Thread: new h264 codec

Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1 new h264 codec 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    351
    ooops... meant to say new H265 codec


    http://www.eoshd.com/content/11534/n...ty-1-file-size
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member nickjbedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    2,056
    Now that's what I'm talking about... Maybe in a few years our YouTube videos will actually look high quality!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,165
    They are getting better at squeezing ever higher quality images into more compressed lower bandwidth codecs. Fine for delivery formats, but these codecs are also getting very good at throwing out every last bit of data that is not needed to represent the image exactly as it looked when encoded. They are very data thin with not much wiggle room.
    This is the exact opposite of what you want for acquisition where you want rich data in depth for creative manipulation.
    That is why I love raw.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    106
    Thanks, David. YES.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by razz16mm View Post
    They are getting better at squeezing ever higher quality images into more compressed lower bandwidth codecs. Fine for delivery formats, but these codecs are also getting very good at throwing out every last bit of data that is not needed to represent the image exactly as it looked when encoded. They are very data thin with not much wiggle room.
    This is the exact opposite of what you want for acquisition where you want rich data in depth for creative manipulation.
    That is why I love raw.
    Well said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member nickjbedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    2,056
    Quote Originally Posted by razz16mm View Post
    They are getting better at squeezing ever higher quality images into more compressed lower bandwidth codecs. Fine for delivery formats, but these codecs are also getting very good at throwing out every last bit of data that is not needed to represent the image exactly as it looked when encoded. They are very data thin with not much wiggle room.
    This is the exact opposite of what you want for acquisition where you want rich data in depth for creative manipulation.
    That is why I love raw.
    I love raw too, but 265 will be great for online delivery. ProRes, similar and raw will always be better acquisition formats.

    Currently, YT smashes our videos to pieces.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by razz16mm View Post
    They are getting better at squeezing ever higher quality images into more compressed lower bandwidth codecs. Fine for delivery formats, but these codecs are also getting very good at throwing out every last bit of data that is not needed to represent the image exactly as it looked when encoded. They are very data thin with not much wiggle room.
    This is the exact opposite of what you want for acquisition where you want rich data in depth for creative manipulation.
    That is why I love raw.
    Yeah, agreed. This is much more of a big deal for having the film look like your film on the other side.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •