Why not use H.265?
 

I know Adobe Premiere Pro can export to H.265, but I don't see too many posts about it? And when this is the case I assume there is a reason and I'm trying to match that with my misunderstanding, as usually this is the case. What's the deal?

As much as TPTB want it to be the next format, it may never happen. H.264 is firmly entrenched, and H.265 has not dislodged it. The longer it drags on this way, the more likely than an H.264 successor is some other format entirely. This is common, has happened this way for decades, even pre-digital. Simply saying "this is next" doesn't make it so. Winners are decided by a mix of consumers and deep pocket companies.

The last time I really shot video was pre-digital, when the main choices were S-VHS and Hi8. This time, I'll be somewhat bleeding edge, shooting with Nikon Z6 II, recording H.265 on an Atomos Ninja V, editing it on a Mac Mini M2. But I can assure you that my final project output will be H.264, not 265. And any intermediaries will be ProRes. The main reason for the H.265 is to save space. I'll have lots of raw footage, because I really will not have the skill to edit my shots. So shoot first, sort later, along with crossed fingers and prayer.

The most H.265 that I've really seen out there is actually x265, mostly from "the scene" (underground video community). Even then, it's for size compression, nothing else. Not really anything mainstream, neither streaming/Youtube nor broadcast.

Premiere can export lots of things nobody really uses.

The man on the internet told me that there that H.265 was better than H2.64 in every way, lol. I knew about it sAvInG sPaCe, but I also heard claims that it preserved quality. Why stick with H.264? Is there simply a better compatibility? Why do you prefer it?

Also regarding x265 uhh.... You know I've seen this around and sort of assumed it was something different but part of the same thing as H.265 in some... way. I didn't consider this and had forgotten about x265. Now I have to read up on that and learned the difference for real this time.

H.265 isn't better, just different. For 4K and above, sure, advantages. For HD and SD, not really much of anything, aside from file size.

The main problem is the CPU required for both encode and decode, which is why it doesn't have wide adoption. We're just now getting to where bleeding edge systems (example: Apple M2) can handle it decently. Processing will remain a concern, so a lower-CPU format has a chance to usurp it.

x264/x265 are reverse engineered free versions. Not better or worse, also different. Though some aspects are inferior, while others are superior. Mixed bag.

You would think his is something that would be overcome in time but in reality, it doesn't always happen. It came out in 2013? Adoption is an interesting thing and definitely not a science. It makes sense that if the benefit of H.265 for SD video is considerably less given what it's being used for, you might as well stick to H.264 for the less CPU requirement.

I have been watching videos/reading up on explanations between the differences in formats being codecs/containers. ExplainingComputer.com had a decent introductory video. Some of this was info I had learned at one point in time and completely brain dumped, but in the past as a kid this was all magic nonsense to me.

That's true, but not in every way.

Compared to H.264, at low/medium bitrate, H.265 can provide same quality at two-thirds of the bitrate (i.e. size) or at half of the bitrate depending on the content. At high bitrate the differences are less evident.
However, not all devices support it, and it requires more computation effort to encode/decode.

It is now / it will widely used in Europe for TV broadcast in DVB-T2, to free frequencies for 5G and next generations, and in DVB-S2.

I still use good old MPEG-4 AVC :wink2:

Yes but no. It does always eventually happen, but how long? That's the issue. And newer better methods may need less processing, hence cheaper chips in devices that play it. Race against time and money.

That's it. And the chip shortage of 20-21 is not over, and won't be for years. That situation affects this situation, and further delays it. Those delays may make it vaporware.

Interesting. :hmm:

I quit paying attention to what Europe DVB does years ago. Why? Because it tends to change often, unlike North America, or even Asia. They change the DVB specs at a whim, and it quickly obsoletes methods and info. In my studio day, I had to ingest non-source source that was in DVB broadcast delivery formatting. In my pre/post studio days, I've worked with documentary filmmakers that had to abide by broadcast specs. Sometimes documentaries took so long (not uncommon), that we'd have to shift output before it was even done. I got to where I no longer output until the client confirms the specs one last time, because it's a waste of time to pointlessly encode and unneeded encode.

Yes. In Europe we switched from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 AVC, for both DVB-S and DVB-T, some years ago and in Italy you could receive a 50/100 euro bonus for replacing a not adequate receiver. The same is planned for the transition to HEVC (H.265) scheduled middle 2023. Behind all this changes a mix of technical/political reasons.