New H.265 codec on test – ProRes 4444 quality for 1% of the file size

TaranItUp

TaranItUp

Active member
Just came across this today in case you have not seen it.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/11534/new-h-265-codec-test-prores-4444-quality-1-file-size

CineMartin are the first company I know of to give us H.265 HEVC (High Efficiency Video Coding) conversion with the just-announced CINEC v2.7. It supports up to 4K resolution and you can try it today.

In case you live at 12 Under Rock Drive, the H.265 standard is the biggest codec of the decade. It supersedes today’s most common codec for encoding and internet delivery of video (H.264) and makes 4K recording to SD cards possible on DSLRs.

Cinemartin say in their tests a ProRes 4:4:4 video of 590MB was converted to H.265 HEVC with CINEC 2.7 to an output video of 4.9MB with little or no noticeable differences in image quality.

You can see the image samples below (click to enlarge), even at 1:1 I can’t tell a difference -

This low data rate and file size makes all kinds of magic possible, because at the same data rate as the old codec you get a massive leap in image quality and resolution.

This is the codec that future 4K enabled consumer DSLRs will use to record video and the codec Netflix, YouTube and Vimeo will use to stream 4K movies. H.265 makes possible cinema quality 4K streaming via the internet on a normal DSL connection, or the streaming of 10bit 4:4:4 at ProRes quality, from current cameras. No longer will people need to download the original file on Vimeo to get a sense of the total image quality.

For grading footage of course raw and ProRes will still be the codec of choice – because you cannot ideally grade a baked in compressed image. Like its predecessor H.265 is also much heavier on the CPU than a standard low efficiency codec.

For playback and especially editing you will need a quad core CPU. Encoding itself does work on dual core CPUs like the i5 in a Macbook Air but it will be much slower.
 
H.265 dude haha

Pretty "old" news but ya, really fucking cool, its going to revolutionize 4k distribution.
 
Haha I mean what method does it use to actually compress it? rather than the name lol.
 
heard a little about this, but never read the actual numbers. Thats really cool though, I can see this codec really helping with the distribution of media, because now people will be able to get high quality content wherever they want (eg. data plan on phone).
 
I'm sure H.265 will be a game changer, but the comparison test they posted is terrible.

PR4444

prores444.jpg


H.265

h265_from_prores444.jpg


It's pretty common knowledge that any halfway decent compressed codec will get almost all of its compression from non-detailed areas in the very high lights and the very low blacks. Posting a highly detailed JPG comparison in LogC space without even a basic contrast pass doesn't prove anything.
 
After doing a little digging, this encoder actually looks pretty interesting (aside from H.265 encoding, it can also make ProRes files on Widows). Unfortunately there isn't a free trial offered for the version of the encoder that can make H.265s, but I did a little testing based on their provided images.

I tossed a basic log to linear conversion on the images, and even though you might not notice a huge difference by looking at them side by side, there is definitely more compression artifacting in the H.265 if you overlay the images and switch between them. It's especially noticeable in the dark darks (table legs, ground) and the lightest lights (trees in the distance). There's also noticeable banding on the girl on the right's leg. The image is good, but not high enough quality for a professional delivery format other than for web (at least at the data rate they used).

ProRes

671490.jpeg

H.265

671487.jpeg

I also tried to make a similar H.264 to compare. Based on the size of the original ProRes (590MB), the video is roughly 1 minute long. So if I were to compress a 1 minute 4.9MB H.264 file to match the size of their H.265 it would require a data rate of .05mbps. But I couldn't find an H.264 encoder that can go that low.

I ended up making a comparison H.264 encoded at 1.9 mbps, which is the lowest Adobe Media Encoder can go at a resolution of 1680x912. (On another note, what the hell camera shoots that res, and how did they make a ProRes file bigger than 2K?) Anyway, this is what it looks like. Terrible.

671489.jpeg

TL;DR - H.265 is waaaayyy better than H.264. It's not a ProRes killer though.

 
Threads. Great news, havn't heard of that. I was guessing how will TV channels will distribute 4K content on SONY 4K TVs... but I guess h.265 is the key.

 
This will probably sound like a stupid question, but does the decoder require large amounts of CPU power? Maybe I missed that in there, but point being, (I'm sure Sony and others have accounted for this) will the TV receiving the h.265 codec via various sources require large amounts of processing power just like the original coder (PC that edited it)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top