How much smaller will a video encoded in h.265 be?

[kinster]

Lets say you start out with Xvid encoded DVD. A typical video that will fit on 1 CD. When I take my old Xvids and re-encode them with x264, the size drops around 200 MB with no discernible loss in quality.

How much smaller will it be in addition to the 200 MB if I were to re-encode using H.265?

Thanks

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Lets say you start out with Xvid encoded DVD. A typical video that will fit on 1 CD. When I take my old Xvids and re-encode them with x264, the size drops around 200 MB with no discernible loss in quality.

How much smaller will it be in addition to the 200 MB if I were to re-encode using H.265?

Thanks

The size of a video file is defined as: duration × bit_rate

This is no different at all, regardless whether you use MPEG-4 ASP (e.g. via Xvid encoder), H.264/AVC (e.g. x264 encoder) or H.265/HEVC (e.g. via x265 encoder).

Consequently, switching from MPEG-4 ASP to H.264/AVC or switching from H.264/AVC to H.265/HEVC does not make your file smaller per se!

So the actual question here is, will you be able to get away with a lower bitrate and still get "decent" quality when using H.265/HEVC instead of H.264/AVC ???

And this depends a lot on: The nature of your footage, your definition of "decent" quality and, last but not least, the encoder software being used...

[kinster]

Thanks but that is not what I am asking.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Thanks but that is not what I am asking.

Right, but it should help you to understand why your original question doesn't make that much sense. So now you can rephrase your question into something that actually does make sense ;)

[kinster]

Yes, but you know exactly what I meant. You could have just answered. Next time, please do me a favor and ignore any questions I may have if this is your modus operandi. Thanks.

Anyways, for those that want to know, it's basically a reduction of 1.5:1 from x264.
With that in mind, a 700 Xvid converted to H.265 will yield an additional savings of 100 MB on top of the 200 MB for virtually the same quality video. This are general numbers of course.

[Groucho2004]

Yes, but you know exactly what I meant. You could have just answered. Next time, please do me a favor and ignore any questions I may have if this is your modus operandi. Thanks.

Anyways, for those that want to know, it's basically a reduction of 1.5:1 from x264.
With that in mind, a 700 Xvid converted to H.265 will yield an additional savings of 100 MB on top of the 200 MB for virtually the same quality video. This are general numbers of course.
Wow, you're taking ignorance and arrogance to a whole new level.

Mulder tried to answer your moronic question as politely as one could and pointed out correctly which information would be necessary to make such an assessment.

Anyway, it seems you answered your own question but I hope that others will realize what a ridiculous generalization it is.

[filler56789]

Yes, but you know exactly what I meant. You could have just answered. Next time, please do me a favor and ignore any questions I may have if this is your modus operandi. Thanks.

Lord Mulder is a moderator, and unless I'm very wrong, moderators are not allowed to ignore anyone :)

[Bloax]

Lets say you start out with Xvid encoded DVD. A typical video that will fit on 1 CD.
If anything you should be grateful you weren't immediately slammed down with LOL RULE 6 ALERT as you would have been until these very recent times we are in.

Recoding from lossy to lossy is generally a bad idea, but if you insist on doing it then you would benefit much more from filtering it (with say, SMDegrain or something) and then recoding instead of doing an exercise in generation loss.
I don't know about the state of x264 vs. h265 encoders, so I can't say anything there.

[kinster]

I said, ignore my questions as in don't answer them. Not ignore any rules violations.

I'm a regular on many computer tech forum where people come for help with their problems. Most of the people asking for help don't know a lot about computers and are constantly phrasing their questions wrong. I have no problems deducing what they are trying to say and I just help them. Not get bogged down in the wrong terminology or whatever. It creates a much friendlier atmosphere.

[kinster]

Recoding from lossy to lossy is generally a bad idea, but if you insist on doing it then you would benefit much more from filtering it (with say, SMDegrain or something) and then recoding instead of doing an exercise in generation loss.
Thanks Bloax. I'm afraid that may be over my head right now and I'm fine with what I am doing.

I'll take a DVD I had previously encoded in Gordian Knot and then just throw it in Avidemux using x264 without even tuning the settings and I save hundreds of MBs. Once it's done, I'll play them side by side in VLC and skip to a few parts of the video stopping them both on the same frame. When I switch back and forth between the two instances of VLC, it's very hard to see any difference so I'm good.

My number #1 priority is file size since I only have a 1 TB hard drive and have no money to buy more space.

[Sagittaire]

Lets say you start out with Xvid encoded DVD. A typical video that will fit on 1 CD. When I take my old Xvids and re-encode them with x264, the size drops around 200 MB with no discernible loss in quality.

How much smaller will it be in addition to the 200 MB if I were to re-encode using H.265?

Thanks

Well the problem is that never H264 (even x264 with placebo mode and psy optimisation) can have 350% for size saving if you compare with MPEG4 ASP (XviD or DivX). In best case you can expect between 150 and 200% for movie source and same quality.

HEVC is designed for HD encoding and IMO the best way with this codec is ripp BD source at 1080p on "2 CD" (1.4 GB). I obtain for exemple really impressive result with Star Wars III on "2 CD" in 1080p (HEVC at 1300 Kbps, AAC 5.1 at 192 kbps).

[Selur]

I see nobody has attempted noise removal on the sample from post #5 yet. Or at least nobody has attempted it and posted the result yet......
Without any pre-filtering through avisynth or similar?

[SuLyMaN]

Well the problem is that never H264 (even x264 with placebo mode and psy optimisation) can have 350% for size saving if you compare with MPEG4 ASP (XviD or DivX). In best case you can expect between 150 and 200% for movie source and same quality.

HEVC is designed for HD encoding and IMO the best way with this codec is ripp BD source at 1080p on "2 CD" (1.4 GB). I obtain for exemple really impressive result with Star Wars III on "2 CD" in 1080p (HEVC at 1300 Kbps, AAC 5.1 at 192 kbps).
That post answered the op's question... No clue what he wants more with his "700 mb xvid dvd" rips...
The size of a video file is defined as: duration × bit_rate

This is no different at all, regardless whether you use MPEG-4 ASP (e.g. via Xvid encoder), H.264/AVC (e.g. x264 encoder) or H.265/HEVC (e.g. via x265 encoder).

Consequently, switching from MPEG-4 ASP to H.264/AVC or switching from H.264/AVC to H.265/HEVC does not make your file smaller per se!

So the actual question here is, will you be able to get away with a lower bitrate and still get "decent" quality when using H.265/HEVC instead of H.264/AVC ???

And this depends a lot on: The nature of your footage, your definition of "decent" quality and, last but not least, the encoder software being used...


Sent from my HM 1SW using Tapatalk

[Atak_Snajpera]

When I take my old Xvids and re-encode them with x264, the size drops around 200 MB with no discernible loss in quality.

How much smaller will it be in addition to the 200 MB if I were to re-encode using H.265?


That's just an illusion. You lose many fine details. Actors' faces and fabrics will look artificially smooth (vax figure effect and so on). Re-encoding from xvid to h.265 reminds me reencoding mp3 128kbps to he-aac 64kbps. Makes no sense.

[jethro]

Lets say you start out with Xvid encoded DVD. A typical video that will fit on 1 CD. When I take my old Xvids and re-encode them with x264, the size drops around 200 MB with no discernible loss in quality.

How much smaller will it be in addition to the 200 MB if I were to re-encode using H.265?

Thanks

Can you please try one thing? For your "typical 1 CD" movie encode it with Avidemux x264 but modify 'Constant Rate Factor" to '10' for x264 codec in 'Configure'. I am curious what do you think - how much much more efficient is x264 compared to xvid with this setting?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Yes, but you know exactly what I meant. You could have just answered. Next time, please do me a favor and ignore any questions I may have if this is your modus operandi. Thanks.

Please remember our forum rules, especially rule #4!
http://forum.doom9.org/forum-rules.htm

Be nice to each other and respect the moderator. Profanity and insults will not be tolerated.


Anyways, for those that want to know, it's basically a reduction of 1.5:1 from x264.

If encoding the same source with HEVC (x265) instead of AVC (x264) resulted in "a reduction of 1.5:1", this simply means that for the HEVC version you chose a bitrate that is only 66% of the bitrate of your AVC version.

This doesn't say anything - unless you have established that the lower bitrate HEVC version still has (at least) the same visual quality as the higher bitrate AVC version. Did you do that? And if so, by what method did you do that ???

Furthermore, just because you deliberately decided to reduce the bitrate to 66% for the HEVC version, as compared to the AVC version, you obviously can not generalize that HEVC always results in "a reduction of 1.5:1" :rolleyes:

(Keep in mind that you could have, just as well, re-encoded that same source with x264/AVC and reduce the bitrate by 66%, which would have resulted in the exactly same "1.5:1" size reduction - only with AVC instead of HEVC)

[feisty2]

Hevc offers same visual or subject quality with half bitrate compared to avc approximately, if that's what you wanna know

[Asmodian]

Hevc offers same visual or subject quality with half bitrate compared to avc approximately, if that's what you wanna know

At least that is the goal of HECV, I am not sure it has achieved it (yet).

This does not hold true if encoding from the H.264 file as the source and comparing the resulting encode against that. In that situation H.265 is not enough more efficient that even at the same size the quality is noticeably worse (noticeably is, of course, viewer dependent).

This is obviously not a fair comparison but I hear of a lot of people re-encoding an already lossily encoded video and expecting the newer codec to have the same quality as and be smaller than the source. This is unlikely to be achieved unless the source codec is very old or already has well over the bitrate needed for transparency (e.g. H.264 bluray).

HEVC is more efficient, but not enough to overcome the generation loss. Its artifacts are different too; it loses detail before blocking which tends to look better to most people. Even Xvid, as old as it is, generally looks noticeably better than a re-encode to even the same bit-rate HEVC. If you want smaller at the same quality with the new codec you have to re-rip from the original. Re-compressing might result in a very watchable video but never one at the same quality.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

At least that is the goal of HECV, I am not sure it has achieved it (yet).

This does not hold true if encoding from the H.264 file as the source and comparing the resulting encode against that. In that situation H.265 is not enough more efficient that even at the same size the quality is noticeably worse (noticeably is, of course, viewer dependent).

This is obviously not a fair comparison but I hear of a lot of people re-encoding an already lossily encoded video and expecting the newer codec to have the same quality as and be smaller than the source. This is unlikely to be achieved unless the source codec is very old or already has well over the bitrate needed for transparency (e.g. H.264 bluray).

HEVC is more efficient, but not enough to overcome the generation loss. Its artifacts are different too; it loses detail before blocking which tends to look better to most people. Even Xvid, as old as it is, generally looks noticeably better than a re-encode to even the same bit-rate HEVC. If you want smaller at the same quality with the new codec you have to re-rip from the original. Re-compressing might result in a very watchable video but never one at the same quality.

In addition to that, H.265/HEVC probably has the biggest advantages (compared to H.264/AVC) at HD and especially UHD resolutions. At standard DVD resolutions the benefit is smaller!

Furthermore, just using a "new" video compression standard doesn't ensure better results than using an "older" video compression standard, regardless of what "improvement" the standardization committee proclaims. It depends a lot on the encoder software being used! Remember that it took many years of constant development and improving to get x264 to where it is nowadays. There are worlds(!) between today's x264 and some "crappy" H.264/AVC encoders (or x264 from the early days). The same goes for H.265/HEVC. x265 seems to be on a good way, but is still a relatively young project. Currently it seems x265 can clearly beat x264 at the ultra-low bitrates, where x264 already looks ugly and x265 still manages to look okay. But at the higher bitrates, x265 has still has some problems with detail retention due to the lack of Psy-optimizations, which means x264 may actually still look better than x265 - though they are working on it and this may not be entirely true anymore...

[feisty2]

At least that is the goal of HECV, I am not sure it has achieved it (yet).

This does not hold true if encoding from the H.264 file as the source and comparing the resulting encode against that. In that situation H.265 is not enough more efficient that even at the same size the quality is noticeably worse (noticeably is, of course, viewer dependent).

This is obviously not a fair comparison but I hear of a lot of people re-encoding an already lossily encoded video and expecting the newer codec to have the same quality as and be smaller than the source. This is unlikely to be achieved unless the source codec is very old or already has well over the bitrate needed for transparency (e.g. H.264 bluray).

HEVC is more efficient, but not enough to overcome the generation loss. Its artifacts are different too; it loses detail before blocking which tends to look better to most people. Even Xvid, as old as it is, generally looks noticeably better than a re-encode to even the same bit-rate HEVC. If you want smaller at the same quality with the new codec you have to re-rip from the original. Re-compressing might result in a very watchable video but never one at the same quality.

I doubt HEVC would ever have any significant improvement over AVC at super high quality (transparent or lossless) target, seems like HEVC mainly focuses on low quality encoding at the moment
as an OCD patient of "perfect", I will never ever encode anything with "sane encoding settings", the result has to be immaculate, every frame has to look perfect, no visual loss can be tolerated, even if the size would be super LARGE (if I'm gonna encode something with x264, cqp would be my only choice, and I will never use a qp value greater than 6.0)
so, I don't look forward to HEVC like many people do

[burfadel]

For the same quality, about a 40 percent reduction. Of course, it doesn't quite work like that, because you need to consider the audio part. If the audio was 50 MB, 200 video, so 250 MB, the 40 percent reduction would mean 190 MB.

It will be interesting when they replace AAC, it's been around for a long time. Not as bad as JPG format though, that realistically is in desperate need of replacement.

[feisty2]

For the same quality, about a 40 percent reduction. Of course, it doesn't quite work like that, because you need to consider the audio part. If the audio was 50 MB, 200 video, so 250 MB, the 40 percent reduction would mean 190 MB.

It will be interesting when they replace AAC, it's been around for a long time. Not as bad as JPG format though, that realistically is in desperate need of replacement.

mp3 is not dead yet, actually alive like jpeg, aac is a very "new" tech to many users

[Bloax]

AAC is rather recent, AC-3 and MP3 are much older things.
It's sad that Opus isn't very widespread yet, because it certainly packs some potential.

[foxyshadis]

Lets say you start out with Xvid encoded DVD. A typical video that will fit on 1 CD. When I take my old Xvids and re-encode them with x264, the size drops around 200 MB with no discernible loss in quality.

How much smaller will it be in addition to the 200 MB if I were to re-encode using H.265?

Thanks

Getting back to the original question: Since you're asking a subjective question, the only person who answer it for you is you. I don't see why it's so hard to just try it. AviDemux support is almost ready (maybe by the end of the year if we're lucky), but other apps can easily encode a 5 minute slice of video as many times as you want in different qualities so you can compare. We're trying to tell you that x264 and x265 (and even Xvid) aren't just one quality or size, they're a whole range, and AviDemux's defaults are just a starting point.

This is a technical forum, and we're going to require technical questions, not woo-woo questions looking for answers pulled straight from hind quarters. I could say "100 MB less!" and someone else can say "50 MB MORE!" because quality looks so different to us and we're using it on different material. Likewise, going back to the source, or even a higher quality generation, will be MUCH better than starting with a weak encode that's practically VHS quality.

You can already easily get Xvid backups produced with AGK to be half the size in x264 if you know what you're doing, or even less the more noise you're willing to tolerate. Saving 30% is barely trying. HEVC can improve marginally on that, but most of its best new features are designed for HD and massive parallelism, not for 640x480.

I'd say you would be better off getting rid of the parts of your collection you don't enjoy as much, instead of further damaging everything equally, and recreate everything from source in better quality once you do get more storage space. But that's me, I've long since learned that hoarding is pointless.

[movmasty]

I doubt HEVC would ever have any significant improvement over AVC at super high quality (transparent or lossless) target, seems like HEVC mainly focuses on low quality encoding at the moment
as an OCD patient of "perfect", I will never ever encode anything with "sane encoding settings", the result has to be immaculate, every frame has to look perfect, no visual loss can be tolerated, even if the size would be super LARGE (if I'm gonna encode something with x264, cqp would be my only choice, and I will never use a qp value greater than 6.0)
so, I don't look forward to HEVC like many people do
Then i coul do some interesting deduction

1- you have access to fournitures of 100 tera Hard Disk

2- you got new pc connections that move files at 100Gigabit

3- your sight is 200/20

4- you buy only and all the Bluerays

5- your day lasts at least 144 hours

6- you got a plasma set of 500 inches

7- you dont have a GF(this is not computer stuff)

8- finally we have the proof that a time machine is possible

[movmasty]

This is the same old question about new codecs,

and if all that LoRd_MuldeR says is true (and is true that it is the same old reply too :))

is also true that the question make sense and experience should be able to give an answer.

I began to encode in h264 at the end of 2011, obtaining near subjective quality than xvid at 80/85% its bitrate.

Actually i am able to get the same quality at 60/65% of the size, using all the x264 optimizations
1st- mbtree that came out years after the h264 codec itself
2nd- B-piramid
3rd- the ability of h264 to handle higher quantizers retaining quality with AQ, Psy and deblock.

And i'd like to know if h265 comes with as crucial new features.

[foxyshadis]

x265 came with everything x264 had almost from the beginning; they were able to graft all of the cool features of x264 on within a year. Psy is one of the biggest issues right now; maybe it needs to be revamped again, but it just doesn't seem to work quite as well as x264's psy, although it still helps a lot. In all other ways (except speed) x265 is superior, but that's a pretty important feature.

How much smaller depends entirely on what you're coding; denoised animation can be half the size easily, while grainy films might be the same size or even larger. Noise is just an inherently hard problem.

[JonesLee]

In this January BBC verified the H.265 can save 50% bit rate compared to the H.264 under the same quality, plus more and more devices start embracing the H.265 decoding, so i believe H.265/HEVC for home use will get popularized in the coming year or two. BTW, for guys who are looking for a DVD/BD to H.265 converter app, here (http://dvd0101.com) are four solid ones.