F5F Stay Refreshed Software Operating Systems Comparison of H.265 and H.264 standards

Comparison of H.265 and H.264 standards

Comparison of H.265 and H.264 standards

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next
M
MrWorldWide_e
Member
65
12-29-2023, 11:27 PM
#1
Hi everyone, I noticed the h.265 setting in Hanbrake while converting an MKV file. I tried the same conversion using h.264 and h.265 to compare. The h.264 version reduced the file size from 9.6GB to 4.8GB, while h.265 cut it down to 4.3GB. Quick calculations show the h.265 file was about 90% the size of h.264, but it took three times longer to encode (from 1 hour to 3 hours) and used twice the CPU during playback (10% vs 5%). After evaluating both, I’m wondering if the advantages of h.265 are justified given these trade-offs. I’m aware this was just one video, but if h.265 becomes the new standard, it should either shrink file sizes or require less processing power. In terms of quality, the results were similar enough that I couldn’t tell which one performed better in a blind test.
M
MrWorldWide_e
12-29-2023, 11:27 PM #1

Hi everyone, I noticed the h.265 setting in Hanbrake while converting an MKV file. I tried the same conversion using h.264 and h.265 to compare. The h.264 version reduced the file size from 9.6GB to 4.8GB, while h.265 cut it down to 4.3GB. Quick calculations show the h.265 file was about 90% the size of h.264, but it took three times longer to encode (from 1 hour to 3 hours) and used twice the CPU during playback (10% vs 5%). After evaluating both, I’m wondering if the advantages of h.265 are justified given these trade-offs. I’m aware this was just one video, but if h.265 becomes the new standard, it should either shrink file sizes or require less processing power. In terms of quality, the results were similar enough that I couldn’t tell which one performed better in a blind test.

R
Rythmei
Member
66
01-16-2024, 04:23 PM
#2
it focuses on video calls and instant messaging. the main goal of the codec was to maintain quality without sacrificing too much, even at lower resolutions. smaller file sizes compared to DivX and WMV9 have been noticeable at higher resolutions. H264 offers less improvement, while older formats struggled on low-power devices like phones, tablets, or even simple gadgets. I haven't heard much about this in the past three years, especially after seeing news on TPB. Possible reasons could be ISP data limits or slow internet speeds. Blue ray drives have existed since about 12 years, and single-layer storage can hold over 40GB, making monthly caps around 10–30–300 GB quite significant.
R
Rythmei
01-16-2024, 04:23 PM #2

it focuses on video calls and instant messaging. the main goal of the codec was to maintain quality without sacrificing too much, even at lower resolutions. smaller file sizes compared to DivX and WMV9 have been noticeable at higher resolutions. H264 offers less improvement, while older formats struggled on low-power devices like phones, tablets, or even simple gadgets. I haven't heard much about this in the past three years, especially after seeing news on TPB. Possible reasons could be ISP data limits or slow internet speeds. Blue ray drives have existed since about 12 years, and single-layer storage can hold over 40GB, making monthly caps around 10–30–300 GB quite significant.

Y
yArthur
Member
169
01-16-2024, 11:03 PM
#3
Reduce the res and bitrate settings, then assess the results.
Y
yArthur
01-16-2024, 11:03 PM #3

Reduce the res and bitrate settings, then assess the results.

J
jrwaffles
Junior Member
11
01-19-2024, 04:57 AM
#4
For video on mobile, H.264 remains the top choice. Unless alternative methods outperform me due to limited device capabilities. Longer encoding times and double decoding rates would drain power faster. The goal is still to minimize data usage. Single-layer Blu-rays offer 25 GB, dual 50 GB—most are dual anyway.
J
jrwaffles
01-19-2024, 04:57 AM #4

For video on mobile, H.264 remains the top choice. Unless alternative methods outperform me due to limited device capabilities. Longer encoding times and double decoding rates would drain power faster. The goal is still to minimize data usage. Single-layer Blu-rays offer 25 GB, dual 50 GB—most are dual anyway.

S
Swagman260FTW
Junior Member
3
01-19-2024, 05:16 AM
#5
it's more efficient since most modern devices already support h264/mp4 acceleration, including mobile chips. Industry backing has driven this progress. H264 has largely replaced xvid on platforms like YouTube, though it's still not quick enough because we still rely on Adobe Flash in many cases. H265 offers better performance without those limitations, which is what I mean.
S
Swagman260FTW
01-19-2024, 05:16 AM #5

it's more efficient since most modern devices already support h264/mp4 acceleration, including mobile chips. Industry backing has driven this progress. H264 has largely replaced xvid on platforms like YouTube, though it's still not quick enough because we still rely on Adobe Flash in many cases. H265 offers better performance without those limitations, which is what I mean.

R
Rhuji
Senior Member
437
01-19-2024, 07:06 AM
#6
Designed to send content to mobile devices; not created for them directly. Many countries, including the UK, have poor 3G/4G networks (except for 3 where there’s no data cap), yet speeds remain slow.
R
Rhuji
01-19-2024, 07:06 AM #6

Designed to send content to mobile devices; not created for them directly. Many countries, including the UK, have poor 3G/4G networks (except for 3 where there’s no data cap), yet speeds remain slow.

S
Saphires
Junior Member
4
01-19-2024, 08:11 AM
#7
I still favor HVEC and WebM.
S
Saphires
01-19-2024, 08:11 AM #7

I still favor HVEC and WebM.

J
Just_Senya
Member
169
01-21-2024, 07:15 AM
#8
HVEC uses H.265 encoding, yet I haven't explored V9.
J
Just_Senya
01-21-2024, 07:15 AM #8

HVEC uses H.265 encoding, yet I haven't explored V9.

J
jos3g6
Junior Member
3
01-23-2024, 06:57 AM
#9
I understand your point, but it also requires double the power to decode or play back the video. That could be addressed with more common hardware decoders. Still a hassle to encode in H.265 though.
J
jos3g6
01-23-2024, 06:57 AM #9

I understand your point, but it also requires double the power to decode or play back the video. That could be addressed with more common hardware decoders. Still a hassle to encode in H.265 though.

W
Wolf_Girl3
Junior Member
25
01-23-2024, 08:12 AM
#10
Handbrake supports x265 and x264, with x264 being fully optimized while x265 isn't. http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168814
W
Wolf_Girl3
01-23-2024, 08:12 AM #10

Handbrake supports x265 and x264, with x264 being fully optimized while x265 isn't. http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168814

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next