Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Any news, further embracing of H265?
- Thread starter Gweilo66
- Start date
I think that perhaps the multiple patent groups coming out of the woodwork are keeping the camera manufacturers away for now. What are we up to now, 3 patent pool groups? That means you'd have to pay a licensing fee to 3 different groups, each priced its own complex way, which involves different accounting and reporting. It seems complicated and expensive. It doesn't help that the only camera manufacturer which had embraced it (Samsung) stopped making cameras a short time after that. Maybe the patents had something to do with it.
High1ander
Well-known member
I work with live TV/web and the main problem if we switched over to h265 is that most consumers don't have support for it in cellphones and tablets, which is becomming more and more something that must be supported. Because people are stupid, so having 2 versions: one h264 and one h265 will only confuse people. Confused people equals support mails and lost customers, I have had a customer angrily telling how bad our service is cause he can play youtube on his TV but not our service, like it is our fault his TV maker isn't following standards. I know our service works on 1-2k USD new TVs, his was 5k... Another thing is encoding and setting up streams, it would be twice the work. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm all for the codec it is just that it won't relieve us from h264 in a long time.
High1ander
Well-known member
I think for acqusition it is partially the same thing, but some things differ from the adoption of h264.Yeah..as a new codec, figured adoption in acquisition first.
- When h264 came along people were still recording to tapes or very expensive flash drives/cards. Nowdays you can fit several hours of footage in good quality on a small SD card, meaning not the same need to be space effecient.
- The thing is that for acqusition h264 was never the "preferred choice" and neither is h265. H264 was the bastard child that everybody loved because it closed the gap between what consumer/prosumer DSLRs could do and expensive hdcam/p2/raw cameras could do, but that was also 5-8 years after its release it would trickle into nikons d90 and other DSLRs. By that time computers had gotten good enough to edit and play on average Joe's computer, I don't know what kind of computer is needed to play and edit H265 without hw accelerator, but i know h264 wasnt smooth at the start on an average computer.
- h265 is more interesting for consumer camcorders/mobile phones than it is for professionals in most part
- when h264 took over there was a need for "standard codec", now that we have "that" standard it is hard to replace it.
- In order for h265 to get going fast, web browsers need to implement a way to auto-detect it and if it isn't supported then stream in h264 instead. Cause nobody wants to open a youtube link unable to play a clip (same level of seamless as when switching bitrates).
I just finished work and got told now that a client needs some files converted cause their system will only take h264, the thing is that it is h264 coded file but in an mpeg stream (which is what our transmitter encodes in), it's 2016 and companies that work with videofiles can't even convert/open them themselves, not likely average Joe will have the interest to learn how to convert then.
It's just a case of "what comes first", the players or the recorders. As of now none of them are really coming, cause it ain't something people think they really need.
Last edited:
Actually, in terms of acquisition, the trend has been toward Raw (usually compressed in some form or other). Back when Alexa came out, those SxS cards cost a fortune. Now, a quality SSD - sufficient for a 6:1 type of compressed Raw - runs ~ 25c per gigabyte.
And the new USF cards will allow even the uncompressed Raw to be implemented on the DSLR's (which is Samsung's aim).
And the new USF cards will allow even the uncompressed Raw to be implemented on the DSLR's (which is Samsung's aim).
High1ander
Well-known member
Actually, in terms of acquisition, the trend has been toward Raw (usually compressed in some form or other). Back when Alexa came out, those SxS cards cost a fortune. Now, a quality SSD - sufficient for a 6:1 type of compressed Raw - runs ~ 25c per gigabyte.
And the new USF cards will allow even the uncompressed Raw to be implemented on the DSLR's (which is Samsung's aim).
Well, that's my point, h265 comes in a time where cards are fast enough for Raw/ProRes HQ and big enough to record hours (not hours in Raw, but ProRes). H265 is only viable for stuff that requires 3-4 hours of continues shooting in 4K. H265 will mostly be a streaming codec to help the Internet, than an acqusition codec for prosumers.
Last edited:
Well, that's my point, h265 comes in a time where cards are fast enough for Raw/ProRes HQ and big enough to record hours (not hours in Raw, but ProRes). H265 is only viable for stuff that requires 3-4 hours of continues shooting in 4K. H265 will mostly be a streaming codec to help the Internet, than an acqusition codec for prosumers.
If AV1 absorbs streaming for Google, Amazon, and Netflix, that's going to make it rough-going for H265 streaming. I think HEVC works for consumer cameras (phones) where you're unlikely to have a giant UHS 3 SDXC card. 8k, higher bitrates, HDR, and any number of other bandwidth-soaking features are coming too.... :shrug: But it's only going to be able to play a role if they can get the licensing issues dealt with. I'm not placing any bets.
I was being a ditto pointer. But here's another point. Or three ...Well, that's my point, h265 comes in a time where cards are fast enough for Raw/ProRes HQ and big enough to record hours (not hours in Raw, but ProRes). H265 is only viable for stuff that requires 3-4 hours of continues shooting in 4K. H265 will mostly be a streaming codec to help the Internet, than an acqusition codec for prosumers.
H.265 requires heavy number crunching from the in-camera video processors. The new Olympus EM-1 MKII has something like a duo of four core chips doing the work inside it (of course, its specs are mind-blowing for a ~ $1,500 DSLR). When Sony attempted to achieve it inside a small mirrorless camera body, the heat built-up was substantial for both A7RII and A6300. And Sony was only working with H264. Add H265 into the equation and you might need three times as much power and all it means is that you're moving from 100 Mbps to about 60. And an SDXC card can handle 100 just fine and the new V 30/60/90 cards can handle up to 720 (90 MB/s x 8). Olympus EM-1 MKII is advertising its 237 Mbps IPB, which ought to be more than sufficient for the majority of uses and reasonably priced SD cards.
For streaming, it's a different bowl of wax entirely (and I yield the podium to an IT professional).
High1ander
Well-known member
I was being a ditto pointer. But here's another point. Or three ...
H.265 requires heavy number crunching from the in-camera video processors. The new Olympus EM-1 MKII has something like a duo of four core chips doing the work inside it (of course, its specs are mind-blowing for a ~ $1,500 DSLR). When Sony attempted to achieve it inside a small mirrorless camera body, the heat built-up was substantial for both A7RII and A6300. And Sony was only working with H264. Add H265 into the equation and you might need three times as much power and all it means is that you're moving from 100 Mbps to about 60. And an SDXC card can handle 100 just fine and the new V 30/60/90 cards can handle up to 720 (90 MB/s x 8). Olympus EM-1 MKII is advertising its 237 Mbps IPB, which ought to be more than sufficient for the majority of uses and reasonably priced SD cards.
For streaming, it's a different bowl of wax entirely (and I yield the podium to an IT professional).
I don't know about the heat chips for h265 generate (brute forcing on CPUs requires lots of power and fans), but I know that DSLRs had problems when they started with h264, be that because of sensor or CPU I'm not completely sure off, but I don't think "people" are willing to go thru that process again just to save on storage. The thing is that h265 is a huge improvement, but until there are chips that are just as fast/reliable/cool as h264 the h265 won't be a improvement without issues.
My TV can handle some h265 content, so I try to utilize it as much as possible, but there are some times that it don't like it and won't play.