Having spent time reading the standards recently (and implementing some toy decoders) I've noticed a pattern in video codec designs, starting from the very first one:<p><pre><code> H.261 - simple, not much more than MJPEG with P-frames.
MPEG-1 - basically '261 with B-frames, pretty simple
MPEG-2/H.262 - MPEG-1 with more complex interlacing stuff
H.263 - no more interlacing, better low-bitrate performance
MPEG-4 - absurd complexity that no one turned out to use most of anyway (3D scenes, face animation(!?), etc.)
H.264 - back to regular video, with better I prediction
H.265 - complex again?
</code></pre>
Of course they do get more complex over time, but it seems like a cycle that alternates between incremental-yet-significant changes and huge redesigns that don't seem quite worth it.
I wonder if there is an article that compares X265 and <a href="https://github.com/intel/SVT-HEVC" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/intel/SVT-HEVC</a> (in terms of speed, feature set, required hardware, software license, etc..) ?
From completely personal opinion and that of close friends:<p>x265 movies look way cleaner while having way smaller file sizes.<p>Also it's the best tradeoff between quality/filesize by factor of 2 or more.
I'd personally notice artifacts in x264 movies unless they were over 7gb in size. With x265 i'll grab a 3gb version of a movie in a heartbeat (well a few heartbeats on gigabit fiber :) and not worry about picture quality at all.<p>at 15gigs or more for a 1080p movie x264 is pretty much perfect, unless you really want to see the film-grain.
Am I the only one who came to TFA looking for a screaming ThinkPad with a 7-row keyboard? <i><snaps fingers></i><p>(downvotes—rly? That really was my first thought when I saw the title ...)