Comparison of video encoding with H.264 and H.265 codec
I would like to draw the attention of readers to the fact that I will carry out my story about the H.265 codec only from the point of view of how it can be used to create video movies, regardless of use in other areas. , for example, in video surveillance – everything is completely different there. I will start with the technical definition of the H.264 and H.265 codecs.
H.264 codec: scientifically it is called MPEG-4 part 10 or AVC (Advanced Video Coding). It appeared in 2003, but in everyday life they began to use it far from immediate, approximately since people began to buy high-definition video cameras. In my opinion today it is the only codec you want to compress video, it just has no competitors. Except, of course, 265.
H.265 or HEVC codec (High Efficiency Video Coding – High Efficiency Video Coding). Frame formats up to 8K (UHDTV) with a resolution of 8192 × 4320 pixels are supported. Manufacturers officially announced this codec in 2012. It was first used in IP broadcast systems. Then when 4K and 8K formats appeared and started to be widely used, for which H.264 was no longer ideal, the fifth one was useful there too.
But Н.265 is not a new product, it is, in fact, an improved 264. Initially, the creators were tasked with halving the bitrate with the same quality. If this task had been completed, then it would be possible, using H.265, to have a computer with half the power, or to receive the final file twice as easy, with the same quality. But this is only in theory.
You probably know that not all pixels in the image are affected during encoding; The image is divided into blocks according to the content. And the main difference between these two codecs is that they form these blocks differently. In other words, they divide the image into a different number of fragments. H.265 includes more pixels in each block, that is, the image is divided into fewer parts.
The first thought that occurs to a normal person is what he is like, because this will only make the quality worse! After all, if there was only one pixel in each block, which was compressed with individual parameters, then the image would be much better. This, of course, is true, but the reality is that, unfortunately, in our time the concept of quality for manufacturers of something fades into the background.
Based on information received from other operators, it can be assumed that when encoding the 4K format with a low bit rate, the advantage of H.265 is more noticeable than when using the Full HD format. But I don’t work with a low bit rate, high quality is important to me.
H.264 or H.265. What is better?
Everyone knows that the higher the quality you want to achieve, the more time and effort it takes. The same goes for encoding. If we assume that H.265 encodes better, it means that more time will be spent on encoding compared to H.264. But 30 times is excessive! I’m sure at 100 percent motion picture, it’s almost impossible to tell the difference that can be seen in the freeze frame, but then why complicate things using the 265? Although, here everyone decides for themselves what is more important to him: code as soon as possible and get a finished product, or wait longer, but evaluate a higher result.
The exact encoding time depends on how you record the video, how many small details there are, movement, what frame size, what is the power of your computer. Based on my observations, when encoding H.265, the computer uses much more resources, but the process itself is more adapted for multi-core processors, that is, the computer runs more smoothly.
I also tried encoding H.265 in maximum quality Full HD video, 50 frames per second for about 10 minutes. And when Media Encoder, which in principle encodes faster than Premier, reported that encoding would take more than 300 hours, I realized that it would take almost two weeks not to turn off the computer, and this is for 10 minutes. And my computer is quite powerful. When encoding 265 with a quality profile of “good”, the elapsed time is the same as the 264 setting in the image, but the difference is so insignificant that there is no point in uploading these screenshots.
The H.265 codec was created a long time ago and the question arises why it is not as popular as the developers planned. To the best of my knowledge, I can assume that firstly there is no such clearly visible advantage in video editing, and secondly, the development of using H.265 is hampered by the fact that you have to pay for its use in all devices where it is present.
