MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: H265 vs H264  (Read 3466 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 11, 2019, 12:45 »
0
Hello, i've been doing some research on this two codecs, and i couldn't really decide which one is better for stock. Any suggestions much appreciated !


wds

« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2019, 20:50 »
+2
H264 is much more common but less efficient than the newer H265. Check the submission requirements of the sites you are interested in uploading to and make a decision.

« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2019, 05:26 »
+2
Hello, i've been doing some research on this two codecs, and i couldn't really decide which one is better for stock. Any suggestions much appreciated !

You can break it down like this:

Size vs quality.

Ease of use for the buyer (editing speed).

If you have ever edited a real project, like a short film, you know that h265 is a pain in the... h264 is better, but intra-frame codecs like ProRes are the best. Much, much easier for the computer to handle, which means editing ProRes is a dream compared to h265, which is a nightmare.

h265 is more effective than h264, which means better quality at the same filesize, but the buyer would likely have to convert it to another format before editing.

The middle ground is h264, OK to edit with, and good filesize.

I prefer doing everything with intra-frame codecs, UNLESS the filesize becomes too big. So for a 30-sec 4k clip, I would probably choose h264 over ProRes, but ProRes for the majority of my clips, especially if they're only in HD.

If you have timelapses or other clips you've shot in RAW, you can retain more color information (10-bit vs. 8-bit) with ProRes or h265.

Inter-frame codecs are delivery codecs first and foremost, while intra-frame codecs are intermediate editing codecs.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 05:30 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2019, 07:27 »
0
I don't know if the codec H265 is already acceptable for stock industry. I check Adobe Stock, Pond5 and Shutterstock video requirements but I didnt find this codec on their list. Anyone already try to upload footage with this new codec?


« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2019, 06:56 »
+3
Hello, i've been doing some research on this two codecs, and i couldn't really decide which one is better for stock. Any suggestions much appreciated !

H.265 is significantly better in both file size and visual quality.  Think of it as a more advanced version of H.264.  However, it comes at a cost where computers need a lot more processing power to play it back. 

I think there will be a move to H.265 over time, but H.264 is so ubiquitous that it will be a long time before it goes away.  Today, Adobe Stock does not support H.265, but I hope to add it some day in the future for our customers and artists. 

Hope this helps,
Dennis

« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2019, 13:13 »
+1
Hello, i've been doing some research on this two codecs, and i couldn't really decide which one is better for stock. Any suggestions much appreciated !

H.265 is significantly better in both file size and visual quality.  Think of it as a more advanced version of H.264.  However, it comes at a cost where computers need a lot more processing power to play it back. 

I think there will be a move to H.265 over time, but H.264 is so ubiquitous that it will be a long time before it goes away.  Today, Adobe Stock does not support H.265, but I hope to add it some day in the future for our customers and artists. 

Hope this helps,
Dennis

Thanks Dennis for explaining this.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3183 Views
Last post May 13, 2013, 07:16
by lucy
12 Replies
16297 Views
Last post December 02, 2015, 11:02
by stuttershock
9 Replies
3865 Views
Last post January 25, 2017, 11:34
by izzikiorage
8 Replies
5697 Views
Last post September 03, 2017, 10:43
by PeterChigmaroff
5 Replies
1455 Views
Last post June 18, 2019, 01:09
by Brightontl

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results