 on:** November 23, 2013, 04:44:40 AM »

Quote from: Audionut on November 22, 2013, 09:29:20 PM

It's probably a little early to make quality comparisons that are meaningful at this stage, no offence intended.

None taken at all. All the HEVC are in early development and there probably will be improvements again.
Plus on top of that h265, among the other HEVC's, all have 10bit options and 4:4:4.
On top of that, I'm sure there will be a lossless version as well, much like there was for h264.
But still, in that example, there was some blurring going on, which is one way to decrease size, getting rid of grain and such.

Audionut · « **Reply #18 on:** November 23, 2013, 06:02:34 AM »

Well if they're just going to blur detail away, we should get much better then the 30% or so improvements they claim

Development progress of multicoreware looks very healthy. There's been lots of assembly added just in the last 3 days.

ItsMeLenny · « **Reply #19 on:** November 23, 2013, 11:14:35 AM »

Lol yeah.

Webm compared to H264 is more blurred, probably a disadvantage, but it seems to have better quality in other areas.

Here is Xiphs HEVC https://xiph.org/daala/

Edit: My comment on webm was for when they were using VP8, they have since switched to VP9.
(and also switched the audio from ogg to opus)

eyeland · « **Reply #20 on:** March 02, 2014, 12:41:03 AM »

Any thoughts on the timeframe for useable implementations?
During this years perhaps?
After finally learning to achieve a higher quality of my grades I continue to get frustrated when I convert to web delivery ..

arrinkiiii · « **Reply #21 on:** March 02, 2014, 12:47:12 AM »

Will be like that for a while...

spider · « **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2014, 12:58:28 AM »

I tried x265 and its terrible slow.
Getting 0.7fps on the "very slow" preset (x264 about 7-9fps) and I can save only about 35-40% bitrate.

I think we have to wait at least 1.5 years.

ItsMeLenny · « **Reply #23 on:** March 07, 2014, 08:16:43 AM »

Isn't very slow much the same as placebo.
I wonder how VP9 compares at the moment.
Also how Xiphs new HEVC compares.

arrinkiiii · « **Reply #24 on:** March 07, 2014, 09:01:45 AM »

Interesting the VP9 !

News:

Author Topic: NEW H.265 CODEC (Read 51451 times)