Excellent.

Done :-) Form filled in.

H.265 is marching

MediaTek today announced the MT8127, a performance-leading quad-core tablet System on Chip (SoC) that offers full hardware support for the new HEVC (H.265) video playback standard. Optimized and highly integrated support for H.265 video playback allows videos to play with an average of up to 50 percent less video bandwidth compared to the previous H.264 standard.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mediatek-announces-mt8127-system-on-chip-with-hevc-video-playback-support-for-quad-core-tablets-261345091.html

We will likely not see broadcast and "streaming services" to catch up in quality to Bluray recordings by using H.265, instead they will continue to serve the same mushy and compression artefact ridden crap as currently at even more insanely low bandwidths.

H.265 will start from torrents :-) It is already used, btw :-)

Also good slow encoder can make magic. If x265 will be same polished as x264 it'll be useful.

All good PCs can play H.265 with partial hardware acceleration.

I would buy it if it did not have digital rain. At 24p.

Cinemartin

The fastest H265 converter, time saving, and easy tool. Free.

http://mybd.cinemartin.com/

For the fun of it, and to test whether a friend's 4k TV was able to replay it, I recently re-encoded a 4k test video that I had published as h.264 using 32 MBit/s also as a h.265 video using 16 MBit/s:

• 3840 x 2160 24p H.264 encoded at 32 MBit/s (size ~1.1GB)
• 3840 x 2160 24p H.265 encoded at 16 MBit/s (size ~550MB)

While both versions look reasonably good, I cannot completely subscribe to the "same quality at half the size" claim. When I look e.g. at the subtly structured ocher colored outside of the bungalow at 10s into the video, h.264 at 32MBit/s has retained visibly more details than h.265 at 16MBit/s.

(Encoding was done with x264 and x265 using the default preset, both share most of their core encoding source code, so differences can be attributed to the capabilities of the codec at the bitrates used. The original video recording by the camera was using h.264 at 100MBit/s.)

Rockchip stated that they will have H.265 support in all of their chips, including RK3368, RK3288.

The HEVC Advance patent pool will address marketplace demand for an additional licensing option of HEVC essential patents. Utilizing a balanced business model for HEVC IP commercialization, HEVC Advance will provide an efficient and transparent means for accessing and licensing HEVC essential patents. HEVC Advance expects to attract a critical mass of intellectual property (IP) holders, with more than 500 essential patents expected to be available for license at launch, with the number of patents expected to grow significantly.

http://cinescopophilia.com/with-the-hevc-advance-patent-pool-did-4k-video-just-get-more-expensive/

Greed seems to be wild

HEVC Advance wants 0.5% of content owners attributable gross revenue for each HEVC Video type.

HEVC Advance says their licensing terms are “retroactive to date of 1st sale”, so companies would be required to make payments on content they have already distributed using HEVC. In addition to content owners, HEVC Advance is also going after CE manufacturers of TV, mobile and streaming devices. TV manufacturers would have to pay $1.50 per unit and mobile devices incur a cost of $0.80 per unit. Streaming boxes, cable set-top-boxes, game consoles, Blu-ray players, digital video recorders, digital video projectors, digital media storage devices, personal navigation devices and digital photo frames would cost a manufacturer $1.10 per unit.

Licensing groups typically don’t go after content owners; instead they go to hardware and platform vendors in the market who are customers of content distributors. But in this case, HEVC Advance is going directly after content owners and isn’t asking CDNs, encoding vendors or others in the video ecosystem to license their patents.

Another big problem is that there are no caps on the proposed royalties. This creates an immense burden for Internet-based technologies and software applications that may be looking to incorporate HEVC, since there is, in most cases, no realistic way of predicting what percentage of your content will be consumed using HEVC each month. Secondly, the 0.5% royalty on all revenues attributable to HEVC-based content is, to put it mildly, a loose cannon.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/07/new-patent-pool-wants-share-of-revenue-from-content-owners.html

@JohnTollwannabe

Original MPEG-LA is really same, just less greedy.

Corporations now produce thousands of fake patents (mostly on conceptual designs and algorithms - things that must not be patentable). Later they just make standard in such a way so as much patents as possible could be used in litigations.

Government standards boards of different countries and international organizations just suck their dick in the corner and do not make a sound.