H.265 HEVC for Canon Cinema Cameras?

[Jack Zhang]

It's still Main profile, not High Throughput.

High Throughput is designed for acquisition and mastering, with intra only modes and much lower compression ratios, due to the ridiculously high maximum bitrate allowed, Think of it as the new MPEG-4 SSP (HDCAM SR) for 4K and 8K and beyond.

There is going to be a "HDV" "subjective quality" uproar again with the introduction of HEVC recording in the professional realm.

But I guess it all doesn't matter if it's convenient.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

There is going to be a "HDV" "subjective quality" uproar again with the introduction of HEVC recording in the professional realm. But I guess it all doesn't matter if it's convenient.

It won't be just "convenient". It will not be the "HDV" "subjective quality" uproar again at all. Not even close.

I'd be curious to see what your HEVC-based project is where you had quality problems. I did a project back in February which was primarily HEVC from Filmic Pro and a GoPro Hero 6 (a promo that included rainforest hiking and rafting). I have zero of the issues you have brought up, and that's from consumer camera sources.

[Jack Zhang]

Well if you must know, my gauge of HEVC compression is from end delivery, and then translating that to how it might complicate things for acquisition.

[Gary Huff]

You have no experience with HEVC as an acquisition codec?

[Jack Zhang]

I could have been watching Demo videos from consumer Demo TV sets with HEVC encoded content from LEGAL SOURCES at a Best Buy.

And just cause I don't produce that content now, doesn't invalidate all the points about how gradients are quantisized. Yet you go on the attack with wild assumptions of inexperience just cause you can.

Quit it.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

I could have been watching Demo videos from consumer Demo TV sets with HEVC encoded content from LEGAL SOURCES at a Best Buy.

Because then you'd be talking about UHD Blu-ray discs, and that content absolutely does not suffer from any of what you've been complaining about.

And just cause I don't produce that content now, doesn't invalidate all the damn points about how gradients are quantisized.

You don't get that information from watching UHD Blu-ray demo displays at Best Buy. You get that from working with FFMPEG and x265 encoded Blu-ray rips.

[Jack Zhang]

Again, stupid projections and anti-FFmpeg bias with ProRes and their stupid implementation of ProRes. You decided to count FFmpeg as unprofessional and x265 as only used by pirates.

I was not watching the UHD Blu-rays. The demos were legally installed INTO THE TVs with pre-licensed content.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

I was not watching the UHD Blu-rays. The demos were legally installed INTO THE TVs with pre-licensed content.

Then you were watching H.264 encodes, not HEVC, thus you cannot tell the difference between the two and would fail a blind test.

Overall, the HEVC-based codec in the Canon XF705 will be perfectly fine to capture what the sensor is delivering. No one should be concerned, except for the obvious performance hit on older machines.

[Jack Zhang]

How can you actually prove that without asking the manufacturer directly? It could be a mezzanine format you export to the manufacturer is H.264 then they recompress it to fit on the flash memory inside the TVs in HEVC.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

How can you actually prove that without asking the manufacturer directly?

If you don't know, then why are you automatically assuming it's HEVC? How did they display 4K before HEVC was viable? With H.264. Why would a TV manufacturer re-encode all their demo videos into HEVC? They wouldn't. So again, it's probably H.264 and you're just making an assumption? And then want to post here about how terrible of a codec it is? All compressed codecs are terrible at low bitrates. You might as well complain about ProResHQ in an Alexa or a Red Weapon not being a good choice because ProRes Proxy is ugly.

HEVC is a great new codec, and it's implementation in the XF705 is very interesting. I'd like to see Canon do that for the C300 Mark III in some respects, though the XF-AVC codec performs quite well on my current editing system. That would be my only concern about it.

[Jack Zhang]

Why? Space efficiency. The TVs only have a certain amount of flash memory for the Smart functions for it's operating system, and the demo videos.

You're speaking for yourself when you don't know a thing about FFmpeg and how widespread use it is for ACTUAL BROADCAST STUFF like converting stuff to DNxHD. Resolve uses FFmpeg on Windows.

Is Resolve suddenly invalid for using FFmpeg? For ProRes, yes. (DEFINITELY YES on Windows) For everything else, no.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

Why? Space efficiency. The TVs only have a certain amount of flash memory for the Smart functions for it's operating system, and the demo videos.

Which was still enough for the original 4K displays when they were all H.264 from years ago when they first launched.

[Jack Zhang]

IN THE PAST.

Manufacturers have to take note of device resources and find better ways to allocate it.

This has dragged on for way too long. I'm done with this.