4 ms·

H.265 gets you twice the resolution for the same bandwidth, or the same resolution for half the bandwidth.

by iplaw 10y ago

AndrewUnmuted 10y ago
No, it doesn't. Though that may have been the goal, HEVC has only thus far achieved an improvement of around 25%, not 50%.
- keldaris 10y ago
  In my anecdotal experience, h265 gets me 50-60% improvements in file sizes at the same quality for fairly low quality targets and the gains drop off rather quickly as you increase the quality. For videos where you don't care about the quality all that much, it's superb.
ksec 10y ago
H.265 gets you half the file size for ten times more in royalty fees, or saving 50% of bandwidth for 1000% more in royalty.
- iplaw 10y ago
  Hilarious!
- _puk 10y ago
  Do you have a reference for that? I was under the impression that the first 100,000 units are free, and then 20c per unit afterwards to a max of $25m. H264 drops to 10c per unit after 5m units, to a max of $6.5m. You need to be shipping 125 million units annually to hit the full $25m. Yes it's more, but it's not quite ten times. And notably if the chip maker pays the royalties, then the content creators don't need to (though that was excepted indefinitely with H264). Parts regurgitated from a quick google for reference [1] [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/03/hevc_patent_terms_thrashed_out_but_look_whos_not_at_the_codec_party_microsoft_and_google/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/03/hevc_patent_terms_th...
  - brigade 10y ago
    HEVC got an additional licensing pool in HEVC Advance that demanded significantly greater license fees on top of MPEG LA's. Said group's demands are basically the reason Netflix started considering VP9.
    - TD-Linux 10y ago
      Two additional, as Technicolor later dropped out of HEVC Advance and is now licensing theirs individually: http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Articles/Technicolor-Withdraws-from-the-HEVC-Advance-Patent-Pool-108941.aspx http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Ar...
  - ksec 10y ago
    It is actually more then 10x. The annual cap for H.264 royalty fees is 6.5M from MPEG-LA. For H.265 it is 25M from MPEG-LA, AND 50M from HEVC-Advance. That is a total of 75M. And like others have pointed out there are Technicolor patents fees not included. So it depends how these royalty works in details. If only the chip manufacture are paying, Mediatek, Qualcomm, Samsung, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Apple. That is at least 10 players paying maximum. And if you consider small players, the total contribution of Royalty fees to HEVC is 1 Billion / Year. ONE BILLION!! In the life time of a Video Codec that typically run at least a decade, these patents are 10 Billions. Do you think that is a fair price, i think everyone should decide for their selves.
izacus 10y ago
It also uses the same techniques and principles.

H.265 gets you twice the resolution for the same bandwidth, or the same resolution for half the bandwidth.

by iplaw 10y ago

H.265 gets you twice the resolution for the same bandwidth, or the same resolution for half the bandwidth.

No, it doesn't. Though that may have been the goal, HEVC has only thus far achieved an improvement of around 25%, not 50%.

keldaris 10y ago
In my anecdotal experience, h265 gets me 50-60% improvements in file sizes at the same quality for fairly low quality targets and the gains drop off rather quickly as you increase the quality. For videos where you don't care about the quality all that much, it's superb.

ksec 10y ago

H.265 gets you half the file size for ten times more in royalty fees, or saving 50% of bandwidth for 1000% more in royalty.

iplaw 10y ago
Hilarious!
_puk 10y ago
Do you have a reference for that? I was under the impression that the first 100,000 units are free, and then 20c per unit afterwards to a max of $25m. H264 drops to 10c per unit after 5m units, to a max of $6.5m. You need to be shipping 125 million units annually to hit the full $25m. Yes it's more, but it's not quite ten times. And notably if the chip maker pays the royalties, then the content creators don't need to (though that was excepted indefinitely with H264). Parts regurgitated from a quick google for reference [1] [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/03/hevc_patent_terms_thrashed_out_but_look_whos_not_at_the_codec_party_microsoft_and_google/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/03/hevc_patent_terms_th...
- brigade 10y ago
  HEVC got an additional licensing pool in HEVC Advance that demanded significantly greater license fees on top of MPEG LA's. Said group's demands are basically the reason Netflix started considering VP9.
  - TD-Linux 10y ago
    Two additional, as Technicolor later dropped out of HEVC Advance and is now licensing theirs individually: http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Articles/Technicolor-Withdraws-from-the-HEVC-Advance-Patent-Pool-108941.aspx http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Ar...
- ksec 10y ago
  It is actually more then 10x. The annual cap for H.264 royalty fees is 6.5M from MPEG-LA. For H.265 it is 25M from MPEG-LA, AND 50M from HEVC-Advance. That is a total of 75M. And like others have pointed out there are Technicolor patents fees not included. So it depends how these royalty works in details. If only the chip manufacture are paying, Mediatek, Qualcomm, Samsung, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Apple. That is at least 10 players paying maximum. And if you consider small players, the total contribution of Royalty fees to HEVC is 1 Billion / Year. ONE BILLION!! In the life time of a Video Codec that typically run at least a decade, these patents are 10 Billions. Do you think that is a fair price, i think everyone should decide for their selves.

izacus 10y ago

It also uses the same techniques and principles.