approx 50% saving...
ushere
wrote on 1/12/2016, 5:03 PM
Comments
PeterDuke
wrote on 1/12/2016, 5:19 PM
I just noticed that H.265 corresponds to MPEG-H not, for example, MPEG-5.
The H presumably stands for High as in High Efficiency. What comes next? Perhaps they will follow the pattern in HF radio frequency bands: Very High, Ultra High, Super High, Extremely High, Tremendously High, ...
Whenever I see benchmark tests these days, I think of the VW diesel scam. Can we believe them?
The H presumably stands for High as in High Efficiency. What comes next? Perhaps they will follow the pattern in HF radio frequency bands: Very High, Ultra High, Super High, Extremely High, Tremendously High, ...
Whenever I see benchmark tests these days, I think of the VW diesel scam. Can we believe them?
musicvid10
wrote on 1/12/2016, 8:26 PM
Yes, they're "closer" to 50%, but probably less than that in the wild.
The third factor, that these fanboys (In this case the BBC) usually leave out, is the encoding time.
Ever tried x265 head to head with x264? I compared render times in Handbrake, and think I'll wait a while.
The third factor, that these fanboys (In this case the BBC) usually leave out, is the encoding time.
Ever tried x265 head to head with x264? I compared render times in Handbrake, and think I'll wait a while.
PeterDuke
wrote on 1/13/2016, 12:50 AM
"The third factor, that these fanboys (In this case the BBC) usually leave out, is the encoding time"
Perhaps the BBC can afford a few hardware encoders that are faster than a typical PC.
Perhaps the BBC can afford a few hardware encoders that are faster than a typical PC.
John_Cline
wrote on 1/13/2016, 2:42 AM
Yes, h.265 encoding is unbearably slow, it's hardly worth the effort.
JJKizak
wrote on 1/13/2016, 7:57 AM
If the English company "Optalysys" ever gets cranked up the question then will be mute.
JJK
JJK
riredale
wrote on 1/15/2016, 12:06 PM
This is why I find the whole topic of encoding so fascinating. Just how few bits are truly needed to capture the "essence" of a moving image?
Twenty years ago I thought the roughly 50:1 compression of MPEG-2 to be mind-blowing. Then along comes MPEG-4/H.264/AVCHD that roughly doubles that. Now this new format suggests another doubling.
Of course, these are all very lossy formats. They achieve their amazing compressions by throwing away what the human visual system generally ignores when interpreting a scene. But I have to think that we are close to some sort of brick wall now. I'd like very much to see just how the new format does with noise or random-like images such as ocean waves or moving leaves in trees.
Twenty years ago I thought the roughly 50:1 compression of MPEG-2 to be mind-blowing. Then along comes MPEG-4/H.264/AVCHD that roughly doubles that. Now this new format suggests another doubling.
Of course, these are all very lossy formats. They achieve their amazing compressions by throwing away what the human visual system generally ignores when interpreting a scene. But I have to think that we are close to some sort of brick wall now. I'd like very much to see just how the new format does with noise or random-like images such as ocean waves or moving leaves in trees.
farss
wrote on 1/15/2016, 2:35 PM
It's certainly an interesting topic but one that leads to much profundity :)
By definition noise is uncompressible, it is pure "knowledge".
Bob.
By definition noise is uncompressible, it is pure "knowledge".
Bob.
PeterDuke
wrote on 1/15/2016, 5:30 PM
"By definition noise is uncompressible, it is pure "knowledge"."
Definition 4 of Macquarie Dictionary: "Physics a superposition of signals of random frequencies which have no harmony and contain no information. (my bold)
The trick is to recognize what is noise and not try to reproduce it faithfully. Just retain the statistical properties. I often cut out some intruding sound event by replacing it with a bit of background noise copied from nearby. I sometimes reverse it as well, if that is helpful to disguise that it is a copy.
The problem with waves in choppy water is that they do have some order as well as a lot of disorder.
Definition 4 of Macquarie Dictionary: "Physics a superposition of signals of random frequencies which have no harmony and contain no information. (my bold)
The trick is to recognize what is noise and not try to reproduce it faithfully. Just retain the statistical properties. I often cut out some intruding sound event by replacing it with a bit of background noise copied from nearby. I sometimes reverse it as well, if that is helpful to disguise that it is a copy.
The problem with waves in choppy water is that they do have some order as well as a lot of disorder.
PeterDuke
wrote on 1/15/2016, 5:57 PM
Professor Heinz Wolff of Optalysis looks and sounds, with his heavy accent, like the stereotypical mad scientist.
http://optalysys.com/technology/watch-video/
"All this today, and tomorrow we conquer "
http://optalysys.com/technology/watch-video/
"All this today, and tomorrow we conquer "