I just bought a GoPro Hero 7 Black and found the attached in the manual.

So, what happens if I want to sell some UHD footage? What do you guys do?

Yes it's a bit of a conundrum for sure. How much the H.265 thing is going to be policed will be interesting. I posted the comments below elsewhere but I think it's worth repeating so that users get an idea of what is behind H.265 and its licensing. This issue is going to come up with as you mention GoPro and the new Canon XF705 as it also uses a 422 10-bit variant of H.265. if you have ever edited with it you will also note that it does take a pretty decent CPU/GPU setup to handle it in a half decent manner.

"Coming back to H.265. I'm not as enthused about its future as some due to the licensing cost issues surrounding HEVC (H.265) and the wide lack of acceptance by the broader non broadcast industry not picking up H.265. One only has to look at the major players moving away from H.265 as per comments on the current state of play with industry response to HEVC. Whilst it is a great codec, everything I have done with it has impressed me doesn't alter the fact that MPEG LA the licensing body for H.265 have kind of shot themselves in the foot by going from a doubling the license fees and in some cases going up to as high as twenty-eight times the licensing cost for HEVC over AVC. That along with licensing fees on the content are giving HEVC a serious uphill battle. See the following quote"

"HEVC contains technologies covered by patents owned by the organizations that participated in the JCT-VC. Implementing a device or software application that uses HEVC may require a license from HEVC patent holders. The ISO/IEC and ITU require companies that belong to their organizations to offer their patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing (RAND) terms. Patent licenses can be obtained directly from each patent holder, or through patent licensing bodies, such as MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, and Velos Media. The combined licensing fees currently offered by all of the patent licensing bodies are higher than for AVC. The licensing fees are one of the main reasons HEVC adoption has been low on the web and is why some of the largest tech companies (Amazon, AMD, Apple, ARM, Cisco, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix, Nvidia, and more) have joined the Alliance for Open Media, which aimed to finalize the royalty-free alternative video coding format AV1 by the end of 2017. An initial version of the AV1 specification was eventually released on 28 March, 2018."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_E...ch2017Yahoo-55

When it comes to royalty free and when you have the likes Amazon, AMD, Apple, ARM, Cisco, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix and Nvidia supporting a codec in opposition to H.265 I for one, not wishing to be pessimistic, do not see a major adoption of H.265 across the board. This is one of Sony's stated reasons for not going down the H.265 route in their cameras even though they are a licensed HEVC member. Once the royalty free AV1 codec becomes available to all and sundry I see no impediment to it being widely adopted by the NLE industry, Adobe have already signed up. Royalty free, those two words alone say a lot in any cost driven media industry. There is a very serious consortium of players forming up against HEVC. Check out some of the major players.

https://aomedia.org/

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2018/0...-video-codecs/

Chris Young

It’s déjà vu all over again! We went through all of this before (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/distribution-center/473958-h-264-legal-minefield-video-pros.html) when H.264-based cameras were introduced, so surely if this was going to be a problem, you would have some specific examples of this happening to point to by now, right?

Thanks for the detailed reply Chris, 'tis a riddle to be sure. None of my searching has come up with anything concrete, with no help from the GoPro manual: "Set the file format for your videos. Choose HEVC (to reduce file sizes) or H.264 + HEVC (to use H.264 to maximize compatibility with older devices while using HEVC for advanced settings)" and no explanation as to what the advanced settings are! (Protune presumably?)

I was wondering what, for example, the wedding guys who use more consumer orientated cameras (GH5 etc.) and shoot 4k do. I doubt it will ever be a big issue for me, at least I hope not, but one never knows.

I was going to say I recall something similar when h264 was introduced, but you beat me to it Gary. Hopefully you're right.

I suppose it would be too simple to expect when you buy a camera you pay any codec licence as part of the price.

Worth noting is that not all footage content benefits from the additional compression routines employed in .h265 / HEVC, compared to the results in 'only' .h264 / mp4 which it is effectively an extension of.

I suspect that .h264 is going to be good enough for the rest of this, with other issues such as internet bandwidth constraints no longer the issue that they once were during the .h264 heyday. This, combined with their desire to monetise the new codec in the fashion they are used to, should see the death of .h265 as an outright successor compression scheme.

Andrew

This, combined with their desire to monetise the new codec in the fashion they are used to, should see the death of .h265 as an outright successor compression scheme.

H.265 will replace H.264 just like H.264 replaced MPEG-2.

And as for "monetise the new codec in the fashion they are used to", what do you mean by this? If they are "used to" it as you claim, then surely you have some examples in the vein of what concerns are being voiced here.

I just bought a GoPro Hero 7 Black and found the attached in the manual.

So, what happens if I want to sell some UHD footage? What do you guys do?

If you want to sell your footage, transcode to something else prior to delivery - there would be no way for anyone to know how it was sourced if you are delivering say a ProRes clip for instance.

MPEG LA has been a pain in the arse for years. Many many years ago I was getting scary letters from them basically saying if I make DVDs or do anything with MPEG-2 that I owed them money. I took it personal at first and was very concerned then realized they likely sent the same form letter to every videographer in the country.

Cheers

Jeff

Hi Gary,

Per Jeff's post, MPEG LA have the sole interest of monetising the patents. No, I don't have any particular stories off the top of my head, but we can be thankful for the work that Google did with their competing codec (VP8 I believe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8)) which in turn forced a bit of a royalty holiday (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/26/mpegla_v_google/) for .h264 to prevent large installs moving to it (and away from .h264).

When I talk of .h264 being good enough, I'm saying that there isn't a burning need to move to a better quality codec or format in the mind of the consumer. The man on the street can see the difference between VHS and DVD, but not so much between DVD and Blu-Ray. It's still an improvement, but just not the same quantum leap that makes you want to purchase new gear.

.h265/HEVC will replace .h264/mp4 but not in the same extent or speed, similar to Blu-Ray replacing DVDs. I for one have no plans to stop doing encodes to .h264.

Andrew

No, I don't have any particular stories off the top of my head

Full stop, nor will you ever.

The man on the street can see the difference between VHS and DVD, but not so much between DVD and Blu-Ray.

The man on the street doesn't know the difference between a DVX100 or a Red Gemini, but you don't see movies being shot with the former in 2018, so enough with that nonsense.

h265/HEVC will replace .h264/mp4 but not in the same extent or speed

Exactly the same extent and speed.

Gary,

I'm not a walking encyclopedia and neither do I have time to go down every alley of an argument - I still need to get work done. I could tell you of stories told to myself by DVD replicators that the only manufacturing plants that made a profitable return on investment were the illegal ones and not those properly licensed with MPEG LA, but there is no internet link for that type of thing.

Did you know there are movies shot with an iPhone? This one was even done this year - see here for details (https://petapixel.com/2018/01/30/steven-soderbergh-shot-latest-film-iphone-heres-trailer/). This article in Variety (https://variety.com/2018/film/news/unsane-tangerine-films-iphones-1202730676/) lists 12 movies shot this way.

Andrew

I'm not a walking encyclopedia and neither do I have time to go down every alley of an argument

If you can't back up what you say, then you shouldn't say anything.

I could tell you of stories told to myself by DVD replicators that the only manufacturing plants that made a profitable return on investment were the illegal ones and not those properly licensed with MPEG LA, but there is no internet link for that type of thing.

Don't need a link, but you don't even name the DVD replicator company or link to their bankruptcy listing, so cool story, bro.

Did you know there are movies shot with an iPhone? This one was even done this year - see here for details (https://petapixel.com/2018/01/30/steven-soderbergh-shot-latest-film-iphone-heres-trailer/). This article in Variety (https://variety.com/2018/film/news/unsane-tangerine-films-iphones-1202730676/) lists 12 movies shot this way.

Sure, what percentage of those 12 movies shot over the span of a decade is out of the entirety of films shot on the highest end cameras available? Hint: it's nothing.

Gary,

This is getting a bit silly. You can see from my posts that I give links to further information and give reason for what I say wherever possible. Not everything is on the internet.

Andrew

If you want to sell your footage, transcode to something else prior to delivery - there would be no way for anyone to know how it was sourced if you are delivering say a ProRes clip for instance.Thanks Jeff, just the sort of information I was looking for. It's what I suspected, but confirmation makes me feel a lot happier.

It had to be nearly 20 years ago that I got the letter from MPEG LA about MPEG-2 licensing. I think I was using DVD Workshop authoring software at the time, and I'm thinking, "If I'm supposed to be paying something for every MPEG-2 DVD that I encode, why is there not some mechanism for that in the software that is making the MPEG-2 file to begin with?" Meaning, I bought and paid for the software to make the MPEG-2 files, then out of the blue I get this letter that I am not in compliance. How is that my fault?

Look in the owner's manual of any recent camcorder and you will see legalese in there about how the recordings are for personal use only, not commercial use. What??!!!

Don't sweat it

Thanks

Jeff

It had to be nearly 20 years ago that I got the letter from MPEG LA about MPEG-2 licensing.

And? The story is missing an ending. Do you even know if it really was from MPEG LA? How did they find out about you? What kind of numbers were you doing with DVD Workshop? How did you resolve the situation? Did you just ignore it?

I think they just sent that letter to EVERY video company in the phone book is what it was. Carpet bomb the country with scary letters and see what shakes out. I was just a work-at-home dad making DVDs for weddings, school plays, dance recitals. I lost some sleep over it for a few nights, all worried someone was coming after me for some evil wrongdoing. Then I came to my sense and realized they were fishing. Never heard from them again.

Thanks

Jeff

So you don't even know for sure if it was legitimately from MPEG LA?

So you don't even know for sure if it was legitimately from MPEG LA?

Yes, it definitely was from MPEG LA, it was official letterhead and such

it was official letterhead and such

No one could ever fake a letterhead!

Gary,

Your posts all seem adversarial, to me and others. I don't know what you're getting at.

I'm stupid? I've been duped?

I got the letter, it was real, I lost sleep over it at the time.

Best regards,

Jeff

I got the letter, it was real, I lost sleep over it at the time.

You got a letter, not sure if it was real or not. You don't remember what it said exactly, I cannot find evidence of anyone else getting such a letter, and you sure don't seem to have posted anything about it. Did it even purport to be from MPEG-LA? Perhaps you're misremembering what you got claiming to be from the MPAA instead?

You're responding to a post that is based on an irrational fear that using any camera that shoots H.264 or H.265 might open an operator up to legal action. You responded with a claim that you cannot verify, backup, or even demonstrate was even from the group in question. Doing something like that is, in my opinion, FUD and contributes nothing of value. Until you can demonstrate evidence that MPEG-LA was, indeed, going around sending threatening letters to small operators like yourself in order to get some payouts, and knowing the human memory is absolutely not reliable, I'm not going to let your little anecdote go unchallenged.

What is your deal? I never said I "wasn't sure" if it was real or not, that's you.

This was about 18-20 years ago, because still at my old home when I was a full-time videographer.

I received a letter from MPEG LA explaining that they were in charge of handling the MPEG-2 rights and royalties and that if I was producing MPEG-2 videos, I was supposed to be paying them.

I'd never heard of them before, so you can bet I looked them up online and found that yes indeed, they were in charge of that stuff. I at first thought I was being singled out, like they "caught me" or something, but I came to realize they were likely sending out thousands of these letters to videographers all over the country. So I simply did not respond. End of story.

It was NOT a scam, it was from MPEG LA. It did NOT instruct me to get $400 worth of Green Dot cards from Walgreen's in the next 4 hours or face arrest.

I don't get why you are being so weird about this whole subject. Basically calling other people liars or something.

Gary becomes adversarial in many of his posts. I have found it best just to ignore him.

So what, exactly, is the takeaway from your post? Are you recommending that people refrain from utilizing any cameras that record to a codec that MPEG-LA holds the patent on? If not, why not?

Agreed re Gary. Enough.

Andrew

You're responding to a post that is based on an irrational fear that using any camera that shoots H.264 or H.265 might open an operator up to legal action.No he is not! It is not an irrational fear, it is a notice in the GoPro manual, in a prominent place, warning that the licence is limited. My question was what do others do about this, not when can I expect to be arrested by the patent police.:-)

My question was what do others do about this, not when can I expect to be arrested by the patent police.:-)

You've already heard from Andrew that DVD distributors in Australia were driven out of business by the MPEG-LA licensing fees. You read that Jeff was sent a letter letting him know that he might owe royalties, which he lucked out on by simply ignoring and not consulting with a lawyer.

I think what you and others should do is very clear. Not use a GoPro for anything other than home movie captures. It's just too risky.

Gary, I was making a point, not asking the question again. But thanks anyway.

You are literally left with only a single option, I was making that more clear than before.

Further demonstration that HEVC isn't the replacement codec everyone thought it was going to be, with h.264 being extended to performing encodes of 4K content at even 60P. This video is of one of the Matrox people talking in 2017 about what has been learned by experience.

AV over IP - what is the voice of experience saying to us? | AVTV On Demand - YouTube

Granted, this is within the context of Video over IP (networks) for streaming to multiple destinations such as signage displays etc, but the common issue is generating encodes that work within a certain bandwidth and still deliver the required quality.

In addition to the awesome hardware video encoders such as the ('my precious' :-) ) MXO2 I/O box and encoder, and the Monarch HDX streaming gear, Matrox also more recently developed the Maevex (https://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/video_over_ip/maevex-6100/quad-4k-encoder-card/) series of hardware video encoders for 4K streaming and recording. Note the specifications page (https://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/video_over_ip/maevex-6100/quad-4k-encoder-card/specs/) and the video encoding codecs available: H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10 (AVC) only.

Andrew

Copied from the Cinelerra GG website:

"There’s news from the codec world.

The promising new codec named AV1 has been released in version 0.1. This new version promises much better processing speeds. The AV1 is mainly based on VP9 and additions from Daala, Thor and VP10. Compared to H.264 and H.265, this codec compresses much more, the files are about half the size, with the same picture quality.

The AV1 codec development is being pushed forward by Mozilla, Google, Cisco, Amazon, Netflix, AMD, ARM, Intel and Nvidia under the umbrella of the company AOMedia to replace the expensive and licensed codec’s h.264 and h.265."

Let's hope it does what it is designed for, but it's too late for all of us that have cameras with h.264 or h.265. Who doesn't? I suppose firmware updates are out of the question?:-)

I suppose firmware updates are out of the question?:-)

Yes they are because cameras use dedicated chipsets to encode.

Clearly you should not be using H.265-based cameras for anything or, as anecdotally evidenced here, you open yourself open to legal liability.