h.265 Better Than h.264?

[Pappy]

The reported advantages to h.265 is less bandwidth (filesize) and better quality. I did some tests with the encoding on the MA2 and I couldn't tell the difference between h.264 and h.265 other than it's much more demanding, hardware wise, to edit. The filesize for the same time duration was the same and I couldn't see any additional detail between the two either. Sticking to h.264 for now. Anyone else come to the same conclusion?

 

[RobertR]

The reported advantages to h.265 is less bandwidth (filesize) and better quality. I did some tests with the encoding on the MA2 and I couldn't tell the difference between h.264 and h.265 other than it's much more demanding, hardware wise, to edit. The filesize for the same time duration was the same and I couldn't see any additional detail between the two either. Sticking to h.264 for now. Anyone else come to the same conclusion?

Yes, me ?

 

[brett8883]

The reported advantages to h.265 is less bandwidth (filesize) and better quality. I did some tests with the encoding on the MA2 and I couldn't tell the difference between h.264 and h.265 other than it's much more demanding, hardware wise, to edit. The filesize for the same time duration was the same and I couldn't see any additional detail between the two either. Sticking to h.264 for now. Anyone else come to the same conclusion?

The same bit rate video encoded to h.265 and h.264 tells me the h.264 is much more compressed. I know you said you couldn’t tell a difference but when you edit you might.

If your computer has trouble decoding h.265 then it might be reasonable to stick with h.264 but for instance with my computer which has a modestly equipped 9th gen i7 actually handles h.265 better than h.264 and you get smaller file sizes so it’s a no brainer to go with h.265.

For computers that don’t handle h.265 well you could transcode to an intermediate codec for editing like ProRes or DNxHD and just delete that version after you are done editing and keep the original for archive purposes to save file space.

 

[ninja_geezer]

The same bit rate video encoded to h.265 and h.264 tells me the h.264 is much more compressed. I know you said you couldn’t tell a difference but when you edit you might.

If your computer has trouble decoding h.265 then it might be reasonable to stick with h.264 but for instance with my computer which has a modestly equipped 9th gen i7 actually handles h.265 better than h.264 and you get smaller file sizes so it’s a no brainer to go with h.265.

For computers that don’t handle h.265 well you could transcode to an intermediate codec for editing like ProRes or DNxHD and just delete that version after you are done editing and keep the original for archive purposes to save file space.

i whacked a more powerful graphics card in my aging i7 and it works great using filmora.H265

 

[Pappy]

I know you said you couldn’t tell a difference but when you edit you might.

Not really.Here's a 100% resolution side-by-side comparison of a 4K d-cinelike video. 264 left, 265 right.


I have posted frame grabs in uncompressed tiff files in the folder "h.264 vs h.265" at PublicShare - Google Drive

 

[ninja_geezer]

Not really.Here's a 100% resolution side-by-side comparison of a 4K d-cinelike video. 264 left, 265 right.
View attachment 111203

I have posted frame grabs in uncompressed tiff files in the folder "h.264 vs h.265" at PublicShare - Google Drive

wow looking at the uncompressed files i am struggling to see any difference tbh.

 

[z28lt1]

Keep in mind that H.265 will give you better quality than H.264 at the same bit rate (which result in the same file size). Alternatively, to get the same quality as H.264 you can lower the bit rate and file size, which is what is commonly done for space/streaming/write speeds, etc.

 

[Jet skier]

When using 265 I don’t know how to get rid of the curved Horizon so I stick with 264

 

[scoobie77]

Maybe it's my monitor, but I see a distinct difference between the two, best perceived at first glance. When I study the two the difference melts away. But to me, h.265 is sharper with better color. Yes, it's subtle, but I'll go for every improvement I can get.

 

[Harkness]

My old computer won't even play H265. I'll just stick with my favorite H264 2.7k-60.

 

[jlatas]

When using 265 I don’t know how to get rid of the curved Horizon so I stick with 264

I don't see any reason for this to even be possible.

 

[Dave Maine]

A good viewing environment shows clear differences. YouTube is useless for making these comparisons, as it re-codes anything you send it to it’s own format to enhance streaming performance instead of image quality.

Using a 4K tv properly calibrated and getting close to the screen will show clear differences. The difference will also be clear in digital movie theatre presentations.

 

[Macinfo]

As noted, YT re-encodes everything to VP9 and I don't recall you getting any options not to do that when you post a video there, other services like Vimeo, may not do this, not sure.... IMHO opinion VP9 is Google's cheapskate way of saving licensing fee's for better codecs.. They could easily afford the fees.

If you uploaded a sample video to a shared space that was not altered by a video service, that would give others a way to view un-altered comparisons to view..

 

[Dave Maine]

Yes, VIMEO is better. It re-encodes as well, but is better. The foolproof way is a download from Dropbox or other hosting services, and played on a well calibrated 4K system.

 

[Steel63]

The 265 to me looks better .it has more color and details

 

[Tomcat16]

The reported advantages to h.265 is less bandwidth (filesize) and better quality. I did some tests with the encoding on the MA2 and I couldn't tell the difference between h.264 and h.265 other than it's much more demanding, hardware wise, to edit. The filesize for the same time duration was the same and I couldn't see any additional detail between the two either.
Sticking to h.264 for now. Anyone else come to the same conclusion?

From what I have read and seen on YouTube h. 265 is better. The other comment I remember was that some computers have a hard time editing the h. 265 in post because it take a more powerful computer, don't ask me why.

Great question by the way!

Good luck!

 

[Category 5]

You can use a lower bitrate with H265 and get the same quality as full bitrate H264. Theoretically, H265 at 120mbps would be like H264 at a much higher bitrate (not sure of the actual ratio, but maybe double?). With good lighting, and exposure this won't be as evident, but as ISO increases the differences will manifest in a much more obvious way.

Unfortunately, since H265 is more demanding, it seems that (like with HDR) the Air 2 can't do lens correction on top of the increased encoding demand, so that is a drawback, but for me H265 is the way to go.

You need a more demanding machine for it too, but even the latest iphones have made the jump to HEVC. It's the way forward, like it or not.

 

[Perceivedshift]

Unfortunately, since H265 is more demanding, it seems that (like with HDR) the Air 2 can't do lens correction on top of the increased encoding demand, so that is a drawback, but for me H265 is the way to go.

Should be able to take care of this in post correct?

 

[swoermck]

Unfortunately, since H265 is more demanding, it seems that (like with HDR) the Air 2 can't do lens correction on top of the increased encoding demand, so that is a drawback,

Just brand new to Mavic Air 2 - so you're telling that HDR Videos as well as e.g. 4K 30fps in H.265 need lens correction, as Mavic Air 2 cannot handle this "on board"?

 

[Category 5]

Maybe the h265 is the key but yes, lens correction is not always pwletformed based on other processing occurring.