H.264 vs H.265: Which Video Codec is Better?

H.264 vs H.265: Which Video Codec is Better?

H.264 vs H.265
H.264 vs H.265

The world of video codecs can be a complicated and confusing one, but two of the most important codecs in use today are H.264 and H.265. In this article, we will compare these two codecs in detail, examining their histories, technical specifications, performance, and use cases to determine which one is better for different applications.

H.264 vs H.265
H.264 vs H.265

History of H.264 and H.265

First introduced in 2003, H.264 quickly became the industry standard for video compression, thanks to its high compression efficiency and broad compatibility. Its widespread adoption made it the most widely used video codec in the world for many years, until the release of H.265 in 2013. H.265, also known as High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC), was designed to provide even greater compression efficiency and improved video quality, making it an attractive alternative to H.264 for many use cases.

Technical Specifications

The key technical difference between H.264 and H.265 is their compression efficiency. H.265 is able to achieve significantly higher compression rates than H.264, meaning that it can deliver higher quality video at lower bitrates. In addition, H.265 supports higher resolutions and frame rates, making it better suited to modern video applications. However, H.264 has broader compatibility with older devices and software, and is often more easily implemented in legacy systems.

Both codecs use similar encoding and decoding processes, but H.265 includes some additional features and optimizations to improve compression efficiency and video quality. For example, H.265 includes support for larger block sizes, which allows it to more accurately represent complex image structures and textures, leading to higher quality video.

Performance and Quality Comparison

When it comes to comparing the performance and quality of H.264 and H.265, the results can vary depending on the specific use case and testing methodology. However, in general, H.265 is considered to offer superior video quality at lower bitrates than H.264. This is particularly true for high-resolution and high-fps video, where the higher compression efficiency of H.265 allows it to deliver smoother, clearer video. However, H.264 may still be preferable in certain cases, such as streaming to older devices or for applications with lower bandwidth availability.

Applications and Use Cases

H.264 and H.265 are both used in a wide variety of applications, including video streaming, video conferencing, and video surveillance. In general, H.264 is still more widely supported in legacy systems and devices, making it a more common choice for many applications. However, H.265 is becoming increasingly popular in new applications and systems, thanks to its improved video quality and compression efficiency. Some specific use cases where H.265 may be preferable include high-resolution and high-fps video, mobile streaming, and surveillance applications where storage and bandwidth are limited.

Advantages of H.265

H.265 has several advantages over its predecessor, H.264. The most significant ones are:

Better Compression

H.265 uses more advanced compression techniques, which enable it to achieve better compression rates than H.264. This means that H.265 can deliver the same video quality as H.264 with less data. This is particularly important for video streaming, where bandwidth is often limited.

Support for Higher Resolutions

H.265 supports resolutions up to 8K, while H.264 only supports resolutions up to 4K. This makes H.265 more future-proof and suitable for applications that require high-resolution video, such as virtual reality or surveillance.

Improved Parallel Processing

H.265 is designed to take advantage of multi-core CPUs and GPUs, which makes it faster and more efficient than H.264. This is particularly important for real-time applications, such as video conferencing or live streaming.

H.264 vs. H.265: Which One is Better?

So, which one is better? The answer is not straightforward, as it depends on the specific use case.

H.264 is Still Widely Used

H.264 is still the most widely used video codec, as it is supported by almost all devices and software. This means that if you want your videos to be compatible with as many devices as possible, H.264 is still a safe choice.

H.265 is More Efficient

However, if you are looking for better compression and support for higher resolutions, H.265 is the better choice. It is also more efficient in terms of processing power, which can be a significant advantage in certain applications.

The Future of Video Codec

In any case, it is clear that H.265 is the future of video codec. As more and more devices support it, and more content is encoded in H.265, it will become the new standard for video compression.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both H.264 and H.265 have their advantages and disadvantages. H.264 is still the most widely used video codec and is compatible with almost all devices and software. On the other hand, H.265 offers better compression, support for higher resolutions, and improved processing efficiency. As technology advances and more devices support H.265, it will become the new standard for video compression.

H.264 explained – Mp4 format

Video formats for the Internet: MP4 and its variants, MP4 / H.264 and MP4 / MPEG-4 – Differences and similarities

The videos that we play online or locally on the computer or any other device may be coded in different ways. Each method of encoding them has its advantages and disadvantages, and there are better formats than others, depending on the use we will give to the video. We have formats such as AVI, MP4, MKV, 3GP, Google WebM, etc. …

h.264 explained mp4

When playing video on the Internet using a browser, the most widespread format and with the best support from browsers, both mobile and desktop, is the MP4 format, and to be more accurate the MP4 / H format. .264, which corresponds to files that normally carry the .mp4 extension. but:

Are all .mp4 files the same?

If they are not similar, what types are there? What are the differences, advantages and disadvantages of each one?
Are they all on the Internet?

MP4 format – Parts, containers and extensions

When we talk about a .mp4 file or MP4 format in general, what we are talking about is what is technically called MPEG-4, part 14. It is a standard format (ISO / IEC 14496-14) and it is a container format for multimedia tracks. That is, this format defines how audio and video tracks (called data streams) can be contained in the file in various formats and may even contain subtitles.

In this container format within the .mp4 file, the audio and video tracks can be encoded in different formats, as appropriate for the application to be provided. While in theory it supports many different formats (almost any) for these audio and video tracks, in practice players of this format only support some specific types, the most frequent being:

Audio: AAC (Advanced Audio Codec, which when released is files with extensions .m4a or .3gp) or MP3 format.
Video: the different variants of MPEG format.
MPEG or Moving Picture Experts Group is a group of “authorities” and audio and video manufacturers that came together at the request of ISO in the late 1980s to create file coding standards for this type of multimedia information, ensuring compatibility between the media to be played, and the playback devices. The first version of the standard, MPEG-1, came out in 1993, and since then there have been many new versions, and within what they call “Parts”, which are specific aspects of the standard and also extensions to the specification of specific things, or improvements to the basic format they are changing.

h.624 mp4

The most prevalent version of this MPEG format is 4 or MPEG-4, which appeared in late 1998, and this is what we know as MP4, due to the expansion of its files. This version is divided into several sub-standards or “Parts” that describe certain format issues (such as the 14 container, as I said at the beginning) and some extensions.

Within parts of the standard, part 10 describes an advanced coding format, that’s what we also know as H.264, but it’s actually also called MPEG-4 part 10, and that’s what Blue-Ray discs used for example. That is why they talk on many internet sites that the H.264 and MPEG-4 are the same. And this is true, but not quite, as parts 2, 12 or 14 of MPEG-4 also describe other compression formats that are MPEG-4, and the container format may also contain MPEG in earlier versions of lower quality such as MPEG -1 or MPEG- 2nd

MPEG-4 part 10 or H.264 or AVC format

Let’s summarize what we know so far: When we talk about MP4 or .mp4 files today, or the “MP4 format”, we’re really talking about the container format. Within this, there may be audio and video in various formats, so only talking about MP4 is not correct (or at least it is not accurate) and more details are needed. Given that the format used to compress the video stream containing MP4 is of vital importance, “last name” for that format is usually set to indicate well what we are referring to.

Thus, reference is made to MP4 / H.264 for videos using MPEG-4 part 10 and which are very high quality compatible videos. It is also common to talk about the MP4 / MPEG-4 format, which in this case usually refers to part 2 of the MPEG-4, which is the original format that was released and is of lower quality so it is usually used for broadcasting IP TV (video surveillance) or distributing certain multimedia content (some “pirate” movies, multimedia CDs …) as it generally weighs less.

The MP4 / H.264 format is what should be used to play directly in browsers, as this is what everyone supports today in all operating systems. It is much more efficient than MPEG-4 part 2 (the original) in coding and offers much better quality, even if we use a low bit rate or reduced bandwidth when reproducing it. It resists transmission failure very well, although some packets are lost, so it works very well for streaming, video conferencing and similar applications. This format is also called AVC (Advanced Video Coding), so sometimes you can read MP4 / AVC, but it’s the same.

By contrast, the H.264 format is more complex and more complicated to code (it may require up to 3 times more computing power than the original MPEG-4 format) and to decode (twice as much power), but today with the devices that the average user has (both computers and mobiles, etc.), this is of little importance.

In summary

Just talking about the “MP4 format” is imprecise. One video with the .mp4 extension may not play in one browser, while another with the same extension does. The difference between them is in the way of encoding the video inside, as .mp4 is a container format.

On the web, the recommended format is MPEG-4 part 10, or what is the same as MP4 / AVC or, much more commonly called, MP4 / H.264. This format works in all browsers on the market, except in very old versions of Internet Explorer.

So when they talk to you about the “MP4 format”, they either talk about MP4 / H.264 or they have to specify it more. If you are unsure about the format of a particular .mp4 file you want to play, you can use a tool like Media Info to tell you how the audio and video tracks are encoded. This program identifies tracks coded as H.264 as AVC, which as we know is the same. If AVC tells you, it’s in the right format for the Internet.

As you can see, the world of multimedia formats is quite complicated technically. Fortunately, as a developer or web designer, all you have to worry about today is that they have an appropriate quality / weight ratio and are coded as MP4 / H.264. So you have it easy