-
Speaking of new codecs…
Looking forward to this:
https://www.eoshd.com/content/11534/new-h-265-codec-test-prores-4444-quality-1-file-size
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
17 Replies
-
Hah! Thank you! I was looking for that article and couldn’t find it – glad you did!
John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.
-
Thanks for posting. With all due respect, until someone posts some difference mattes and I-frame edit comparisons, this test of theirs is meaningless.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
You’re welcome!
I have a Subsonic media server for my music collection. Last year, I built a custom transcoder that measures the bandwidth of my music player and transcodes a stream in realtime depending on bit rate.
If my iPhone is connected via wifi, it transcodes FLAC to 320K mp3. If I’m connected by 3G, it transcodes FLAC to 65kbps HE-AAC.
The thing that blew my mind is that the HE-AAC streams sound almost identical to the source FLAC files.
If H265 quality is as good as I’ve experienced with High Efficiency codecs on the audio side, this’ll be a *huge* game changer.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Oliver Peters] “Thanks for posting. With all due respect, until someone posts some difference mattes and I-frame edit comparisons, this test of theirs is meaningless.”
Good point. Still frames are also pretty useless for judging motion artifacts.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
While H265 might be a great distribution codec, I have yet to see anything to suggest it is acceptable for post, mastering or archiving. There is absolutely nothing that I’ve seen to quantify a claim of 99% of the quality at 1% of the file size. At least not at a profile level where production and post would be comfortable.
Remember this is a long-GOP. variable bit rate codec with a lot more variability than ProRes (also a VBR codec). As most of these codecs go, complex images look a lot better than less complex images, because they get hit with an inverse amount of compression. The obvious weak point is dissolving from a static, low texture logo to a fast-moving, highly-textured image.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “The obvious weak point is dissolving from a static, low texture logo to a fast-moving, highly-textured image.”
Yes. Even a fade to/from black to a complex image is enough to break some codecs.
Back in 2001, I produced a multi-channel DVD installation project for an artist I collaborate with. The imagery was complex high-resolution x-ray photography.
The ProRes masters looked pristine but when we encoded to mpeg2 using Apple’s then new DVD Studio Pro, the fades to and from black looked absolutely horrible. With days until our install, we took the files to an artist friend who is also an MIT engineer. He took one look and said “the codec is broken”.
Fortunately, I had a friend inside Apple and they were able to sneak me a beta of the new mpeg encoder that would be in the next version of DVD Studio Pro. It worked. We got a clean encode and the show went on. 🙂
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
I can’t imagine anyone sane suggesting either h.264 or h.265 as working codecs- but for delivery they are exciting. Certainly the tests I saw at NAB last year were impressive.
-
[Marcus Moore] “I can’t imagine anyone sane suggesting either h.264 or h.265 as working codecs-“
And that’s exactly why it will be so popular!
I don’t know about you guys, but it seems considerable detail is lost on those screengrabs between h265 and PR444.
No doubt it’s an amazing codec, but it’s not the same quality.
Craig Seeman says encoding times are much higher for h265 than h264.
Jeremy
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Craig Seeman says encoding times are much higher for h265 than h264. “
The article implies that as well. Sounds like new chips will be needed to make it manageable.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[David Lawrence] “The article implies that as well. Sounds like new chips will be needed to make it manageable.”
And what is now new is suddenly old.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up