HEVC

Thoughts on HEVC?

Other urls found in this thread:

screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/124454
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Proprietary.

looks like shit. look at the wall, tiles, and his neck.

screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/124454

AIDS

Thoughts, not obvious facts you illiterate freetard.

>her thoughts are not facts

Well, to make a video smaller you need to get rid of redundant or irrelevant information. The most severe example of irrelevant information that additionally blows up the entropy is noise. So the encoder tries to get rid of that. I think that's a pretty smart thing to do. Look at what previous codecs would do to that scene at those bitrates. It's impossible otherwise.

"Open format? no"
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding)

When will we see vp10 or whatever its called ?
Video sizes are getting bigger and bigger but still no development in compression space.

You must be retarded. Can't even pick 2 releases and compare them using the same frame.

the few h.265 torrents i have are trash

H.265 wasn't made for films it was made for web streaming. If you want quality encode in H.264 the developers will tell you that

it is open (anyone may implement it) but not royalty free

proprietary means you cannot implement it, there are no specs, you may only buy it from a single vendor
for some reason when it comes to codecs the free software world thinks it's fine to conflate free as in freedom with free as in beer

Which makes it shit, now get out shill

Ask me again when there's a good encoder

>H.265 wasn't made for films
Yes it was.

NO FUCKING HARDWARE ACCELERATION

REEEEEEEEEEEE

x264 is libre

Yea I don't care about H.265. All of my movie/anime library is in x264 and I took literal months worth of encoding to shrink them down without quality loss. I'm not re-doing my 4TB+ library.

>lossy encoding
>no quality loss
:thinking:

>Which makes it shit
digital video basically wouldn't exist without MPEG standards, and if it did it would be locked behind more bullshit than you can ever imagine
retarded Sup Forums kids born in 1998 have no clue how good they have it

from what?

>he can't encode without losing quality

NVEnc
NVDec
theres also an AMD one

>>he can't encode without losing quality
and neither can you nor anyone else...

But the development team say the lack of sharpness is what makes it bad for them

ah fuck
I mean losing noticeable quality. If your h264 was done well, at most, you'll only need a tiny amount of deblocker with edgecleaner for 420s.

Is it why H.265 is used in UHD BDs?

Both x264 and x265 support lossless encodes. Which will be pixel perfect to the source.

It's not however, a smart thing to do.

because they have 40GBs for a few hours of footage.
they can use CBR and it would look great.

Calling it x264 or x265 at that point is a mere technicality, since you'd be bypassing virtually everything that make them what they are. It's like going to an airport and then instead of boarding a plane you walk to your destination

both of those are labeled hevc.
also you cant just take one shit encode and say that they all look like that.
encoding is an art. you have to have the perfect settings. 90% of these hevc encodes you see that look like shit were made by drooling retards. Its like giving a 10 year old fruityloops and saying all music sucks.

anyone else --ref 16 here?

is there any gpu accelerated avisynth or vapoursynth filters?

I work in the security industry and I can confirm h.265 is vastly superior.

You're not bypassing anything. You're basically still doing everything but the encode will only make it valid when it matches the source 100% pixel by pixel. The lossless encodes will also be heavier than the sources most of the time.

It isn't something smart, an "almost lossless" encode is better. And a "virtually lossless" one is even better. Just set the CRF low enough and you're fine.

I have to digitalize some VHS tapes and I've heard H.265 would be good for archiving it, is it true?

depends on what you want out of archival quality

H.265 blew me away with the first encode I saw. I got a rip of Redline that looked monumentally better than any comparable H.264 rip of an anime; great detail, pretty much zero banding, and almost no noticeable artifacts visible. What blew me away wasn't just the quality, but the filesize, weighing in at just over 3GB for a dual-audio encode. I'd expect a comparable H.264 rip to clock in at something like 8-10GB, but this thing blew that out of the water.

I have since encoded most of my own movies in H.265, though it's a little different of a story. Generally the encodes look pretty good, but there's not a major difference between the x264 and x265 versions; maybe a slightly smaller file or slightly less artifacting, but otherwise similar. Maybe I just have to tweak the settings some more, I don't know.

The other thing I noticed is that H.265 encodes look somewhat flat or off or something. I can't really describe it, but something about the encodes in motion seems unnaturally smooth. Overall though, H.265 is the future. The encoding process is similar enough to H.264 that it almost feels like an extension rather than a new codec, and the better support for high color depth really helps anime encodes.

>The encoding process is similar enough to H.264 that it almost feels like an extension rather than a new codec, and the better support for high color depth really helps anime encodes.
>and the better support for high color depth really helps anime encodes.

Beyond anime, I hate seeing sections of a fast moving television show or movie at 1080p with x265, as it can look like 720p with boxy pixels blur on a large screen television. It also depends on the rate of compression of the encode at x264 because a 3-4GB movie will sound and look different to the same encode at 8-12GB. Unless it is ripped as a web download that typically has a better level of quality for a lower size. Just my experience in dealing with shitty internet while trying maximize the quality of the media available to me.

Although some of the higher compression x264 are nasty as 'The handmaiden' x264 release under 5GB was nasty during outdoor scenes as the audio sounded like pure static. You have to consider:

1. The original source.
2. The rate of compression; what size the file at 'optimal' quality should look? Do you think a cinematic 2 hour movie at x264 from a blue-ray rip would look decent in a 3-4GB file?
3. Encoding type.

Considering the decrease in the cost of data storage per GB, I would rather a higher quality archival footage that would scale better in the future with higher resolutions than a smaller size.

CBR is a meme

no, storage is too cheap to justify losing quality over something you're archiving

>x264 is libre
free is only the library. since it implements the H.264, it is infested by a ton of patents that require royalties to legaly encode/decode.

You also gotta factor in if your doing your own rips is what your viewing device is. ex, if viewing on small screen such as tablet,phone then you can get away with small file size/low res encodes. However if your primary viewing device is a 65" HD set then obviously that same file will look like shit. But you can't just go nuts and do a 1:1 encode cause that defeats the main purpose of doing this in the first place (aside of keeping source disc in pristine shape). It doesn't really matter what the codec is, good ol Xvid/Divx, or H.264. Container don't mean shit either, AVI,MKV or MP4. Drives are cheap. Ripping films/shows takes time, do it right the first time, you won't ever have to redo it ever again (unless you fuck up and forget to do a backup of your server). For me, my main device is a 65" HDTV. I won't ever go beyond that size cause frankly my living room isn't gonna be expanding anytime soon. So I try to rip/acquire all my films/shows at a quality/res that will look good on it. Sometimes that can be a challenge, not on me ripping skills, rather on the quality of the film/show torrents out there. Some shows your stuck with whatever your given cause there is no "official" DVD set of it.

how should I archive it then?

Convert the VHS to 4K digital
10TB HDDs in RAID5, HEVC Main10 6.2 quantitizer 16, 16x16 max CU size, keep the audio as WAV in a seperate file which is loaded on playing the video

It depends on your budget and the software you use. I would use quality HDD with lowest failure rates and have two copies of the conversions at the minimum as suggested by others.