h.264 vs h.265 - Realistic differences

[KyleIRYS]

From what I have researched so far, the major improvement between h.264 and h.265 is the greater efficiency by which the same level of detail from a h.264 video is 40-50% smaller in file size when recorded in h.265. Simple enough - file sizes will decrease whilst maintaining image quality or image quality will increase for the same file size.

The X5S in reality does the latter, recording at the same bit rate for both h.264 and h.265 somewhere in the vicinity of 90-100Mb/s depending on the frame size and frame rate. So it's a fair assumption that there is simply more image data being collected whilst retaining the same file sizes.

So my question to the forum is - where are the tangible image enhancements actually seen? I can't find distinguishable differences between the two in the samples I have collected by way of image clarity, dynamic range or anything like that. Some opinion on it is that the image won't visually improve, but artefacts and image processing errors will decrease in fine detail shots which I suppose means low light may improve through cleaner compression at higher ISO's?

Has anyone found a particular use for H.265 being noticably better than H.264? Or are the benefits in "more image data for the same file size" not really practically noticeable and we'd be better off being able to record smaller file sizes and make post production workflows more efficient?

 

[deltalimatango]

From what I have researched so far, the major improvement between h.264 and h.265 is the greater efficiency by which the same level of detail from a h.264 video is 40-50% smaller in file size when recorded in h.265. Simple enough - file sizes will decrease whilst maintaining image quality or image quality will increase for the same file size.

The X5S in reality does the latter, recording at the same bit rate for both h.264 and h.265 somewhere in the vicinity of 90-100Mb/s depending on the frame size and frame rate. So it's a fair assumption that there is simply more image data being collected whilst retaining the same file sizes.

So my question to the forum is - where are the tangible image enhancements actually seen? I can't find distinguishable differences between the two in the samples I have collected by way of image clarity, dynamic range or anything like that. Some opinion on it is that the image won't visually improve, but artefacts and image processing errors will decrease in fine detail shots which I suppose means low light may improve through cleaner compression at higher ISO's?

Has anyone found a particular use for H.265 being noticably better than H.264? Or are the benefits in "more image data for the same file size" not really practically noticeable and we'd be better off being able to record smaller file sizes and make post production workflows more efficient?

Great question Kyle. I played around recording in H.265. I use a Mac and H.265 is not natively supported. I had to find and download a converter to convert from H.265, into a format that I could then use to edit. It was a pain in the butt. It was an extra step in the workflow and to be honest, I did not really see a difference in quality. It could have been because of the extra conversion steps involved. The main thing is that H.265 is processor intensive and appears to not really be worth the effort. You mainly gain space.

 

[KyleIRYS]

Great question Kyle. I played around recording in H.265. I use a Mac and H.265 is not natively supported. I had to find and download a converter to convert from H.265, into a format that I could then use to edit. It was a pain in the butt. It was an extra step in the workflow and to be honest, I did not really see a difference in quality. It could have been because of the extra conversion steps involved. The main thing is that H.265 is processor intensive and appears to not really be worth the effort. You mainly gain space.

I suppose that's where the question was born from - Adobe Premier on PC currently does support h.265 and so I have compared them side-by-side in Premier and haven't seen any differences. And the fact that DJI has decided that they are going to use the new codec to record the extra image data (which is visually indiscernible) INSTEAD of allowing same-same recordings at roughly half the file size pretty much means all the marketing for "brand new and improved h.265 codec support" is all smoke and mirrors.

 

[deltalimatango]

I suppose that's where the question was born from - Adobe Premier on PC currently does support h.265 and so I have compared them side-by-side in Premier and haven't seen any differences. And the fact that DJI has decided that they are going to use the new codec to record the extra image data (which is visually indiscernible) INSTEAD of allowing same-same recordings at roughly half the file size pretty much means all the marketing for "brand new and improved h.265 codec support" is all smoke and mirrors.

It would appear so. I will wait until my friend who actually makes videos for a living says that there is a significant advantage to using H.265 and see if Apple will support it natively, then I may make the switch. As the I2, and X5S are hobby devices for me and I do not make money from them, I can see no real advantage of putting myself through the pain of an extra processing step in my workflow.

 

[Droneyboy]

Not all video finishing software supports 265. Just sayin.....

 

[KyleIRYS]

Not all video finishing software supports 265. Just sayin.....

And what has that got to do with those that do support it or the actual topic of this discussion?

 

[Droneyboy]

And what has that got to do with those that do support it or the actual topic of this discussion?

Ouch,
You said twice that you can't see the difference between the two.........people may be interested in which finishing software to purchase as I was in reviewing this same topic here. I purchased the one(more expensive) to finish 265 and have found no discernible difference myself thus my comment. So maby some people may want to save a few bucks. Had I read your original comments/questions before my software purchase I would have opted for the less expensive software because I don't know that much about video finishing so I listen to people like yourself that do know more than I do.
Kind of off topic but related. It happens. My apologies

 

[KyleIRYS]

Ouch,
You said twice that you can't see the difference between the two.........people may be interested in which finishing software to purchase as I was in reviewing this same topic here. I purchased the one(more expensive) to finish 265 and have found no discernible difference myself thus my comment. So maby some people may want to save a few bucks. Had I read your original comments/questions before my software purchase I would have opted for the less expensive software because I don't know that much about video finishing so I listen to people like yourself that do know more than I do.
Kind of off topic but related. It happens. My apologies

Your first comment provided nothing to the topic of this discussion and was actually dismissive of the whole topic by a statement that was sweeping yet misleading. Your second comment is worth talking about though.

Some post production packages do support h.265 and some don't and people planning to edit in that format need to make an informed decision on their software package before misplacing their money as you stated. But it's actually a completely irrelevant discussion if the consensus of THIS topic is that there is basically no difference between the two and you should stick to h.264 which is widely supported.

This topic needs to be fleshed out before the editing software discussion. I've yet to hear anyone put forward any great reasons for using h.265 even if you have codec support and that is the reason I posted it - to see if there are any benefits on the DJI equipment given you can't choose to record smaller file sizes. If you have any experience of opinions on that it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[deltalimatango]

Just a bit of sauce for the goose, unless your post processing software supports H.265, I would not bother with it. As I wrote earlier, Ii shot with both and saw no discernible difference. What I did notice was that the fans on my computer came on when they normally wouldn't and my Mac became hotter faster. (just my opinion)

 

[Dr. Fibinotchi]

Maybe in a couple years our files will all be fine using 265. This might combat the problem of our data becoming so large to move and transfer to our main computers to process. Does not seem like our read write speeds are going to take a quantum jump up soon.

-Cody

 

[The Editor]

It should be remembered that neither h264 or h265 is a professional codec and both were developed not as a final delivery format but simply as a streaming algorithm.
You will not see any discernable difference in either at bitrates around 100mbps even on subjects like fast moving/boiling water which will 'break' many codecs due to the information contained in the frame.
The primary reason for developing h265 was to facilitate the same quality picture in a smaller file which benefits internet streaming - nothing more.

 

[FlyaDrone]

It should be remembered that neither h264 or h265 is a professional codec and both were developed not as a final delivery format but simply as a streaming algorithm.
You will not see any discernable difference in either at bitrates around 100mbps even on subjects like fast moving/boiling water which will 'break' many codecs due to the information contained in the frame.
The primary reason for developing h265 was to facilitate the same quality picture in a smaller file which benefits internet streaming - nothing more.

This is an accurate description of the anticipated benefit of h.265 vs. h.264, however prior posts indicate that the DJI implementation is not producing a smaller file size for equal time of recording when using h.265 instead of h.264. The question remains as to why?

 

[DaveAU]

This is an accurate description of the anticipated benefit of h.265 vs. h.264, however prior posts indicate that the DJI implementation is not producing a smaller file size for equal time of recording when using h.265 instead of h.264. The question remains as to why?

It isn't about a smaller file size, it is about more quality in the same file size. H.265 is a more efficient codec, so if you take some raw uncompressed video and encode to H.264 and H.265 at the same bitrate, the H.265 will retain more detail.

The downsides to H.265 are:

• It is processor intensive so some computers don't handle it well.
• Some editing software doesn't handle it well. I tend to generate lower resolution proxy footage in another format on ingest to avoid issues during editing.
• You can't do 4K60 on an Inspire 2 in H.265, highest 60fps you can do is 2.7K

Something worth mentioning is that the Windows 10 update (1709) from late 2017 removes built in H.265 support. You can add it back again from the Windows Store but I think that using the K-Lite codec pack gives you a better implementation.

 

[2nd2non]

Something worth mentioning is that the Windows 10 update (1709) from late 2017 removes built in H.265 support. You can add it back again from the Windows Store but I think that using the K-Lite codec pack gives you a better implementation.

Ahhh, this explains why my home computer no longer plays h265 files! Thank you! What is K-lite?

 

[DaveAU]

Ahhh, this explains why my home computer no longer plays h265 files! Thank you! What is K-lite?

K-Lite is a free set of codecs which allow you to play back or encode almost any format in Windows. (unfortunately, not ProRes encoding)