Playing H265 videos...again...

[Peshoa]

Another confusing fact - if some one have old hardware in his computer (old graphic card) and have problems to play H265 videos, try the buildin WINDOWS PHOTOS. If you set the drone to make the videos in MOV. format, then with WINDOWS PHOTOS, ( right click on the file and choice PHOTOS from the menu), you can play this kind of videos smoothly and without any crash. Works for me - VLC, MPC, Potplayer are not able to play it, but PHOTOS plays it perfect.
Question...what we know about the MOV format? Is there any reason to prefer MP4 instead MOV? Someone familiar with this matter, let say his opinion...

 

[adcimagery]

The codecs and wrappers are a big mess - if your hardware is that problematic with 265, just use 264. The slight IQ bump isn’t worth the headaches.

 

[Peshoa]

The codecs and wrappers are a big mess - if your hardware is that problematic with 265, just use 264. The slight IQ bump isn’t worth the headaches.

MA2 makes 4K/60 fps ONLY in H265....

 

[Dave Maine]

There is no in shift between h264 and h265 Images. Only smaller files and greatly increased processing power required for h265.

 

[SmilingOgre]

Generally, that is an issue at the macro level with computers. I have a few applications that I keep up to date such as Cubase Pro (audio recording and mixing) Wavelab Pro (audio surgery and mastering) Premiere Pro as well as other adobe products. All have forced me at one time or another to upgrade my computer to remain compatible. I had to laugh, even my windows video player hit me up for a $0.99 codec to play h.265 videos. It's a never ending battle.

 

[adcimagery]

MA2 makes 4K/60 fps ONLY in H265....

Yes, and? If you’re unable to process the codec, editing 4K/60 video is going to be a pain regardless. Do 1080/60 or shoot 4K/60 and transcode as part of your import.

 

[Dsal]

The choice of mov versus mp4 and H264 vs H265 have less to do with the quality of the video and more to do with the environment you work in for editing and distribution. All formats do quality video but are optimised for different editing equipment. MP4 generally speaking works on everything. If you edit on a Mac or some higher end PC usually at a professional production level, there are advantages in using the mov format. H265 is a delivery codec not an editing codec and is processor intensive. It has smaller file sizes for the same quality and works best if you have a newer computer with hardware encoding otherwise stay with H264. Vimeo accepts H265, YouTube doesn't. H265 is also known as HEVC and supported on newer Apple devices. The majority of users will be using mp4 H264 and getting good results.

 

[adcimagery]

The choice of mov versus mp4 and H264 vs H265 have less to do with the quality of the video and more to do with the environment you work in for editing and distribution. All formats do quality video but are optimised for different editing equipment. MP4 generally speaking works on everything. If you edit on a Mac or some higher end PC usually at a professional production level, there are advantages in using the mov format. H265 is a delivery codec not an editing codec and is processor intensive. It has smaller file sizes for the same quality and works best if you have a newer computer with hardware encoding otherwise stay with H264. Vimeo accepts H265, YouTube doesn't. H265 is also known as HEVC and supported on newer Apple devices. The majority of users will be using mp4 H264 and getting good results.

At the same bitrate H265 will give higher quality video than H264, so while the characterization of the codecs isn't wrong, I'd disagree that it isn't a quality-connected decision.

 

[Dsal]

Yes H265 certainly does give better quality H264 for given bitrate but that comes at the cost of significantly more intensive processing which is acceptable with an upgrade to hardware encoding. If you are at that stage of making a generational change there are benefits. If you haven't got hardware encoding the extra time taken to process in software is significant.

 

[coboconk]

Yes H265 certainly does give better quality H264 for given bitrate but that comes at the cost of significantly more intensive processing which is acceptable with an upgrade to hardware encoding. If you are at that stage of making a generational change there are benefits. If you haven't got hardware encoding the extra time taken to process in software is significant.

I have a few clips that I recorded in h265 by accident (wanted to use h264) so now where can I get the codec to play them now on my windows 8.1 system. I have a fast processor and 32gigs of ram with a good graphics card.
Also what would be the best file to convert them to for editing with premiere pro cs6

 

[Peshoa]

The CPU is not important here and video card must be New generation , the old ones, even powerfull, does not support the new codec....

 

[Himerosteam]

I have a GTX 1060 video card. I forgot to change the coded to H264 and now I have H265 videos. My editing software (Hitfilm Express) doesn't support H265 apparently and I was trying to convert the videos to H264 but the quality decreases significantly. Does anyone have any suggestions?

 

[Dave Maine]

Re-encode with the ProRes codec in the same pixel dimensions as the original. You can't get any higher quality than what that combination provides, and the editing process will. be much easier, as ProRes is designed to be used in editing.