

cdru

Go Colts

MVM

join:2003-05-14

Fort Wayne, IN 1 recommendation cdru MVM Great... ...now that I've just transcoded all my video to H.264 they come out with H.265. I may just wait until H.266 comes about and save the other 50%. Then my videos will take up 100% less space than before.



StatGuy

@mchsi.com StatGuy Anon Re: Great... Um..check your math.

Boilermaker

join:2001-12-20

Carmel, IN 3 recommendations Boilermaker Member Re: Great... Um..check your funny bone.



Corehhi

join:2002-01-28

Bluffton, SC Corehhi Member Re: Great... said by Boilermaker: Um..check your funny bone.

LOL he's sooooooo serious......



cdru

Go Colts

MVM

join:2003-05-14

Fort Wayne, IN 1 recommendation cdru to StatGuy

MVM to StatGuy

said by StatGuy : Um..check your math.

different How dare you tell me to check my math. I challenge you to prove to me that my yet-to-be-invented fictitious H.266 codec can't achieve 100% compression. It obviously would not be a lossless codec. It would be lossy but it's something that many I think would exchange for near infinite compression. I even have several resources to back up my claim. What evidence do you have?



djrobx

Premium Member

join:2000-05-31

Valencia, CA 1 recommendation djrobx to cdru

Premium Member to cdru

I think the codec you speak of will be called "H.∞"



J E F F4

Whatta Ya Think About Dat?

Premium Member

join:2004-04-01

Kitchener, ON J E F F4 to StatGuy

Premium Member to StatGuy

said by StatGuy : Um..check your math.





Technology is getting insane man...INSANE! You simply don't understand. When H.270 comes out, a 5GB video will give you about 2.5 GB of extra disk space. This way, if you convert enough video's to H.270, a person with a 500 GB HDD, if they convert 10,000 videos, they'll end up with a 3 TB drive.Technology is getting insane man...INSANE!



NOCTech75

Premium Member

join:2009-06-29

Marietta, GA NOCTech75 to StatGuy

Premium Member to StatGuy

said by StatGuy : Um..check your math.

You must be the life of parties.



skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 1 recommendation skeechan to cdru

Premium Member to cdru

The would be 25% (1/2 of 1/2)



PatPatate

join:2008-02-10

Sainte-Julie, QC PatPatate Member Re: Great... We have a winner!

brianiscool

join:2000-08-16

Tampa, FL brianiscool Member .264 files With good compression and video quality You can turn a 25GB blue-ray into a 9GB file. Not to shabby!

MaynardKrebs

We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.

Premium Member

join:2009-06-17 MaynardKrebs Premium Member Re: .264 files said by brianiscool: With good compression and video quality You can turn a 25GB blue-ray into a 9GB file. Not to shabby!





Next step is Hollywood lobbies Congress to declare H.265 a "weapon of mass terror" and they make it illegal to possess a movie encoded with it, or even to possess the following characters - H.265 - any where, in any order, on your disk drive. Yep. Fit 111 pirated Hollywood movies on a 1TB disk.Next step is Hollywood lobbies Congress to declare H.265 a "weapon of mass terror" and they make it illegal to possess a movie encoded with it, or even to possess the following characters - H.265 - any where, in any order, on your disk drive.

Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd Premium Member Re: .264 files They would never ever do that. It would not be profitable.



Instead they would lobby congress to require any media greater than 750gb have a fee attached per 100gb over the 750 limit be charged to cover piracy. Because in the eyes of Hollywood the only reason anybody needs a 4tb drive is piracy.(They forget that people who have Steam or do graphic arts can chew up terabytes.)



Eagles1221

join:2009-04-29

Vincentown, NJ Eagles1221 Member Re: .264 files My DPM server has a buttload of 2TB drives in it. And no pirated content I assure you.



PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13

Baltimore, MD PapaMidnight to Kearnstd

Member to Kearnstd

said by Kearnstd: They would never ever do that.

Come again?



Sammael1069

join:2011-06-20

united state Sammael1069 to MaynardKrebs

Member to MaynardKrebs

He he



John Galt6

Forward, March

Premium Member

join:2004-09-30

Happy Camp 1 recommendation John Galt6 to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs: Next step is Hollywood lobbies Congress to declare H.265 a "weapon of mass terror" and they make it illegal to possess a movie encoded with it, or even to possess the following characters - H.265 - any where, in any order, on your disk drive.





Oh, and you must click each time for a movie...no 'autoplay'.



One click = one movie.



Of course, there are people who want to ban movies altogether ("think of the childrens!!")...or make you change the hard drive after watching each movie, but they're extremists and Congress is not likely to sign on to that position.



Well, at least not until they see more money... The law will make it legal to only have no more than 7 movies on them.Oh, and you must click each time for a movie...no 'autoplay'.One click = one movie.Of course, there are people who want to ban movies altogether ("think of the childrens!!")...or make you change the hard drive after watching each movie, but they're extremists and Congress is not likely to sign on to that position.Well, at least not until they see more money...

averagedude

join:2002-01-30

San Diego, CA averagedude Member Re: .264 files said by John Galt6: said by MaynardKrebs: Next step is Hollywood lobbies Congress to declare H.265 a "weapon of mass terror" and they make it illegal to possess a movie encoded with it, or even to possess the following characters - H.265 - any where, in any order, on your disk drive.





Oh, and you must click each time for a movie...no 'autoplay'.



One click = one movie.



Of course, there are people who want to ban movies altogether ("think of the childrens!!")...or make you change the hard drive after watching each movie, but they're extremists and Congress is not likely to sign on to that position.



Well, at least not until they see more money...

The law will make it legal to only have no more than 7 movies on them.Oh, and you must click each time for a movie...no 'autoplay'.One click = one movie.Of course, there are people who want to ban movies altogether ("think of the childrens!!")...or make you change the hard drive after watching each movie, but they're extremists and Congress is not likely to sign on to that position.Well, at least not until they see more money... ^^ 2nd!!! ^^



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11

Cherry Hill, NJ MovieLover76 to brianiscool

Member to brianiscool

Technically yes, though you are severely downgrading the audio quality, normally from HD audio to DTS or AC3 and regardless of what people may say, it's no longer blu-ray quality. It's often not even HDTV quality.



Guspaz

Guspaz

MVM

join:2001-11-05

Montreal, QC 1 recommendation Guspaz MVM Re: .264 files There is no such thing as "blu-ray quality audio", nor is "HD audio" a codec. Blu-Ray supports a variety of codecs, including AC3 (AKA Dolby Digital). It's part of the spec, so AC3 is by definition "blu-ray quality".



What I think you probably mean is that the quality is not as high as the lossless codecs. Bluray supports three of those. LPCM, which is uncompressed, and Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD for compressed. Either of those three will provide identical quality, since they're all lossless.



To most consumers, the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable. For those with both a high-end home theatre system and a discerning ear, higher-end blu-ray rips often include lossless audio, although these rips are often not much smaller than the original blu-ray themselves. You'll sometimes find the audio transcoded to FLAC, another lossless codec which is more efficient than Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD.



The most typical scenario you find is the rip will simply include the regular DTS or DD+ stream. I'm not sure that anybody can actually tell the difference between DTS and DTS-HD in practice. You'll get a much bigger difference in audio quality from the quality of your AV decoder's DACs than you will from the DTS/DTS-HD difference.



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11

Cherry Hill, NJ ·Verizon FiOS

(Software) pfSense

Asus RT-AC68

Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76 Member Re: .264 files You got me I used the wrong terminology, however.



I can tell the difference between DTS and DTS-HD, DTS is a slightly better than AC3, but it's nowhere near the Lossless audio formats.



And I know AC3 can technically be used on a blu-ray, but that's only used for older movies for which lossless audio is not available. Newer movies almost always include lossless audio.



To most consumers, doesn't concern me, most consumers are listening via the tinny speakers in their TV.



My post assumed based on the 9GB filesize comment, that AC3 audio was used, that's the only way to retain decent video and audio.



My point was that you can't get lossless audio into a 9GB file, and I watch HD files with AC3 or DTS audio as well as owning a lot of blu-rays with lossless audio. On my home theather setup, the difference is definitely noticeable.



Guspaz

Guspaz

MVM

join:2001-11-05

Montreal, QC Guspaz MVM Re: .264 files 9GB rips from a place like HDBits would probably still use DTS; assuming a 2 hour movie, you've got a total bitrate of 10.2 Mbps, so going from 640 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps on the audio isn't going to impact the video that much.



aaronwt

Premium Member

join:2004-11-07

Woodbridge, VA 901.8 127.8

Asus RT-N56U

Asus RT-ACRH13

aaronwt to MovieLover76

Premium Member to MovieLover76

said by MovieLover76: You got me I used the wrong terminology, however.



I can tell the difference between DTS and DTS-HD, DTS is a slightly better than AC3, but it's nowhere near the Lossless audio formats.



And I know AC3 can technically be used on a blu-ray, but that's only used for older movies for which lossless audio is not available. Newer movies almost always include lossless audio.



To most consumers, doesn't concern me, most consumers are listening via the tinny speakers in their TV.



My post assumed based on the 9GB filesize comment, that AC3 audio was used, that's the only way to retain decent video and audio.



My point was that you can't get lossless audio into a 9GB file, and I watch HD files with AC3 or DTS audio as well as owning a lot of blu-rays with lossless audio. On my home theather setup, the difference is definitely noticeable.

DTS being better than AC3 or the opposite was beat to death back in the 90's. AC3 is a more efficient codec than DTS since the DTS bitrate was usually much higher to achieve the same quality as AC3 at a lower bitrate.



AnonFTW

@reliablehosting.com AnonFTW to Guspaz

Anon to Guspaz

said by Guspaz: To most consumers, the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable. For those with both a high-end home theatre system and a discerning ear, higher-end blu-ray rips often include lossless audio, although these rips are often not much smaller than the original blu-ray themselves.





Of course, I don't have a high-end surround sound system either, due to neighbors. All my rips have their audio transcoded to 640Kbps 5.1 AC3 in an H.264 MP4 container. Even though DTS-MA and TrueHD aren't supported in an MP4 container, I cannot tell a difference anyway.Of course, I don't have a high-end surround sound system either, due to neighbors.



ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com ChuckcZar to Guspaz

Anon to Guspaz

Re: the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable.



Really huh? Buy a high end pair of speakers and the difference is like night and day.



aaronwt

Premium Member

join:2004-11-07

Woodbridge, VA 901.8 127.8

Asus RT-N56U

Asus RT-ACRH13

aaronwt Premium Member Re: .264 files said by ChuckcZar : Re: the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable.



Really huh? Buy a high end pair of speakers and the difference is like night and day.

For the vast majority of the population, they will not be able to tell the difference in a double blind test.

brianiscool

join:2000-08-16

Tampa, FL brianiscool Member How big will a 25GB compressed blue-ray be on x265?



ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com ChuckcZar to brianiscool

Anon to brianiscool

Problem is a pair of discerning eyes such as mine can tell the difference in an instance in video quality.

SunnyD

join:2009-03-20

Madison, AL SunnyD Member But how lossy? I'm already disappointed in the current "broadcast-quality" compression that cable and satellite are using. I'm also not terribly fond of the compression artifacts that are visible on some DVD titles (granted I don't watch a lot of BluRays yet). I'm just worried on what this efficiency comes at the cost of.



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11

Cherry Hill, NJ ·Verizon FiOS

(Software) pfSense

Asus RT-AC68

Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76 Member Re: But how lossy? HDTV quality is what it is at the moment ATSC HDTV is a set standard, some providers like FiOS don't recompress it, some cable operators compress it really bad, hopefully for normal HDTV if they deployed H.265 video they'd keep the bit rate the same and increase the quality, this could help streaming sevices like netflix whose HD streaming is even worse.



Their's no point in going up to 4K, if they don't keep the bitrate high, much higher than blu-ray.

I myself would actually be happier to see this improved compression to current 1080P HD like streaming and HDTV.

instead of 4K. Eventually 4K will come, but their is no rush as even the sets are like 25K

o2cool8

join:2002-04-19

Cary, NC o2cool8 to SunnyD

Member to SunnyD

I think Directv and others use MPEG-4, which is less efficient then h.264.



Guspaz

Guspaz

MVM

join:2001-11-05

Montreal, QC Guspaz to SunnyD

MVM to SunnyD

That depends entirely on the bitrate. Blu-ray is typically perceptually lossless (humans can't tell it apart from the uncompressed original), but it's using much higher bitrates (up to 40 Mbps for BD versus ~10 Mbps for DVD) and a much more efficient compression algorithm than DVD did (h.264 versus MPEG-2).



The point of a new codec is that it can either provide higher quality at the same bitrate, or the same quality at a lower bitrate. How that reduction in required bitrate is actually used is up to the person doing the encoding. A cable or satellite company could use it either to increase the quality of their existing feeds, or to fit more channels into the same amount of space.



skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan Premium Member Oh crap... ...now we have to drop out monthly caps by 1/2 to defend our overpriced video services.



-Your friendly neighborhood MSO

siouxmoux

join:2007-09-25 siouxmoux Member Let see if ATT Old Fashion Telephone lines can handle 4K TV, But I Highly doubt it, the best case scenario for uverse is one overly high compress 1 UDTV stream.



aaronwt

Premium Member

join:2004-11-07

Woodbridge, VA aaronwt Premium Member How long until.... devices are available that can decode H.265?

pb2k

join:2005-05-30

Calgary, AB 76.8 21.6

Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X

Ubiquiti Unifi UAP-AC-LITE

pb2k Member Re: How long until.... said by aaronwt: devices are available that can decode H.265?

Probably a few months till we see software decoding. Native hardware decoding on devices such as smartphones and media players depends on how quickly the standard is adopted. I wouldn't expect to see devices en mass till at least Q2 2014

BiggA

Premium Member

join:2005-11-23

Central CT BiggA Premium Member And cable... is still using MPEG-2. Maybe they will jump on the HEVC bandwagon, and start to bring the quality up. If it's really 4x as efficient as MPEG-2, they could run 8 HD's per QAM without losing quality over the original.

txfeinbergs

join:2009-03-10

Allen, TX txfeinbergs Member What is the point of 4K .... when you can't even get 1080P uncompressed. Maybe someone will come up with a converter box that takes a 4K channel (which by the time all the compression is done on it really turns out to be 2.5K), and convert it to a true 1080P uncompressed picture. You would not have to buy a new TV, and you would get a much better picture than what is offered today. That is what I hope to get out of 4K.



H.265 is 50% more efficient. At what, hiding your picture degradation that is obviously there. Data gone is data gone.

biochemistry

Premium Member

join:2003-05-09

92361 biochemistry Premium Member Netflix This is great news for Netflix users as at some point (maybe a few years), Netflix will start using this codec giving us much better video quality than currently available.



EUS

Kill cancer

Premium Member

join:2002-09-10

canada EUS Premium Member Proprietary or open? From the list of companies in the article, it doesn't seem open source, but it's not clear.