Comments on: Current Status of HVC (High-Performance Video Coding) in MPEG

By: Xpenguin17

Xpenguin17 — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:04:14 +0000

Moreover, now with the advent of mb-tree in x264, there goes your 20% advantage. But this is an example of a more intelligent codec. It can discern one element in the video from another and the loss/efficiency is on a more variable level.

For something to supersede H.264, it would have to abandon the outdated DCT-based concepts and any kind of transform entirely. I’m not talking wavelet ****, as that itself is outdated and hasn’t proven to be any better than DCT transforms.

If “depth” in a 2D image can be somehow defined mathematically and a 3D codec is built then that would be your silver **** bullet in the video codec industry.

By: nader

nader — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:42:22 +0000

Me also I tested Kta2.4r1 with CrowdRun 1080p content as imput and I obtained only a about the 10% of bitrate reduction for the same objective quality. Is there somebody that can confirm this result?

By: Xpenguin17

Xpenguin17 — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:44:12 +0000

I got no idea if any of you admins on this site are affiliated with MPEG/VCEG/whatever but I strongly urge all of you to carefully undergo research and not rush a release of a new standard. Take as long as you want, because whatever H.265 is supposed to be, it should be significantly more advanced than H.264. A 20% increase in efficiency is nothing, and only proves it to be an extension and not a new standard.

H.265 shouldn’t introduce concepts that linearly derive from its predecessor and only improve by a margin. It should be more INTELLIGENT than H.264, e.g. be able to compress cartoons with far greater efficiency than more complex ****. As an example, I had a recording of an old game with fast paced scenes accompanied with rain/snow. MPEG-2 even at 3.5 mbps displayed artifacts (the snow was choking the **** out of it) while H.264 was higher quality at only 350 kbps. While H.264 is only 3-4x better than MPEG-2 for real-life graphics, it was 10x better for this case. Understand what I mean?

H.265 may be the last video standard to be released as bandwidth will be way less of a problem once a nationwide fiber optic networks are built, and I do not wanna be stuck with a weak extension of a video standard that could’ve been much more. Don’t **** this up.

By: Jie Dong

Jie Dong — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:15:23 +0000

Did you follow the common test conditions specified by VCEG? The latest version is VCEG-AJ10. In the last meeting, performances of KTA were reported, as in VCEG-AL14 and VCEG-AL15.

By: annci

annci — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:26:57 +0000

I tested Kta2.4r1, but only got the about the 5% bitrate reduction for the same subjective quality. I don’t know whether my encoding parameters are wrong. Who could tell me the correct papameters or how to get them? Thank you very much!

By: Jie Dong

Jie Dong — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 02:00:32 +0000

VCEG and MPEG have a disagreement on the way to collaborate, but I would not think it is a battle.

By: Wenhao Zhang

Wenhao Zhang — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:51:20 +0000

Is it means the battle between HVC and NGVC has been begun?

By: Mack

Mack — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:34:45 +0000

What’s the difference? And wasn’t H.265 supposed to gain 50% at the SAME complexity?

By: Yu Liu

Yu Liu — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:43:26 +0000

Of course, this 20% objective gain is achieved by more complexity than H.264/AVC. In addition, the goal of 50% bit reduction is for the same subjective quality, instead of objective quality.

By: Mack

Mack — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:29:18 +0000

Also, is the 20% bitrate reduction achieved by less computational complexity than H.264, the same, or more? This doesn’t satisfy the original goal of reaching 50%.