H.265 has been frequently discussed over the last 6 months. See our tutorial and first manufacturer announcement. However, what's the real interest in using such cameras?
I think this is natural revolution; we had MJPEG, MPEG4, H.264, and now H.265. This will help also to adapt the MP cameras more quickly since the bandwidth will be reduced and in turn the required storage will be reduced.
This needs to become mainstram with real products available on the market. Its very interresting and throws a curve ball to those looking to increase network links just to accomodate the expanded use of IP video.
Once it becomes mainstream it certainlly won't revolutionize anything but as far as my company is concerned I think the most positive benefits will be for large wireless deployments where every Kb counts.
Once it is mainstream I know that my company will quickly jump on board as we are always looking for the latest and greatest technology.
I think H.265 will be the necessary 4K counterpart.
Finally, someone bringing the two together :)
I am curious when that will happen, at the very least, it's buzzword heaven!
In all seriousness, one of the interesting things will be the increased bitrate of 4K streams vs 1080p. It's 4x the pixels but given inter-frame codec savings, it's likely to be 2x more bandwidth/storage on average. But that's still not trivial (e.g., going from a 4Mb/s 1080p/30 to an 8Mb/s 4K/30). And you probably won't get much benefit of the extra pixels unless it's a real wide scene (see our 1080p vs 4K test results).
I personally am taking a wait-and-see attitude. Yes, lower bandwidth is nice, but the tradeoff is loss of fine detail. If you are compressing the heck out of a 5 or 10mp video stream, are you materially better off than using a lower MP camera with lower compression settings?
Dennis, the point of H.265 is that it will deliver the same quality (no loss of fine details) at lower bitrates, theoretically. How much lower remains to be seen / tested.
The problem I find is that H.26X is a standard with many components. Use one component can you call it H.26X. As a result you cannot compare camera to camera without knowing what components are used and how they are used. Additionally, where does the compression take place, at the camera or the recorder is another important question.
For me it is all about storage and bandwidth. If you have plenty of both don't use compression.
Certainly the goal is no loss of fine detail, but some loss is unavoidable by the compression process. Whether the loss is noticeable or not is the key to whether the compression scheme will be acceptable. As we go to higher and higher MP counts in cameras (affordable 10MP cameras now coming to market), compression implementation will become a greater issue. As you say, it will be interesting to see how H.265 compression rates and fine detail compare to H.264.
IPVMU Certified | 11/04/13 03:02pm
I can see the usefulness of 4K really only applying to wide FOV cameras, particularly the 180 panoramic and 360 hemispheric. Once the pixels/bandwidth/storage issues are improved by the H.265 technology, there are still problems to solve. It seems to me that the #1 weakest link in the chain will be low-light performance of the new cameras so that they can be successfully and cost-effectively deployed in 'big scene' exterior situations and still achieve the desired depth-of-field. My guess it the #2 issue will become lense quality. Better and more accurate imagers will reveal the permanent imperfections of the glass.