H.264 vs. H.265

[Lon Denard]

Sort of, it'll produce a smaller file size for the same data as h264.

...but on the M2 it records 10 bit data video instead of 8 bit. This is a massive improvement in the amount of data available to grade and edit during post.

At the slow 100mbps bit rate the mavic records at, getting 10 bit into h264 is impossible.

Also don't forget its DLOG that uses 10 bit data. All DLOG requires post processing to be usable. For that reason not being able to play the videos smoothly before post isnt THAT useful. And for editing, just create proxies.

Speaking of proxies, I gave up on them because it was taking too long to produce them. So I started scrubbing to a middle part of the video and color grading that frame and then applying to the entire video. Not the best but a work around for me anyway.

 

[Gadget Inspector]

Most editing programs have some kind of workaround for editing h265. I use premiere pro and had the same problem not being able to edit the clips smoothly. You can generate proxy files and it makes a world of difference.

 

[Lon Denard]

Most editing programs have some kind of workaround for editing h265. I use premiere pro and had the same problem not being able to edit the clips smoothly. You can generate proxy files and it makes a world of difference.

Yea it was your video that encouraged me to start editing in H265. I'm eyeballing a new computer right now with an I7 8700 and 32G of DDR4 ram. I already have an RX580 8G Black Edition and a 500G EVO Samsung SSD. Right now the bottle neck is my old AMD FX8320 processor and my out dated motherboard that only allows 16G of DDR3 ram.

 

[ruaraidhxx]

If you're playing back H.265 on a Mac Mini you'll obviously be using High Sierra and if it's an older machine it will be working overtime running that OS and a 4K video. the H.265 codec is supposed to be more efficient but it definitely takes a lot of number crunching. If you are just using the quicktime player it's not running the whole thing out of RAM it has to read off of the drive and if you are still using an older SATA 2.5" Hard Drive it may just not be able to read it, process it and play it smoothly.

I use a Mac and have a ton of RAM and then I run it in Adobe Premiere where I can watch it in a reduced bit (1/2, 1/4, 1/8) rate in preview and then can export it as a lower resolution in an h.264 format. Then it runs beautifully.

If Playback is all you want then I would upload the original 4K files to Youtube and it will format them to streamable resolutions that will not grind your system down to a complete halt. The bonus of that is I can do all that on my 6 year old Chromebook which is actually kind of cool.

All my 4K files killed my system when it tried to autoupdate and I now store all of my 4K files on external drives and just use youtube to review them and can even download them in more manageable file formats for playing with - if you want. It's not as convenient to be sure but it was helpful to me before I upgraded the OS on my laptop.

Looking for benefits of using one format over another.
I know H.265 is newer and supposed to use better compression algorithms and be smaller in size than H.264.
However, H.265 stutters badly on Mac Mini and barely keeps up on my iMac.
H.264 didn't have (as much) difficulty running raw videos, (MOV).

I decided to record two 30 second videos (HQ, 24fps) in H.264 and H.265 and compare them.
I was surprised to see the H.264 was 417 MB and the H.265 was 414 MB in size.
With so little difference in file size, is it worth it to film in H.265?
Certainly playback is smoother with H.264 on older computers.
Not sure if there is any video quality difference.

Comments?

 

[CanadaDrone]

Yea it was your video that encouraged me to start editing in H265. I'm eyeballing a new computer right now with an I7 8700 and 32G of DDR4 ram. I already have an RX580 8G Black Edition and a 500G EVO Samsung SSD. Right now the bottle neck is my old AMD FX8320 processor and my out dated motherboard that only allows 16G of DDR3 ram.

You will want a i7 9900K if you're going Intel - the 8700K is an old CPU now.

Ryzen CPUs are actually very good for video editing as well because of how many cores you can get for so cheap.

 

[Roamer105]

I have an 14 core I9 overclocked to 4.4Ghz (all cores) and 32Gb of 3.2Ghz ram combined with a 12Gb Titan xp. Using Resolve 15, I noticed that most of the video processing work will be performed by the Titan and the main CPU is mostly used to encode which loads it to about 25% if Resolve has to apply temporal noise reduction. If no NR, the CPU loads to about 55% rendering a full 4K (source H265 DlogM) in best quality at 150Mb/s in real time (about 23fps). With NR the render speed drops to about 1/2 and a lot would be gained by adding a second Titan xp.

 

[Lon Denard]

You will want a i7 9900K if you're going Intel - the 8700K is an old CPU now.

Ryzen CPUs are actually very good for video editing as well because of how many cores you can get for so cheap.

Really? I eyeballed them for price but don't want to buy twice. I'll give them another look! Thanks.

 

[CanadaDrone]

Really? I eyeballed them for price but don't want to buy twice. I'll give them another look! Thanks.

Yeah the 8700K is last year's "flagship" consumer level / go-to gaming processor. This year the 9900K replaces it and is aimed at the exact same market. It's basically an 8700K with 2 more cores/4 more threads, a soldered IHS, more PCI lanes and 128GB ram compatibility. The only thing you still don't get is quad channel RAM. It clocks higher too - should be an easy OC to 5+ GHz on all cores on air. It's compatible with older Z370 Mobos but if you're buying new get a Z390. Honestly I don't think Intel would have this CPU available at all if it weren't for the Ryzen 2700X so you can thank AMD

 

[Lon Denard]

I have an 14 core I9 overclocked to 4.4Ghz (all cores) and 32Gb of 3.2Ghz ram combined with a 12Gb Titan xp. Using Resolve 15, I noticed that most of the video processing work will be performed by the Titan and the main CPU is mostly used to encode which loads it to about 25% if Resolve has to apply temporal noise reduction. If no NR, the CPU loads to about 55% rendering a full 4K (source H265 DlogM) in best quality at 150Mb/s in real time (about 23fps). With NR the render speed drops to about 1/2 and a lot would be gained by adding a second Titan xp.

Hmm... I don't mind the rendering time so much as the inability to preview while editing.

Yeah the 8700K is last year's "flagship" consumer level / go-to gaming processor. This year the 9900K replaces it and is aimed at the exact same market. It's basically an 8700K with 2 more cores/4 more threads, a soldered IHS, more PCI lanes and 128GB ram compatibility. The only thing you still don't get is quad channel RAM. It clocks higher too - should be an easy OC to 5+ GHz on all cores on air. It's compatible with older Z370 Mobos but if you're buying new get a Z390. Honestly I don't think Intel would have this CPU available at all if it weren't for the Ryzen 2700X so you can thank AMD

Yea I knew it was last year's chip but that's why the price is way down. $600 in a tower with a decent MB, 16g ram, ports, wifi, 600 watt ps, blah, blah, blah. I could add my gpu, 500g ssd and pick up 16g of ram (total 32). Decent set up for about $1000. Otherwise, pull an Alienware Aurora R7 LC for $1100 and add my ssd and gpu. Another thought is to get the Ryzen 7 2700x and a new MB combo...

 

[Fearless Flight]

I’ll stick with h264 for awhile. Files that I’m creating will be viewed by a wide disparity of people with a wider disparity of computers

That’s a huge issue to me. Even if you have a capable computer the people you send your video to (maybe paying customers) can easily end up with a worse product.

 

[abridge]

Most editing programs have some kind of workaround for editing h265. I use premiere pro and had the same problem not being able to edit the clips smoothly. You can generate proxy files and it makes a world of difference.

beautiful.