Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
4th December 2015, 18:37 | #1 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 12
|
I don't really understand this technology.
Can someone explain to me how this is possible. These numbers will definitely be off, by the way, they're just examples pulled out of the air.
H264 Resolution: 1920x1080 Bitrate: 3500 Filesize: 1.6GB H265 Resolution: 1920x1080 Bitrate: 1750 Filesize: 800MB Am I to assume that these video files would have IDENTICAL "quality"? And if the H265 video's bitrate was doubled (the same as the H264 file) it's, "quality" would be "doubled"? This kind of seems unreal to me. Sorry if I sound skeptical (I kind of am). |
4th December 2015, 20:04 | #5 | Link | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
In general, HEVC (H.265) has demonstrated the capability to compress video significantly more efficiently than AVC (H.264). The degree of compression efficiency improvement depends on many things - the video content, the codecs being compared, and the codec settings used. At sufficiently high bit rates, the difference in visual quality between AVC and HEVC is minimal. Give any video codec enough bits and the video will look great. At low bit rates, the differences can be significant. To objectively measure compression efficiency at different bit rates video codec developers construct a chart called a rate-distortion curve. An example is below... We conduct a bunch of tests, and we plot the objective quality measurement (usually PSNR or SSIM) against the bit rate for each codec at each test bit rate. When you look at these rate-distortion curves you can see what bit rate you would need with one codec to match the objective quality of the other codec at its bit rate, and in this way you can get a good rough estimate of the difference in compression efficiency at this particular quality level. Two things to note... 1 - Objective quality measures like PSNR or SSIM will not correlate perfectly with visual quality as perceived by real human subjects. These types of measurements are helpful, but not perfect. 2 - Encoding speed (or the compute power required to achieve a particular speed) is almost always a real factor. Today, if you compare two codecs like x264 and x265 at equivalent encoding speed on a particular hardware platform, x264 compares very well. HEVC is a more complex encoding standard than AVC, and generally it requires more computations to realize its full potential. |
|
5th December 2015, 13:49 | #6 | Link |
brontosaurusrex
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,392
|
a. x265_Project: Very interesting, so at 1000 kbps, for this specific sample, with this specific settings for each codec (and so on), the PSNR diff between x.264 and x.265 is around 1.5 dB, what can one conclude from that? (It would probably be more interesting to see the 4k video curve example)
b. One could also conclude that the [S]quality[/S] PSNR for x.265 rises much faster than for x.264 (at least the low-bitrate 100-1000 part)? < Just wondering if that is actually meaningful for any specific application. c. One could also wonder if the curve is actually mostly linear between 1000-2000 kbps? d. Usability wise, application specific: for example if I would use a x264 or x.265 for intermediate previewing purposes for HD video, i'd still need to use pretty high bitrate, it comes to around 10 megabits (usually i have bunch of grain) for x.264. < So what I'am saying is that when you put both into real world, it gets almost infinitive complex? Last edited by smok3; 5th December 2015 at 14:20. |
5th December 2015, 19:53 | #7 | Link | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|