Comments on: Current Status of H.265 (as at July 2008) http://www.h265.net/2008/07/current-status-of-h265.html Witness the development of H.265 Mon, 26 Jul 2010 04:00:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: forrestlem http://www.h265.net/2008/07/current-status-of-h265.html/comment-page-1#comment-2386 forrestlem Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:02:47 +0000 http://www.h265.net/?p=23#comment-2386 H.264 makes many parts predictive while KTA makes many parts adaptive. There truly seems no fundamental change comparing KTA with the previous standards. No wonder VCEG is still waiting for proposals. H.264 makes many parts predictive while KTA makes many parts adaptive. There truly seems no fundamental change comparing KTA with the previous standards. No wonder VCEG is still waiting for proposals.

]]> By: Jie Dong http://www.h265.net/2008/07/current-status-of-h265.html/comment-page-1#comment-2382 Jie Dong Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:24:16 +0000 http://www.h265.net/?p=23#comment-2382 Agree. It's difficult. Agree. It’s difficult.

]]> By: Hui Yuan http://www.h265.net/2008/07/current-status-of-h265.html/comment-page-1#comment-2381 Hui Yuan Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:09:14 +0000 http://www.h265.net/?p=23#comment-2381 Do you really think before year 2010, H265 can achieve its performance? Now, the coding efficiency can be further improved up to 32% than H264/AVC High profile when all the accepted tools were used simutaneously. However , for nearly one year, there are no novel coding technologies accepted by VCEG. Can H.265 really come ture before 2010 under traditional coding frame work? I don't think so, and what's your opinion? I think the H264+ can be realized. Do you really think before year 2010, H265 can achieve its performance?

Now, the coding efficiency can be further improved up to 32% than H264/AVC High profile when all the accepted tools were used simutaneously. However , for nearly one year, there are no novel coding technologies accepted by VCEG.

Can H.265 really come ture before 2010 under traditional coding frame work?

I don’t think so, and what’s your opinion?

I think the H264+ can be realized.

]]> By: Mack http://www.h265.net/2008/07/current-status-of-h265.html/comment-page-1#comment-2334 Mack Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:39:16 +0000 http://www.h265.net/?p=23#comment-2334 I dunno, I don't work for MPEG. I think Danny is right when he speculated that the lower computational complexity is encoder-wise. It could be both for encoding and playback. It would be cool if it would take less to decode, because my machine can play 720p but not 1080p. Then again, my machine sucks and decoding is trivial on modern systems. Encoding is NOT. I dunno, I don’t work for MPEG. I think Danny is right when he speculated that the lower computational complexity is encoder-wise. It could be both for encoding and playback. It would be cool if it would take less to decode, because my machine can play 720p but not 1080p. Then again, my machine sucks and decoding is trivial on modern systems. Encoding is NOT.

]]> By: Michael http://www.h265.net/2008/07/current-status-of-h265.html/comment-page-1#comment-2333 Michael Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:32:41 +0000 http://www.h265.net/?p=23#comment-2333 Mack, according to your reply, if the new brand codec H.265 will require half than H.264 to run fine, then basically, any encoding progress would be faster 2 times than H.264 encoding? Also, if it requires less CPU by 50%, then any machine that run 720p very high quality video that can't run 1080p H.264 video smoothly will be able to do so with H.265? Mack, according to your reply, if the new brand codec H.265 will require half than H.264 to run fine, then basically, any encoding progress would be faster 2 times than H.264 encoding? Also, if it requires less CPU by 50%, then any machine that run 720p very high quality video that can’t run 1080p H.264 video smoothly will be able to do so with H.265?

]]> By: nader http://www.h265.net/2008/07/current-status-of-h265.html/comment-page-1#comment-2329 nader Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:15:55 +0000 http://www.h265.net/?p=23#comment-2329 I would like to know how can I do to show the maximum gain provided by the latest version of the KTA software? in other word what's the best configuration that I must use? Thanks. I would like to know how can I do to show the maximum gain provided by the latest version of the KTA software? in other word what’s the best configuration that I must use?
Thanks.

]]> By: Danny http://www.h265.net/2008/07/current-status-of-h265.html/comment-page-1#comment-2309 Danny Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:22:53 +0000 http://www.h265.net/?p=23#comment-2309 I think the 50% to 3 times range is specified for encoding. For decoding, I can't see how it can be 50% complexity compared to H.264... I think the 50% to 3 times range is specified for encoding. For decoding, I can’t see how it can be 50% complexity compared to H.264…

]]> By: Mack http://www.h265.net/2008/07/current-status-of-h265.html/comment-page-1#comment-2301 Mack Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:24:29 +0000 http://www.h265.net/?p=23#comment-2301 No, it's planned to even be more efficient at half the CPU than H.264. http://www.h265.net/2009/04/the-preliminary-requirements-for-ngvc.html No, it’s planned to even be more efficient at half the CPU than H.264.
http://www.h265.net/2009/04/the-preliminary-requirements-for-ngvc.html

]]> By: hoboX10 http://www.h265.net/2008/07/current-status-of-h265.html/comment-page-1#comment-2300 hoboX10 Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:33:56 +0000 http://www.h265.net/?p=23#comment-2300 Will h.265 be harder for a CPU to decode than h.264? Will h.265 be harder for a CPU to decode than h.264?

]]>