New H.265 twice as efficient as H.264!

[vargo]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Nice explanation ….plus, you already answered the next part of the question I was ready to pose…i.e. “the promised efficiency gain” part of the puzzle.

Anyway, to tease apart the time intervals, I think it will take about 2 years to get the time to encode (equal quality) close to that of x264, at which milestone you will get a 20-30% efficiency vs. x264. Higher encoding efficiency (40-50%) will take 2 more years in order to come to fruition. So, ultimately, I think we reach the same conclusion.

Anyway, so that the bidness thinking folks don’t feel left out of the discussion by only concentrating on the technical aspects of HEVC, here’s a question for dem business types….

Remember this past statement by MPEG LA….. http://www.mpegla.com/main/PID/HEVC/default.aspx

Question: Who are some of the prominent IP owners (companies) not on the list of supporters and potentially what is the significance of their absence?

You're probably not far off.

When H.264 was introduced, the encoding complexity was a big deal, amatuers and professionals alike complained about how much longer it took.

In the years following, multi-core processors became the norm and H.264 encoders were highly optimised to work well with multiple threads. Nowadays on a modern machine you can actually encode x264 faster than Xvid and still yield better compression. It makes better use of the available cores.

But on a very powerful multi-core system you can still struggle to get 100% CPU utilisation with x264 and I expect that's one area where HEVC encoder developers will be keen to improve.

[Penton-Man]

How about the F/U question? Can you name any of the companies, or would you prefer to hand that one off to the bidness crew?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by vargo

You're probably not far off.

I don't like giving predictions but, it's just something people should be aware of.