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

101–110 of 121 posts

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

#101

Post by fireattack »

dylan604 wrote: post #99
fireattack wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not really sure why this is so unbelievable No one is saying that. Everyone knows H265 is better than H264. Just saying your number is meaningless without either fixing the bitrate or the quality.

Sure. Don't believe some random dude from the internet. But if you're not going to go through the hassle of running the tests on your own, your "meaningless" claims are meaningless. Have you spent time in your career as a compressionist? Have you encoded hundred of hours in various codecs looking at the best tweaks to get the highest visual quality for the smallest file sizes? The test files that I produced resulted…

Yes, I have spent hundreds of hours in comparing video encoder results, but that's beside the point. One don't need to have done that to be able to tell your experiment is flawed.

All you have is literally one datapoint, 970kbps h264 has "no visible difference" compared with 800kbps h265, and I believe that. But maybe 800kbps h264 also doesn't have visible difference from it. Maybe there is just not much difference to notice from 500 to 1200kbps, for your specific video.

Again, my point is your experiment has too few samples (literally 1 pair). Using that to conclude anything is the exact opposite of "scientific" method. I never say "h265 isn't better than h264" or "your result is wrong"; just your result doesn't prove the former.

If you insist to use just one sample, you could at least use the same bitrate (2-pass if you want to have better rate control) and say "hey, the h265 one is visibly better!", and that would be more convincing.

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

#102

Post by Dylan16807 »

chii wrote: post #98
Dylan16807 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think you ca safely assume random reads if you are streaming. I could interpret this a couple ways, so let me try to clarify. If you're talking about the ability to seek around inside the video, it is correct that this will not work well. If you're talking about seeking to the end of the zip file to read the directory, I don't think that was part of the scenario. My interpretation of the question is that th…

the question in the OP was to have the avi file be zipped, and it would offer similar levels of compression. But if you're streaming a zip file down the line, can you view the stream as it partially loads, which is possible with certain video formats (esp. if the player can handle missing key frames etc). I was under the impression that a zip file cannot be partially read and reconstruct partially the contents.

We have to make two distinctions here.

The first distinction is between streaming from the start of a file, without needing any storage space, versus streaming from a random point in the middle of the file. With a zip you can do the former, but you cannot do the latter.

The second distinction is between streaming the zip itself, versus streaming from the zip without needing any storage space. If you stream the zip itself, and don't allow even a single extra read to get the directory, it will be trickier to extract the video on the fly but still probably possible. If you are streaming from the zip then you can read the end then jump to the start and begin streaming, and it will work fine.

If that's a confusing mess, then I guess be more specific. What data does the video player see, and from what protocol?

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

#103

Post by ksec »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #84
ksec wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all Intel CPU sold in the past 5 years has had an HEVC hardware decoder, and 4 years if you look at HEVC 10. Most smartphone has also HEVC decode in the past 4 years. Basically the adoption hurdle has nothing to do with Hardware. Only the two A in FAANG are supportive of JVET or MPEG standard. Others prefer their "patent free" ( cough ) AV1 codec.

Netflix (the N in FAANG) uses device-appropriate codecs and formats, and defaults to AVC (H.264). Googling around shows they provide HEVC (H.265) streams to at least some devices.

Netflix do use HEVC, mostly because there isn't any other solution for high quality 4K streaming in Apple ecosystem. They use it out of absolute necessity. They have been vocal supporter of AV1. And their ex-Head of Video Encoding which now works in Facebook has a distaste for MPEG video, although that is admittedly HEVC and VVC. Everyone seems to be (mildly ) happy with AVC.

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

#104

Post by ip34162 »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #84
ksec wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all Intel CPU sold in the past 5 years has had an HEVC hardware decoder, and 4 years if you look at HEVC 10. Most smartphone has also HEVC decode in the past 4 years. Basically the adoption hurdle has nothing to do with Hardware. Only the two A in FAANG are supportive of JVET or MPEG standard. Others prefer their "patent free" ( cough ) AV1 codec.

Netflix (the N in FAANG) uses device-appropriate codecs and formats, and defaults to AVC (H.264). Googling around shows they provide HEVC (H.265) streams to at least some devices.

Netflix on a recent android mobile showed that the formats supported for hardware decoding are h264 and VP9. So, thought the mobile doesn't have h265 h/w. But then installed mpv from fdroid and played h265 video and mpv said it's using h/w decoding. So for some reason, Netflix chose not to use h265.

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

#106

Post by astrange »

dylan604 wrote: post #72
astrange wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> h.265 makes files smaller than h.264 for a given bit rate. You mean for a given CRF ("crf" isn't an official term, it's what x264/x265 call their fixed quality mode). "Bitrate" is literally how big the file is.

Huh? No, I mean for a given bitrate. If I encode a video at 500kbps that is the bitrate. A video at 500kbps in h.265 should be the same visual quality as an h.264 at 1000kbps. Filesize is literally how big the file is. Bitrate is how much data can be used over a window of time.

> A video at 500kbps in h.265 should be the same visual quality as an h.264 at 1000kbps.

Sure, that's true. Then the only problem is you said "smaller" and not "better looking" above.

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

#107

Post by chii »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #102
chii wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the question in the OP was to have the avi file be zipped, and it would offer similar levels of compression. But if you're streaming a zip file down the line, can you view the stream as it partially loads, which is possible with certain video formats (esp. if the player can handle missing key frames etc). I was under the impression that a zip file cannot be partially read and reconstruct partially the contents.

We have to make two distinctions here. The first distinction is between streaming from the start of a file, without needing any storage space, versus streaming from a random point in the middle of the file. With a zip you can do the former, but you cannot do the latter. The second distinction is between streaming the zip itself, versus streaming from the zip without needing any storage space. If you stream the zip it…

Let's imagine the scenario : you have a video file on a http server, and you want to serve the video to the end user.

The end user can buffer the entire video, but that takes too long. So ideally, the player can download the video partially, and start watching while buffering the remaining. (assume the video is in a format that's streamable).

So is it possible to zip the video on the server, and rewrite the http server to serve the zip file directly to the end user, and yet still have the end user be able to partially view the video as a stream, while the zip is still downloading?

> it will be trickier to extract the video on the fly but still probably possible

i think this is what i'm looking for - extract a partial video file from a partially downloaded zip file.

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

#108

Post by aaron695 »

I hoped it would be a comparison to H266 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versatile_Video_Coding

I feel like it's the year of 4K. Greater than 24 inch, 4K monitors and 4k TV's are getting somewhat standard/affordable.

But looking at EZTV only around 18% of torrents are released as H265, which is disappointing.

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

#109

Post by kevincox »

The writing here is just bizarre.

- The use of the term "Ducked" instead of "searched" or "looked up" which is clearly forced and I guess trying to promote DuckDuckGo. - "Brew.SH" The program is called Homebrew and it is odd to capitalize the website like that. I have never seen someone say Duck.COM. - FFMPEG should be FFmpeg - photos.app should be Photos.app like Terminal.app that he mentioned earlier. - macOS is capitalized a different way literally every time is used.

For any one of these I wouldn't have thought twice, people make up new capitalization for names all the time. It seems to give the writing a condescending tone (helped by comments like "command line for non-Appleonians").

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

#110

Post by sidpatil »

smnc wrote: post #54
sidpatil wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

I wouldn't call that "what was once known in the scene as DivX"...

Neither would I. I'm just clarifying, for the benefit of other readers.
Post reply on HN