It's only recently been possible to actually use x265 for transparent encodes, previous versions of x265 removed film grain/digital noice to such a degree that the quality was worse than x264 at equivalent bitrates. Combine that with the massively increased costs in both encoding/decoding time (and worse x265 encoding tools/knowledge), x265 simply wasn't worthwhile except for crappy re-encodes at super low bitrates for people with crappy internet.
Recently you've begun to see a lot of x265 releases though, usually with HDR, the only significant feature x264 can't provide.
For sub-4K SDR content there's really no incentive for pirates to switch to x265, it's just a nuisance. With torrenting people don't pay for the extra bitrate x264 requires, unlike hosting services like Netflix, the ~20% bitrate savings of x265 are not important at all, especially compared to the other "costs" of compatibility issues and 10X longer encode times.
> It's only recently been possible to actually use x265 for transparent encodes, previous versions of x265 removed film grain/digital noice to such a degree that the quality was worse than x264 at equivalent bitrates.
I've noticed this recently - Slow RF16 encodes were _visually_ worse (as in during casual watching I was asking if the source was really this bad, and when I went back to compare it was not[1]). Going to Slower is not tenable (a movie encode already takes ~8 hous, going to Slower makes it take nearly 2 days) (and I'm not even sure it would help), and increasing the RF to 14 would mean as I'm as well off keeping the original file (in some cases, RF16 is already almost as big as the original).
[1] Random framegrab, not checking the labels until after - in every case, it was obvious which was which.
VR took to HEVC pretty much from the beginning for mobile platforms. While it did take longer to encode, the resulting file was much more size friendly for mobile use and even the delivery bandwidth/download times to get it. I worked for a large post house, and developed a backend pipe line for the artists to be able to submit their output to the farm to create optimized h.265 files for their target devices.
Eh frankly, x265 is not worth it unless you're an expert encoder or don't care about transparency. If you're not making multiple test encodes and fiddling with the encoding options, you should stay on x264.
It is not that it is fixed, it is just that putting out a encoder that is good at PSNR and SSIM are like 10% of the work, actually getting that film grain right takes forever. That is if you care about these sort of things, other wise you can encode a Digitally Cleaned Video with x265 and get ~30% reduction in file size compared to x264.
Ironically, most x265 movies I’ve seen appear to be HDR blu-ray rips with no attempt to reduce size at all, and they’re usually north of 50GB. You can get 80-90% bitrate savings on these without significant loss of quality.
It's actually closer to 50% unless you are using hardware assisted encodes which aren't great currently... though I haven't tried on an RTX card yet, which is supposed to be better. So it does come down to time though.
Anecdotal evidence. But doing H.264 to HEVC encodes on my GTX 1080 result in significantly smaller files than Blu Ray rips
I purchased the X-Files Blu Ray Box Set. Ripping it all to my hard disk resulted in roughly 1.7 terabytes of footage
Encoding them with a likely higher than needed bitrate to preserve quality shrank them to a much more palatable 237GB (with subtitles) https://i.imgur.com/eJFuxaV.png
Bar removing the film grain (which I prefer, but not everyone does) I think the quality looks absolutely spectacular https://i.imgur.com/xlWJEol.jpg
The image you linked to exhibits horrible artifacts - but then again, you saved the screencap as a JPEG then uploaded it to a service that likely further butchers the image.
Afaik Imgur doesn't process PNGs at all, while I'm not sure about JPGs (they might render previews, but I'd expect direct links to lead to the original file).
Besides the weird new social stuff they're still by far the best image hoster I know.
The NVidia GTX compresion for HEVC is really bad, and only intended for use with live streaming. If you compare to similar file sizes or even half the size for x265 (CPU) encoding the quality is a lot better. As you note, the size is a bit larger than probably could be achieved... I also have encoded a bit using my GTX for hardware, but the quality:size difference was a bit much. Now when I do it, I just rip as much as my system can hold, then batch everything up and let it run for days/weeks.
Currently using an i7-4790k (nearly 5yo), which doesn't have a the current intel hardware encoding options either. Considering upgrading to a Zen 2 Ryzen or Threadripper when they come out later this year.
It's nowhere near 50% for transparent encodes, I just checked. GPU encoding is currently incapable of creating transparent encodes.
Most x265 2160p->1080p encodes actually use higher bitrates than the x264 1080p encodes they trump, due to the increased noise detail in the UHD Blu-Ray source.
I'm not using GPU encoding, I've tried it, it generally sucks and winds up being about 2/3-3/4 the size of x264 for similar quality. My experience with h.265 via x265 is usually about half the size for similar quality. Again, somewhat subjective as I really don't mind the blurry fallback for h.265 so much, and don't notice it nearly as much.
The scene values quality. It's why their file sizes seem large to some. x264 at CRF 18-21 still can't be matched by x265 at any bitrate.
I'm a videophile and have been using Avisynth (Vapoursynth mostly these days) since the DivX vs Xvid wars and every year I give x265 another chance only to be disappointed.
There's also the hardware compatibility issue but regardless the quality would still have to be there.
Take a look at the most popular outstanding bugs and you'll notice many of them are regarding quality [1]
The doom9 forums is also a good source. Many have posted comparisons proving the point.
Really, it's blurry even if you throw a bunch of bitrate at it? Seems odd.
The one area with significant uptake that I've seen so far is anime, which if regular stuff gets blurry does make sense. The quality is actually really great there, and it can produce files that are extremely small at good quality (eg 25 minutes at 1080p with multi-language AAC tracks is often around 250-300 MB, with bluray quality).
(oh, also there is a poster who used to do a lot of scifi releases in x265, it looks OK although not bluray quality, and you can get a 45 minute episode in 1080p quality in about 700mb)
Personally I've tried encoding Shadowplay recordings to x265 a couple times (via ffmpeg, both through Handbrake and directly invoking ffmpeg on my server) and I get solid green video. I think it's the variable frame rate, it works OK if I pull it down to a constant framerate first, but that can produce juddering if I get framedrops when I'm playing.
Anime are comparatively easier to encoder due absent of grain. And large blocks of colour do very well with improve h265 efficiency. Not to mention a lot of the psychological model imported from x264 had decades of Anime tuning in it.
I was referring to The Scene [1]. They stopped releasing in Xvid around ~2012. What you're talking about are known as "peer groups". These groups/individuals do as they wish (to put it kindly).
I would have thought it was more preferring faster pretimes, as X264 encoding is much faster than X265? At least in the case of TV shows, maybe not so much movies where there might be a more exclusive source.
It comes down to the type of degradation that happens and device support.
h.265 gets blurry, h.264 gets blocky. Higher quality encodes, especially of film will degrade worse in 265. Hardware is also much worse in terms of overall support for h.265.
My Nvidia Shield TV is the only small/arm device I've used that can reliably playback 4K h.265 video, specifically network content from my NAS (Kodi).
h.265 is much more common as an option for TV feeds, the quality is usually lower than BR anyway and the smaller size leads to better near term gratification, you can get a 1080p h.265 for often smaller than the 720p h.264 which looks significantly better.
I tend to prefer it for my own rips as I get a much smaller file size, which is starting to get scarce on my NAS. I prefer the blur to the blockiness myself, and my vision isn't the greatest anyway. YMMV.
Also, hardware assisted compression has really crappy quality for the file size you get. Using a software encoder like x265 is pretty much required, and even then takes a LONG time relatively speaking. Most are unwilling to do so for the gains in storage.
Hardware H265 encoding has always struck me as a completely bizarre feature. So... you're concerned about file size, but not concerned enough to use software encoding?
And GPU encoders are really bad... you're probably better off running x264 at faster preset than running NVENC H265.
My dad downloads x264 in 720p sometimes by accident and he say the 1gb file is too big so before he watches it he will open his old version of DivX official converter software and encode it into 480p with some really low bitrate 'fast encode' setting that makes his 1gb mp4 into a 300mb avi. The blocks are so huge and noticeable it makes me think he's watching .RM files from the 90s lol but hey at least he saves room on his NAS right?
I think gamers/streamers get the most out of hardware h265 encoding, since they aren't as likely to just add more hard drives. And you probably can't spare the CPU power for software encoding, even at fast presets.
Yeah my PC with 6700k and GTX 1080 really struggles with x265 4K playback which is an incredibly laggy screen tearing mess. On my $50 Android box which has a hardware decoding chip for it the same video files run perfectly, butter smooth.
>The eighth generation of PureVideo HD, introduced with the GeForce GTX 1080, GTX 1070, GTX 1060, GTX 1050 Ti & GTX 1050, GT 1030 a Pascal (microarchitecture) GPU, adds full hardware-decode of HEVC Main12 profile to the GPU's video-engine.
Are x265 files different then, or is it just your software?
Many devices, especially older ones, only support h264 in hardware, which makes a huge impact on battery life. h265 would need software decoding and this a huge drop in battery life for those devices.
This right here is the main reason. Pirate groups continued to do xvid encodes for many years after h264 was unquestionably superior for the exact same reason.
The big picture here is that we've hit the point of diminishing returns with video codecs. Up until h264, with lots of work you could improve codecs to get significant gains in compression with very little increase in complexity. That's pretty much done though. If we had to keep using h264 for videos for the rest of eternity it wouldn't be all that bad. Sure, eventually we'll want something a bit better most of the time, but when it's a choice between a 16 GB h264 encode and a 8 GB AV1 encode that takes 10x the CPU time to encode and decode, it's not unreasonable to think we might choose the former for many applications.
Still very poor hardware decode support. What good is saving a few GB of HD space if your phone runs out of battery 3x as fast because it's having to decode in software?
I believe you are talking about the 'anime' encoders, as for 'scene' releases, they are all in 8bit h264 AFAIK.
Also when it comes to anime, doing a quick search on Nyaa it looks like 10bit is used on less than a tenth of releases, with h265 being in that same range as well.
I dare say 8bit h264 is still the undisputed king of piracy.
Decent x265 encoding is not that much slower than x265. Going for roughly the same perceived quality, my encode times went up about ~50-70% when switched to x265. With how much better it handles grain in older films, it's well worth the extra time requirement.
But I imagine those in the scene are more interested in being the first with a passable 1080p Blu-Ray rip than they are in cramming as many high quality movies on their iPad as possible before a long flight.
They explained their decision I think it was in late 2017 or early 2018. Reducing bitrate of lower encoder time are not their priority. Even at the same bitrate x264 still beats x265 in terms of video quality. There are some problematic scene x265 just doesn't do well.
If they could reduce bitrate while getting the same quality, they would. If they could get even better quality while having the same bitrate, they would do it too. The problem is at their quality level requirement x264 is still king. And as of late 2018 that still seems to be the case. ( Tuning Encoder is a god damn insane job )
> Also: if you’re doing 2160p 10bit HDR, there’s no chance those Rokus are going to play them anyway.
I have some 10bit 2160p ATMOS remux movies that are huge 50GB MKV files and I stream them over my gigabit LAN to a no-name $80 Android box I got off some obscure Chinese marketplace and it plays them back perfectly with full HDR and my amp gets the atmos signal too.
If your device has hardware based x264/x265 chips it can decode them with very little processing power.
x265 is nowhere near that much slower unless you are using a very high preset. Even preset #9 ("slow") is only about 2-3x slower than x264, in my experience.
Unlicensed content providers (this is the preferred politically correct term) have been doing HEVC UHD (4K) from day one.
Most TV shows and movies are available in HEVC at 720P and 1080P now but all it offers is smaller file sizes (not better quality) so most people don't care about it.
You generally don't want to (lossy) re-encode released media (be that audio cds, network streams or Blu rays). One think is using a lpsdy codec to make the final "print" - it's another to try and manipulate that version further with lossy transformations.
That said, appears 4k hdr will see some x265 uptake.
Same. It's a great space savings at (to me) a not very perceptible loss of quality. PSARips is the only scene group I know of doing regular x265 releases.
