Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Comparing H.265 (HEVC) and H265 video file size

janstechtalk.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 121 posts

Re: Comparing H.265 (HEVC) and H265 video file size

#31

Post by stevenhuang »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #8
mrtnmcc wrote: post #3

This is compressing video recordings of a computer desktop. The frames don't change much so this isn't surprising.

Can you clarify this please? Does h.265 have some better deduplication compression or does reencoding apply something that the original recording could not, meaning h.264 would have the same benefit.

The original h264 file was likely optimized for write speed and not storage (which takes cpu time and can introduce lag in real time recording).

Reencoding the same input file as h264 again but using FFmpeg defaults would probably yield similar file size reductions.

This is just a bogus post without knowing what parameters were used to encode the original h264.

Re: Comparing H.265 (HEVC) and H265 video file size

#32

Post by The_rationalist »

It's such shame that browsers don't support h265 (maybe that edge do though?) As any rational user I have to use the UWP Netflix app to get the best bitrate because of this artificial limitation..

I have paid h265 on the windows store for 1 symbolic dollar and I'm sure you can find a license for cheaper, people should respect the media they consume not using h265 for regular video consumers is nonsensical. And no vp9 is inferior and av1 too in addition to the absence of hardware acceleration for av1. H266 has been released last summer, I can't wait for it to become widespread and push the boundaries of the user experience.

Re: Comparing H.265 (HEVC) and H265 video file size

#34

Post by Const-me »

KMnO4 wrote: post #19

Mostly static a screen recordings are pretty much the ideal content to show off H.265. The screen would be broken down into blocks, and ones that don’t contain much motion or complexity would use nearly no bandwidth. This image should demonstrate that: https://postimg.cc/D8MZyzHd Also, I’m not criticizing the authors English (which is much better than my Dutch), but some of those mistakes were almost poetic: > Some m…

> pretty much the ideal content to show off H.265

Same applies to H.264.

I think the main reason for OP’s observation, the codecs optimized for real time streaming (including the hardware codecs inside GPUs) don’t have enough time (both CPU time, and maximum allowed encoder latency) to achieve what ffmpeg does when asked to re-encode a video clip from hard drive.

Re: Comparing H.265 (HEVC) and H265 video file size

#35

Post by mayli »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #30
chii wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but can you stream a zip file compressed this way to play the video on a streaming protocol?

Yes. No commonly-used compression formats lack streaming capabilities.

Kodi even supports playback from multi part rars.

Re: Comparing H.265 (HEVC) and H265 video file size

#36

Post by Macha »

oplav wrote: post #24
eikenberry wrote: post #5

The main hurdle for adoption, aside from onerous patents, is waiting for hardware acceleration to be common place. What is the current state of h.265 hardware accel? Does it come with everything yet like h.264 does?

Most Turing and above Nvidia cards have support for hardware accelerated decode of h.265 [0]. Modern Intel chips also support hardware accelerated decode (support started with Skylake [1]). Not sure about AMD. [0] https://developer.nvidia.com/video-encode-and-decode-gpu-sup... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video#Hardwar...

Right, so that's 2 of the top 10 and 4 of the top 20 gpus per the steam hardware survey, representing 10% of steam users: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

But I don't think desktops are the problem anyway as opposed to laptops/tablets. Desktop cpus are perfectly capable of decoding h265 in real time without acceleration

Re: Comparing H.265 (HEVC) and H265 video file size

#37

Post by lifebypizza »

Aside from all the comments mentioning that reencoding in h264 would probably yield similar results (albeit not as good as h265), another issue is the statement that DivX is the same thing as h264. They are related, but not the same: https://videoconverter.wondershare.com/convert-divx/divx-vs-...

Re: Comparing H.265 (HEVC) and H265 video file size

#38

Post by fouc »

chii wrote: post #27
blibble wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

zipping the raw avi would probably get most of the way to 95%

but can you stream a zip file compressed this way to play the video on a streaming protocol?

gzip and zlib (and tar) are "streaming" formats

Re: Comparing H.265 (HEVC) and H265 video file size

#39

Post by vjeux »

Btw, the way to get it to a clipboard is not exactly cmd-shift-ctrl 3. It’s cmd-shift 3 in order to enable screenshotting and when you end, if you have ctrl active then it puts it on your clipboard.

Knowing this makes it less annoying to do it as you don’t have 4 keys combinations.

Re: Comparing H.265 (HEVC) and H265 video file size

#40

Post by jetzzz »

The comparison of H.264 and H.265 in this article doesn't make any sense. Lossy codecs can make files almost arbitrarily small at the expanse of quality. You should look at both quality and size; size alone doesn't mean anything.

Also H.264 and H.265 are just formats; there are many encoders of varying quality which can generate such files and each encoder has tons of settings. I don't know which encoder macOS uses but ffmpeg includes state-of-the-art H.264 encoder (x264). Simply reencoding video from H.264 to H.264 using ffmpeg can give you better quality/size ratio than the original file.

> H.264 codec (or MPEG-4 Part 10), once upon a time know in the scene as DIVX.

No, DivX refers to MPEG-4 Part 2 which is a completely different codec.

Post reply on HN