H.265 and AME Render Performance (or lack thereof)

[Bouke Vahl]

I find this highly amusing.
How can you shoot with too less light with a cam like this?
Light a candle in the middle of the church and you have enough light…

Now, forget about H265. It has no purpose at all in post production nor delivery. (Yet, this WILL change in a few years.)
You render to a decent simple codec like DNxHD / HR, Prores or alike.
If you have to deliver to Youtube, it will be re-compressed, so you upload as large as you can.
If there is a limit to your upload size or speed, H264 in beserk high settings will be small enough.

Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com

[Mark Thompson]

that made me laugh ☺ I blame it on the camera guy! To be fair it was a mixed lighting scenario, plenty of light there just not on the faces of the presenters.
Good point about H265 but if it is a feature of Premiere/AME it should at least work.

[Joseph Freeman iii]

Hi Mark,

I have used h265 as my presentation codec of choice for the past 6-7 months. In most instances rendering was in AME, over Premiere Pro. All work shared with the directors on each project has been accepted with no complaints.

At the beginning of each project, I have inquired if h265 would be ok and received permission.

I find the quality to be many times greater than h264 and rendering at the default settings produces a same size file as h264, just that rendering takes longer.

Joseph

Windows10, i7-5820, 64 GB, 1080 Ti/Asus PB287Q, 14 TB (He,SSD,SataIII), cc2019.1.0

[Mark Thompson]

Hi Joseph,

that’s encouraging.
I’ll try a couple of test projects.

Are you working with UHD or HD?

thanks

[Joseph Freeman iii]

Orginial content has been both HD and 4k.

When I have used max render settings and 16 bit color depth, the results were even better and for super max quality I have increased the bit rate and max bit rate.

Keep at it, I believe h265 will gain greater popularity.

[Bouke Vahl]

You know you can go up to 32 bits float, do you?

Make sure your sound is 192 Khz at least, or it will be horrible and unaudible.

Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com

[Gary Huff]

[Bouke Vahl] “Make sure your sound is 192 Khz at least, or it will be horrible and unaudible.”

I don’t know if you meant Khz, which is absolutely not true at all, you should stick with 48Khz, or if you meant Mbps, which is also not true. For voice, you can go as low as 96Kbps, but 160 is more than enough if your audio track is just talking and no music.

[Bouke Vahl]

Gary,
You are totally missing the point 🙂

Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com

[Mark Thompson]

I managed to get some 4K FX9 footage, just two minutes. I did a bit of color correction for skin tone and tried to render in H.265. Then just gave up, it is the same old thing of taking an age to render.

Did a render in H.264 and it worked just fine.

To Joseph and those that have had success with H.265, were you rendering from 4K to 4K?

thanks

[Mark Thompson]

I did a bit of research on the Adobe PPro Forum and have found out a few things.
Firstly there are other people getting similar problems , the consensus is that H.265 is almost unusable (on Premiere Pro).

I found out about Intel Quick Sync which is technology Intel have on some of their chips. So you have to select hardware rendering but it will only make a difference if you have that technology.

It is not clear that even if you have that technology that PPro will use it. Oddly Intel list Premiere Elements as supporting it.

There are other things to explore, e.g. does memory make any difference? Does NVIDIA support H.265 rendering?

Does DaVinci Resolve support it?