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

Post by qotgalaxy » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 3:20 AM UTC

sidpatil wrote: post #42

jetzzz wrote: post #40

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 b…

> No, DivX refers to MPEG-4 Part 2 which is a completely different codec. Poster is referring to the DivX Plus HD codec [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DivX_Plus_HD

Post by qotgalaxy » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 3:21 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #49

stevenhuang wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For science, I just took a 10 second screen recording of my Mac with nothing but my tiny mouse cursor moving around for a few seconds which means a very static shot. The recording came out at 7.5MB. There was no audio in the original recoding. I then used that as a source to transcode with x264 crf 23. New filesize 2.0M. ~26% ffmpeg -i input.mov -c:v libx264 -crf 23 x264.mp4 Next, I used the same 7.5MB source to tran…

Post by dylan604 » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 3:23 AM UTC

jetzzz wrote: post #40

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 b…

Post by vermilingua » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 3:26 AM UTC

iaw wrote: post #46

vermilingua wrote: post #43

I don’t really understand the technical details of compression schemes, but my piece of anecdata is this: in my experience installing/maintaining CCTV systems, using H.265 over H.264 approximately halves the used bandwidth and storage for the same video quality. This is much more pronounced in static/less active scenes, but is still a measurable benefit in highly active scenes.

Assuming you meant H.265 over H.264 but could someone confirm?

Post by rubatuga » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 3:27 AM UTC

scottmcdot wrote: post #47

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?

How would you if your hardware can or cannot decode h.265? Would it simply not play or might play but stutter, or play in some compromised way?