Video Format H.265 Is Approved

Discussion in 'User Submitted News' started by LockeCole_101629, Jan 29, 2013.

  1. LockeCole_101629

    LockeCole_101629 GBAtemp Regular

    Jul 6, 2012
    New Zealand
    Saw this news on one of the biggest tracker.

    Theoretically it will reduced half of size/bandwidth to deliver, making it possible to stream High Quality Video on low bandwith network


    Source: Techcrunch
    TehSkull likes this.
  2. shakirmoledina

    shakirmoledina Legend

    Oct 23, 2004
    Dar es Salaam
    That's a great improvement esp knowing that cinema quality videos are really low so cam videos might improve after all. Helpful for mobile devices that don't have the power to convert more compressed video files.
  3. nukeboy95

    nukeboy95 Leave luck to heaven.

    Aug 24, 2010
    United States
    not sure
  4. dj4uk6cjm

    dj4uk6cjm GBAtemp Fan

    Nov 23, 2012
    United States
    Wow it looks so clear and vivid.
  5. Bladexdsl

    Bladexdsl ZOMG my's over 9000!!!

    Nov 17, 2008
    will it improve the quality of porn? :creep:
    kenjixx and Scott-105 like this.
  6. FireEmblemGuy

    FireEmblemGuy Celebrating a decade of shitposting

    Jul 6, 2007
    United States
    Michigan, USA
    One can only hope and dream.
  7. Another World

    Another World Emulate the Planet!

    Former Staff
    Jan 3, 2008
    From Where???
    in those two images all i see is the difference between yellow light and white light. i guess i'll have to see some actual clips.

    -another world
  8. ShadowSoldier

    ShadowSoldier GBAtemp Guru

    Oct 8, 2009
    That's the thing, the white light, in .265 is more vivid showing more colors and more definition. In .264, it's kind of all mixed together and it gives a grungy type color color to the whole picture, while 265 is all different. Like the guys shirt doesn't look the same color or tone as the wallpaper on the wall. It makes a huge difference, especially when getting the high quality picture that we all want with a huge difference in file size.

    I mean, I've downloaded movies where where they're only like 300mb, big Hollywood movies, and they look tons better than the regular dvdrip of 700mb. Sure you can find the good quality ones with high quality picture around 700mb, but it's the file size difference offering the same thing. This is great and I eventually hope this becomes the new standard because this is great.
  9. LockeCole_101629

    LockeCole_101629 GBAtemp Regular

    Jul 6, 2012
    New Zealand
    I think it's just lightning matter
    they use 2 different camera to compare it real time instead one time at a time.

    However my concern is playback, how much power it will use to play HD content.
    For computer it probably just a matter of codec, but for mobile device I have no idea.
  10. SifJar

    SifJar Not a pirate

    Apr 4, 2009
    I think what that image is trying to show is that at around the same quality, bandwidth is halved. There's not meant to be a large difference between the two images.
  11. Rydian

    Rydian Resident Furvert™

    Feb 4, 2010
    United States
    Cave Entrance, Watching Cyan Write Letters
    I did a little reading and it seems there's hardware h.265 decoders planned for mobile chipsets, which means it's likely a "heavier" format.
  12. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip Reporter
    Nov 21, 2005
    United Kingdom
    Though there is an element of truth to that it is an awfully dangerous chain of logic to follow unless you want to make your list of provisos and qualifications thirty pages long. To that end though I could probably demonstrate what you speak of (probably even with stuff "from the wild" ) this example is definitely a case of "got to demonstrate for the plebs- let us cheat". As I have to note it- 700 meg rips are typically MPEG ASP (h264 is analogous to MPEG4 AVC) pushed right to breaking point (I am sure we all saw the jump between 350 meg TV rips and 550 meg ones).

    As for the matter at hand eh.... moving to H264 was painful enough and that only largely happened when chip makers did specialist chips which we now have a nice legacy bunch of in all sorts of devices. Equally I hope some like those behind X264 jump back in*, given several of those also played in xvid chances are high enough.

    *given the only truly viable alternative is either MS jump in (given they are on various boards I doubt they will push it too hard though VC-1 does have a decent toehold, I will not be hoping an MS effort becomes standard though), xiph make something that plays (it kind of happened before but MPEG and MS seem to have pulled their thumb out of their arses in the meantime) or WebM amounts to something (though google is a backer we all saw what happened in HTML5), if I am going away with the fairies maybe a wavelet compression will take off but I doubt it. [insert grumble about software patents].
  13. ShadowSoldier

    ShadowSoldier GBAtemp Guru

    Oct 8, 2009
    I'm not gonna lie, when I wrote my post out, I was drunk (see my thread of me getting my L and drinking), and even then I feel like with my post I was fairly thorough and it made sense to a lot of people. HOWEVER! I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your post. I'm maybe 17 beers in and a little bit buzzed, but fuck, your post just confused me and made me feel like my dick is smaller than yours. That's not to say that your post didn't make sense, I just don't under-fucking-stand it where as someone else might. (Also excuse my language as I've been watching A LOT of Penn and Teller.
  14. TehSkull

    TehSkull Living the life

    Nov 29, 2009
    United States

    Better quality video on a lower bandwidth?
    I'll take eight.

    Seriously though, I'll have to read more into these technologies. Being able to put more and more data into a smaller space intrigues me.
  15. Depravo


    Global Moderator
    GBAtemp Patron
    Depravo is a Patron of GBAtemp and is helping us stay independent!

    Our Patreon
    Oct 13, 2008
    This probably won't play on my TV so I'll lose the ability to sneer at people demanding .avi files for their outdated technology.
    porkiewpyne likes this.
  16. clothesbiz27
    This message by clothesbiz27 has been removed from public view by tj_cool, Jan 29, 2013.
    Jan 29, 2013
  17. Ethevion

    Ethevion Wannabe Artist

    Sep 23, 2010
    Make way for more porn!
  18. Heran Bago

    Heran Bago Where do puyo come from?

    Nov 6, 2005
    United States
    Foggy California
    How much more/less intensive is it to encode? Playback and uploading is better on bandwidth but is it more demanding of hardware?
  19. porkiewpyne

    porkiewpyne Report-er

    Global Moderator
    Jun 8, 2008
    My semi-decent computer will probably still play it so I guess I can continue being an elitist dick to them XD
  20. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip Reporter
    Nov 21, 2005
    United Kingdom
    @TehSkull it might not be so much more data in less space but what appears to be the same data to the human eye in less space and still hopefully decode it at 24,25 or 30 fps depending.

    Sorry- I do a lot of video encoding and tried to learn most of what there was to know on the "how it all ticks" level (largely at the cost of the "language of cinema" side of things) and I am never quite sure what to elaborate upon and what to not to when it comes to these sorts of discussions.

    Mini essay mode then.

    There are many video standards in this world though MPEG has a lot of the market (what the latter half of my post was lamenting upon). They have a variety of standards available though aside from the now obscure MPEG1 video (you met it if you used DPG on the DS and most likely if you have a video with the extension .mpg) and MPEG2 (DVDs and some aspects of blu ray- though not a lot of blu ray use it these days) most fall under the MPEG4 umbrella
    Chiefly you would have met
    MPEG4- part 2. The names for all the MPEG stuff gets a bit confusing- generally the actual standards are broken down into parts which themselves have various implementations.
    MPEG4 SP - on some of the very oldest DVD players that played non DVD video you might have met this.
    MPEG4 ASP - this would be divx/xvid and the sort of thing that usually gets crammed into AVI and your 700 meg films.

    MPEG4 part 10 aka AVC aka H264 with the most prominent open source encoder being X264 (that it mops the floor with most other H264 efforts is perhaps a different discussion). This is everywhere nowadays though officially blu ray does support it.
    Digital TV varies across the world it seems so I am not going to even try lining things up there.

    This H265 stuff is technically a new standard though I am not sure what the official name is to be (HEVC, H265, MPEG-H and various permutations of the lot depending upon where I go though most are accepted).

    Generally the larger the numbers/further down the lists you go the less space it takes to encode a similar quality video at the cost of increased resources to decode it* though there are oddities here and there (more commonly at extremes- MP2 and MP3 audio being a good example- MP3 is generally superior but there are times like lower bitrates where MP2 does better).
    *your phone probably decodes H264 but it is extremely unlikely it does it all in software. This troubles things as not all hardware supports all of the standards- ipods were notorious for not supporting the better parts of the AAC audio standard.
    This is why I felt the need to mention that your 700 meg DVD rip being compared to later formats was at best a bad comparison. Added onto this those 700 meg rips have all sorts of restrictions applied by the scene ( has various scene rules), nominally for good reasons (700 megs is the size of an 80 minute CD, many of the other rules are to allow older hardware driven decoders in DVD players to work- if you have seen a nuke for custom quant then that would be why) but it still drags down the overall quality of the film. In many ways I reckon if old youtube made internet video a byword for awful quality then the scene certainly did XVID/MPEG4ASP a number of disservices (though if it did not exist I doubt it would have been half as popular as it is). Being animated and subject to a whole host of slightly different problems I am hesitant to make the link but if you have seen some of the nicer nowhere near to 350/700 megs stuff in the anime world you can glimpse some nice stuff, the addition of 550 meg TV shows helped and the jump to H264 also saw the various numbers change, this meant a jump from where XVID stuff was about the limit of watchable to scene style H264 being quite comfortable (with the added perk of H264 encodes not being reduced in resolution quite as much).
    Of course I should note X264 being awesome again- every GPU encoder I have used pales when compared to X264 and for my money spits out something equivalent to MPEG4 ASP even if it is quicker (though X264 is no slouch). You start fiddling with advanced options (and in doing so rapidly turning it from something most things will decode to just your PC if you set it up properly) and it only gets better.

    Industry nonsense is boring though so on to what you said
    There are various methods of encoding a video but to get to the level where most of the discussion for this to make complete sense will take ages and is tedious beyond belief. When people ask why we have not reverse engineered mobiclip I usually point at which is for MPEG1- this stuff has now had the better part of 25 years of computing development and some of the best programmers, scientists (of every shade) and electronics experts going at full pelt with the added bonus of patent/businessman induced weirdness.

    Generally there are two broad classes of compression method
    Interframe - screaming by at twenty something frames a second most things match the next frame quite well. If you have ever seen a high speed scene deteriorate into squares (blocks if you will- hence deblocking you might have seen in post processing filters) you have seen aspects of these at work.
    Intraframe - broadly speaking one pixel is very similar to one next to it. This is what also custom quant deals with (generally people are less inclined to notice errors in different parts of the image so you can lose quality somewhere but keep it somewhere else- different types of film and different ideas on the subject saw many made, many of which are better than the basic standards).

    There are also things like qpel and motion compensation which enhance other things though they are hugely complex in their own right. Generally the higher up the list (MP1 -> MP2 -> MP4) you go the more aggressively these techniques are used and so more demanding they become.

    Finally getting to colours, brightness, contrast and nonsense- in many ways those example images are a variation on the "make it louder and people say it sounds better" problem/concept (nice video linked but do a search for loudness wars if you are curious there). This is a bit more tricky in video as we have that language of cinema nonsense to contend with and certain types of video will want different filters, different levels of contrast and different levels of saturation. I certainly can not get behind a statement to the effect of H264 is inherently damaging to colours at such a noticeable level as those images.
    This is not to say things are not damaged- it is one of those "now you know you will see it everywhere" things (always a danger when you learn about video encoding) but if you look in the darker areas of the image you will probably see bit more noise than you might expect (most people see it as grey, purple, dark blue or something like that. Some groups did try to squeeze that bit more out of things but tweaking the contrast to make more dark areas though this is frowned upon.
    This is probably where we get to 10 bit video as well.... my person opinion is many that favour it are the video world's equivalent of audiofools (obvious exception if you are capturing, editing and otherwise being a video engineer) though not quite so likely to see me issue a headbutt. RGB- the three primary colours of light and nowhere to be seen in most end user video, these use YUV (see also YV12) which instead breaks it down into base colour (chromiance - hence the proper name for green/blue screen being chroma keying) and brightness (luminance). Compression also plays with these and there is the issue of subsampling (lesser forms of YUV do actually lose information) which does actually trouble things- and covers some of it though I am probably going way off topic right now.

    Of course most people have not got a screen calibrated even remotely close to properly and may even prefer an uncalibrated screen (many is the time I have sorted a screen for someone and they tell me they prefer all the people looking like they have sunburn) so much of this is at best an academic issue (many DVD makers and computer game developers will design things to look good on typically uncalibrated screens however).
    kenjixx, Celice, RodrigoDavy and 2 others like this.
  21. Gahars

    Gahars Bakayaro Banzai

    Aug 5, 2011
    United States
    New Jersey
    I can see the future, and it looks... a little nicer, if you squint.