6 ms·

So compressing a 1080p video with H266 will not result in similar file size/quality improvements as a 4k video? How much are we looking at for 1080p, 10%?

hexmiles 6y ago
not an expert, but from what i understand is more like that they "extend" the codec with technique more effective on higher resolution content, or new "profile" (parameter) more effective for higher resolution content (a bit like you can have different parameter when you zip file). This new techniques can also be used for 1080p video (for example) but with lower gain. Also the "old" algorithm/system are generally still used but they may be improved/extend.
RBURBURXEIVG3KO 6y ago
I think that for 1080p there wasn't much of an improvement between h.264 and h.265. This will likely also be true between h.265 and h.266.
jitendrac 6y ago
yup, from the example I remember(I read it through link on HN but cannot find it in quick search, I wish I could link it), if you film(still film no movement) the macbook pro top to bottom in h264/MP4 at 1024 p resolution and again you take a picture from your camera. the results will be shocking, the video of 5-10 seconds will have lower storage size than the size of single Image. but when you inspect video carefully you will see the tiny details are missing, like the edges are not as sharp for metal body, the gloss of metal is bit different, the tiny speaker holes on top of keyboard are clear in Images and can be individually examined while in video they are fuzzy pixelated and so on. so, The end results: A 5 second video with 10s of frames per second is smaller in size than single Image taken from same camera.
- dylan604 6y ago
  Let's also be clear, the still image will be the full resolution of the sensor. The video taken on the same camera is usually a cropped section of the sensor. You're also comparing a spatial compression (still image) vs a temporal compression (video), and at what compression levels are each image taken?
  - the_pwner224 6y ago
    Additionally the images are not very compressed (edit: you mentioned that in your comment, sorry). While the RAW files can be a couple dozen megabytes and the losslessly compressed PNGs are still 5-15 mb, good cameras normally set the JPEG quality factor to a high amount and so even with a JPEG you're getting pretty close to a lossless image. Whereas in video you can often plainly notice the compression artifacts & softness. A more fair comparison would be the video file to a JPEG with equivalent visual quality.
  - jitendrac 6y ago
    see more details, https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/ https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/ I know that's not fair comparison, but imaging clever compressions were not invented and you would download terabytes of data to view a small movie.
    - dylan604 6y ago
      What question are you trying to answer? Nobody asked what is compression and why do we use it. I have been encoding videos since VideoCDs were a thing, so I have a pretty good understanding of how compression works. The fact that I differentiated between spatial and temporal compression should have been a clue. All I was pointing out was that compressing a postage stamp sized video and comparing its filesize to a large megapixel image isn't a fair comparison. (yes, I'm jaded by calling 1080p frame size a postage stamp. I work in 4K and 8K resolutions all day.)
- cheeze 6y ago
  You're thinking of "h264 is magic" https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/ https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/ GREAT article
  - jitendrac 6y ago
    yes,that is the article I was referring.
proverbialbunny 6y ago
>How much are we looking at for 1080p, 10%? We don't know yet. There are no public technical details (that I know of) for H266 yet, but if I recall H265 gave the same 50% reduction in bandwidth claims, and for years people stuck with H264, because it was higher quality due to dropping off less subtle parts of the video you really want to see. Only in the last couple of years has H265 really started to become embraced and used by piracy groups. Frankly, I don't know what changed. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of H265 feature addition that improved the codec.
- acdha 6y ago
  H.265 was always better from a technical perspective but that's not everything which factors into a video codec decision. H.264 was supported everywhere, including hardware support on most platforms. You could generate one file and have it work with great experience everywhere, whereas switching to anything else likely required adding additional tools to your workflow and trying to balance bandwidth savings against both client compatibility and performance — if you guess wrong on the latter case, users notice their fans coming on / battery draining in the best case and frames dropping in the worst cases. Encoder maturity is also a big factor: when H.265 first came out, people were comparing the very mature tools like x264 to the first software encoders which might have had bugs which could affect quality and were definitely less polished. It especially takes time for people to polish those tools and develop good settings for various content types.
  - uryga 6y ago
    > H.264 was supported everywhere this. our TV (a few years old, "smart") can play videos from a network drive, but doesn't support H.265. reencoding a season's worth of episodes to H.264 takes a while...
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      H.264 will become the "mp3" of video I think. Universally supported, and the pstents will run out micj sooner than the newer formats.

hexmiles 6y ago

not an expert, but from what i understand is more like that they "extend" the codec with technique more effective on higher resolution content, or new "profile" (parameter) more effective for higher resolution content (a bit like you can have different parameter when you zip file). This new techniques can also be used for 1080p video (for example) but with lower gain. Also the "old" algorithm/system are generally still used but they may be improved/extend.

RBURBURXEIVG3KO 6y ago

I think that for 1080p there wasn't much of an improvement between h.264 and h.265. This will likely also be true between h.265 and h.266.

jitendrac 6y ago

yup, from the example I remember(I read it through link on HN but cannot find it in quick search, I wish I could link it), if you film(still film no movement) the macbook pro top to bottom in h264/MP4 at 1024 p resolution and again you take a picture from your camera. the results will be shocking, the video of 5-10 seconds will have lower storage size than the size of single Image. but when you inspect video carefully you will see the tiny details are missing, like the edges are not as sharp for metal body, the gloss of metal is bit different, the tiny speaker holes on top of keyboard are clear in Images and can be individually examined while in video they are fuzzy pixelated and so on. so, The end results: A 5 second video with 10s of frames per second is smaller in size than single Image taken from same camera.

dylan604 6y ago
Let's also be clear, the still image will be the full resolution of the sensor. The video taken on the same camera is usually a cropped section of the sensor. You're also comparing a spatial compression (still image) vs a temporal compression (video), and at what compression levels are each image taken?
- the_pwner224 6y ago
  Additionally the images are not very compressed (edit: you mentioned that in your comment, sorry). While the RAW files can be a couple dozen megabytes and the losslessly compressed PNGs are still 5-15 mb, good cameras normally set the JPEG quality factor to a high amount and so even with a JPEG you're getting pretty close to a lossless image. Whereas in video you can often plainly notice the compression artifacts & softness. A more fair comparison would be the video file to a JPEG with equivalent visual quality.
- jitendrac 6y ago
  see more details, https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/ https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/ I know that's not fair comparison, but imaging clever compressions were not invented and you would download terabytes of data to view a small movie.
  - dylan604 6y ago
    What question are you trying to answer? Nobody asked what is compression and why do we use it. I have been encoding videos since VideoCDs were a thing, so I have a pretty good understanding of how compression works. The fact that I differentiated between spatial and temporal compression should have been a clue. All I was pointing out was that compressing a postage stamp sized video and comparing its filesize to a large megapixel image isn't a fair comparison. (yes, I'm jaded by calling 1080p frame size a postage stamp. I work in 4K and 8K resolutions all day.)
cheeze 6y ago
You're thinking of "h264 is magic" https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/ https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/ GREAT article
- jitendrac 6y ago
  yes,that is the article I was referring.

proverbialbunny 6y ago

>How much are we looking at for 1080p, 10%? We don't know yet. There are no public technical details (that I know of) for H266 yet, but if I recall H265 gave the same 50% reduction in bandwidth claims, and for years people stuck with H264, because it was higher quality due to dropping off less subtle parts of the video you really want to see. Only in the last couple of years has H265 really started to become embraced and used by piracy groups. Frankly, I don't know what changed. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of H265 feature addition that improved the codec.

acdha 6y ago
H.265 was always better from a technical perspective but that's not everything which factors into a video codec decision. H.264 was supported everywhere, including hardware support on most platforms. You could generate one file and have it work with great experience everywhere, whereas switching to anything else likely required adding additional tools to your workflow and trying to balance bandwidth savings against both client compatibility and performance — if you guess wrong on the latter case, users notice their fans coming on / battery draining in the best case and frames dropping in the worst cases. Encoder maturity is also a big factor: when H.265 first came out, people were comparing the very mature tools like x264 to the first software encoders which might have had bugs which could affect quality and were definitely less polished. It especially takes time for people to polish those tools and develop good settings for various content types.
- uryga 6y ago
  > H.264 was supported everywhere this. our TV (a few years old, "smart") can play videos from a network drive, but doesn't support H.265. reencoding a season's worth of episodes to H.264 takes a while...
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    H.264 will become the "mp3" of video I think. Universally supported, and the pstents will run out micj sooner than the newer formats.