Read more.Provides high quality video on low-bandwidth connections and could be used for 4K.
Read more.Provides high quality video on low-bandwidth connections and could be used for 4K.
Looks promising.
Maybe Lovefilm can adopt it soon, as quality is poor even on my 20 meg broad band
I think that TechCrunch article is misleading. It's very vague when it says "4K-like streams at about the same file size as today’s 1080p videos". 4K-like? So not 4K, but higher than 1080p. "About the same file size"? About? So not quite the same, probably a bit higher? Combine the two and you don't really have a straight answer.
4K has 4x the pixels as 1080p, so it reasonably requires about 4x the bandwidth (or file-size) as 1080p. If HEVC is able to produce the same quality at half of the bandwidth, then really a 4K stream in HEVC will still use twice the bandwidth of a 1080p stream at h.264.
You might have 4x the pixels, but that doesnt mean you will need 4x the bandwidth. Depends on what you are shooting to be honest. Grain and noise are the bits that wont compress well, so a grainy film might well near 4x the bandwidth, while stuff shot on digital 4k cameras will have a certain amount of extra detail over 1080p, but probably nowhere near enough to get close to using 4x the bandwidth.
Of course, in practise most legal streaming and download services stupidly give all movies and tv more or less the same bandwidth, meaning overkill on animation and bad loss of fine details on film.
While I don't question your logic Kushan, I think there's more to it than that. The potential for data compression I suspect is higher on higher definition output, thus you might get double to resolution at equivalent quality for 1.5 times the file size...if that makes sense?
Absolutely, I didn't mean to make it sound as clear cut as "4x the pixels = 4x the file size", however it does state in the article that 4K (HVEC) will take up the same file sizes as 1080p (h.264) files to today which is what I suspect is way off. I would expect, as you've mentioned, there to be a fairly significant file size increase - perhaps not 2x, but a good 1.5 bigger.
Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive
The only way websites can start using it immediately is if they have the videos stored and accessible in both .264 and .265, otherwise they will risk a lot of angry users who cant play the video on their current hardware. Even if software decoders come out, i cant see people with tablets, low end CPUs, smart TVs and other devices that rely on hardware decoding either from dedicated chips or their GPUs being able to handle it.
Added to this, transcoding the ENTIRE of youtube into .265 is a hell of a job. Lossy to lossy is always a nasty procedure aswell, some form of artifacts are bound to be introduced.
Everyone is getting far too excited about this i think, .264 is so widely used at the moment i think it will take quite some time for .265 to gain traction.
Be interesting to see what existing hardware can handle this new encoding format because I am guessing it won't just me a smooth transfer over to H.265 - would be interesting if Freeview HD adopted this because it could mean a whole bunch of new HD channels either over the air or via the net and could also mean higher bitrates on SD channels.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
Not a snowflakes chance in hell. The h264 in the Foxsat HDR is done in hardware. It will need different hardware to do h265.Originally Posted by hexus
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
My folks have this box too but I agree that it's a pipe dream. Even if you had a general purpose processor in there, I bet it's only just powerful enough to do 1080p h264. The lowest common denominator for companies is to spend only what they need to get the job done. Which makes sense - anything higher is lost profits/uncompetitive pricing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)