I feel like the hardware has moved faster than the software for some time now. Why bother making .265 when in 2y time it will probably play back on a phone for less than 1W. I feel like nvidia is just buying time.
All h265 encoders/decoders support 10 bit (and beyond). It's part of the spec. Everything is "comparable" btw, you still have degradation and that is fact.
Originally Posted by tuubi
You have a serious case of selective reading.
Originally Posted by deanjo
Name one H.264 hardware decoder that supports 10-bit H.264 decoding: None.
How long has 10-bit Profile H.264 been available? Years.
How long has H.265 hardware decoders been available, along with H.265 encoders? Exactly.
H.265 is still essentially not very different from H.264 from a technical standpoint, and offers little benefit over the existing H.264 10-bit profile. VP9 isn't too interesting either. Only Daala is interesting as it's implementing newer, better technologies -- it's an entire generation ahead of H.265.
Having encoded over 14,000 episodes of media, I can't share the same view as you when you claim degradation as if that's a problem. I've done many blind tests over the last three years and no one can tell the difference between the original source and my encodes. If whatever degradation that occurs is not noticeable, then why does it even matter? Standard BluRay media uses causes incredible bitrate bloat which can be mitigated by re-encoding in a better format. Encoding technologies have come a long way, and with 10-bit, errors made by the encoder/decoder are mitigated to the point where quality looks the same after re-encoding if your CRF value is sufficient enough.
Want to know what's really degraded? Netflix streams. 4K Netflix is useless since Netflix bitrate starves their content which makes high resolution content practically useless. As it stands today, I still see content getting released on BluRay that's actually just a 720p upscale to 1080p. I'd rather see high quality content compressed at the source with the best methods (Daala + Opus) than the low quality stuff we have today -- at least that would give a reason to not have to re-encode content for sake of getting rid of the bloat.
Last edited by mmstick; 05-11-2014 at 07:53 PM.
You're never going to get an "open codec that isn't a legal black hole". You're assuming the problem is somehow technical, whereas the problem is the brokenness of the current patent system/ To do ANYTHING complicated means you're going to violate some nonsense that you had no idea anyone would be stupid enough to patent.
Originally Posted by zanny
What protects x264 is simply the fact that there's no money to go after. Daala will change nothing. As long as it, too, is not attached to anyone with money, no-one will go after it. As soon as it gets adopted by anyone with money, you'll discover that it's infringing fifteen ridiculous patents that should never have been granted.
You fix the problem but fixing the patent system, not by imaging that by doing things "right" this one time you'll magically create something that won't attract the trolls.
Last edited by name99; 05-11-2014 at 11:43 PM.
The same people behind x264 were developing a next-gen M4A/AAC but it was shot down by the superior Opus codec developed by the same people making Daala. Now the thing is, Opus is using technology, and is being used, by many big players in the industry. In fact, the entire international mobile network is fueled by opus for making voice calls. Even Steam and Skype are using a technology that is a part of Opus (Silk). No one has gone after Opus though.
Originally Posted by name99
So the main difference between 10-bit H.264 and H.265 is that hardware decoders for H.265 actually exist?
Originally Posted by mmstick
Seems like a good selling point to me.