Talk:H.265

H.265 will be matured 10 years later I hope so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravanoir (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How much is H.265 expected to be better than H.264?
The source on the article has a member of the Fraunhofer committee predicting a 50% bandwidth saving, but this page says 100%. It is dated somewhen mid-2007 which is more current than the 2006 page that claims 50%. Which would be more authoritative?--70.65.245.94 (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 100% is impossible! --SmilingBoy (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 100% saving means you save half the space, not compress to nothing if that's how you interpreted it. A 50% gain would mean H.265 having the same quality at 1000 kbps as H.264 at 1500, 100% would be 750.--70.65.245.94 (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With no other qualification, I would interpret a "100% saving" to mean that the bit rate had been reduced by 100%, i.e. a net rate of 0. What is probably meant is that the "old" bit rate was 100% higher than the "new" rate, which is equivalent to saying that the old rate has been reduced by 50%.  Oli Filth(talk 23:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A direct quote from Thomas Wiegand in the interview was "The big point about H.264/AVC, why it was successful, is that it gave you the same video quality as the previous standard—H.262/MPEG-2 Video—at half the transmission bit rate. When we come out with another standard, we want to get the same quality as H.264/AVC for half again the bit rate."
 * Remember Grade 5 math now: a 150% increase for example means 2.5x increase, 50% increase is 1.5x more.--70.65.245.94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the maths lesson. To continue it, an n% increase means $$x(1 + \frac{n}{100})$$.  Correspondingly, an n% decrease means $$x(1 - \frac{n}{100})$$.  A "100% decrease" results in a new value of 0.  What you are referring to is commonly known as a "50% decrease".  Oli Filth(talk 07:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, you got it. So, should we change the 50% to 100 in the article or leave it as is? Btw, it's weird how I got quick replies on this dead page. Do you guys consistently monitor this page, or is it a feature for members with a username to add pages to their watchlist?--70.65.245.94 (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you have an account, you can add pages to your watchlist.
 * If the bit-rate has halved, then we should leave it saying "50% more efficient", as that's correct. Oli Filth(talk 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not correct. A "50% bitrate decrease" is equivalent to a "50% efficiency increase." Efficiency means more quality at the same bitrate, or less bitrate for the same quality. If H.265 is twice as efficient, then it would be 100% better and not 50. Prove me wrong?--70.65.245.94 (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Like you said, this is basic maths. Percent.
 * However, I've just noticed that the article itself is phrased as "50% more efficient", whereas this argument started on the premise "a 50% bandwidth saving", which as you say, are not the same. I've managed to get my own pants in a twist in my last post, forgetting that efficiency is inversely proportional to bandwidth.
 * So, it's either "50% decrease in bandwidth", or "100% increase in efficiency" (assuming we're measuring efficiency as frames/bit or something proportional). Or "uses half the bandwidth" would be better.  Oli Filth(talk 18:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hehe. I was assuming you were reading the article during the discussion so, yeah. Lol. Btw, where IS the source that states it will be 50% better? It could've been phrased differently in the ways we've been confusing ourselves in this discussion. The file is a PDF and my reader is uninstalled at the minute, so better check it out and find out EXACTLY what it says and who, because he's probably not credible. I also agree that we should edit it to "is desired to be twice as more efficient than H.264" since "100% better" is provably confusing and can mislead to other interpretations.--70.65.245.94 (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * says "The ink is seemingly hardly dry on the H.264/AVC MPEG4 standard yet the engineers are looking down the road at H.265, and a further 50% saving in bandwidth says Ralf Schaefer, from Germany's prestigious R&D company Fraunhofer, reports Chris Forrester." I agree that this may not be particularly persuasive as a source, so perhaps we either need to find something better, or remove the claim.  Oli Filth(talk 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I knew the editor misread the source. Both Ralf and Thomas Weigand are scientists who've contributed to the development of H.264 and now working on the successor, so I'd think the sources are definitely valid, but the problem is they are both outdated. In 2006-2007 they predicted H.265 would be finished by 2011-2012 and now they now say 2009-2010. Gotta find more current sources. Either way, I'm changing the incorrect "50%" text.--70.65.245.94 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just skim-read the Wiegand reference, and I can't see anything about H.265... Oli Filth(talk 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well don't do that. He says "successor to H.264/AVC" which means H.265.--70.65.245.94 (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. It's pretty buried, but the claim is there... Oli Filth(talk 09:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Does 50% reduction in [computational] complexity refer to encoding or decoding? Does it mean that encoding will be twice as fast, or that slower CPUs/GPUs will be able to play back HD video?--87.162.43.131 (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)