H.265 4:2:0 vs H.264 4:2:2 at 150Mb/s Which is better?

Teagan wrote on 10/27/2020, 8:43 AM

Hi, I am usually shooting on h.265 4:2:0 and have been wondering about the other option I have on the AG-CX350, which is h.264 4:2:2.

My question is that which one is better for all around use? I won't be getting chroma keys or anything like that, also.

I know that h.265 is almost twice as efficient as h.264 and that is my main reason for wanting to stay on h.265 due to the higher quality (as it may seem) but is there any real advantage to switch to the h.264 4:2:2 option?

And in all my questing for this question I realized that the HEVC h.265 standard doesn't seem to have wide support for 4:2:2 chroma subsampling except on the Canon HF705, which is weird as I don't have any options in any NLE I have that can export HEVC in 4:2:2.

Comments

Musicvid wrote on 10/27/2020, 7:41 PM

Define "better."

Size? Quality? Speed? Intended Use?

Teagan wrote on 10/27/2020, 7:47 PM

I guess best for quality. I always use proxies so editing speed is not important.

Also, theoretically, isn't 150Mb/s h.265 almost equivalent to 260-300Mb/s in h.264 regarding compression quality? This is always 4k or higher for me, since that seems to matter according to the charts I've seen.

Musicvid wrote on 10/27/2020, 8:00 PM

INTENDED USE / DELIVERY METHODS?

Teagan wrote on 10/27/2020, 8:09 PM

Archiving for use in Blu ray/DVD production, and possible HDR grading in the future.

Musicvid wrote on 10/27/2020, 8:14 PM

You won't see a quality difference in either case, so go with the smaller h.265.