Is there any file size comparison H.265 VS H.264 on Viofos?

[ste2002]

Taken the same duration/resolution/bit rate? Currently looking to benefit on footage length by trading V2 for V3.
Thanks.

 

[kamkar]

I don't feel this is a issue with current cameras, unless you have a really small memory card.
Okay H.265 making smaller files also mean a smaller wear on memory card, but again i cant see this matter much in the long run.

 

[ste2002]

I feel like inserting 128-256 Gb SD and forgetting the all thing for some month or two (more is better - for me, of course) still be sure that 2-month old video is still there and I can still access it. Just in case. Hope it explains my question.

 

[Yooshaw]

I did a comparison - roughly speaking, on the high bitrate setting, H265 was saving about 100-110 MB per 3 minute segment.

 

[Nigel]

H265 does not save much file size for dashcam video, and if it does then you lose image quality, it is not a reason to buy the V3. The image quality is the reason to buy the V3.

 

[Dashmellow]

I feel like inserting 128-256 Gb SD and forgetting the all thing for some month or two (more is better - for me, of course) still be sure that 2-month old video is still there and I can still access it. Just in case. Hope it explains my question.

Keep in mind that many entities you may need to submit your dash cam footage to such as certain police departments, lawyers, insurance companies, courts of law and municipalities still use older computers and software that will not be able to play H.265 video.

I've learned from first-hand experience that is important to hand off video to third parties that can be easily viewed by ANYONE who needs to see it regardless of which computer they happen to have. Once the video is out of your hands in a formal legal matter there is nothing you can do if someone runs into a problem attempting to view it. Many of these people will not know what "H.265" even means. They will only know they can't get the video to play properly and move on to the next case.

 

[Yooshaw]

H265 does not save much file size for dashcam video, and if it does then you lose image quality, it is not a reason to buy the V3. The image quality is the reason to buy the V3.

You don't lose image quality with H265 - it is able to compress the data more and reduce the file size, while maintaining the same quality as H264. The flip side is the playback device requires more processing power to decompress the H265 video for playback - not to mention a lot of legacy computer/devices aren't capable of supporting it.

 

[Nigel]

You don't lose image quality with H265 - it is able to compress the data more and reduce the file size, while maintaining the same quality as H264. The flip side is the playback device requires more processing power to decompress the H265 video for playback - not to mention a lot of legacy computer/devices aren't capable of supporting it.

Depends on the content of the video, and if the codec is capable of variable bitrate.
For dashcam video it will come nowhere close to the 50% file size that is normally claimed without a big loss of image quality.

 

[Tractor]

You need a powerful PC if you edit or try to render in H265 many PCs will make your hair turn grey before it's finishes.
H265 also generates more heat than H264 in the dashcam. Roughly 4 times more processing for not much file size saving. @BCHobbyist as already posted some H264 and H265 samples if you are curious to see.

Recorded some V3 footage at 1440p with default MP4 H.264 AVC compression and similar route using hidden H.265 HEVC compression. From these videos both have pixelation and what seems like soft focus or soft sharpness. The H.264 clips are 25.8 Mb/s and lower than I'd like. Seeking opinions which compression method looks better?

Viofo A119 V3 Dash Cam Review: https://viofo-a119-v3-dash-camera-review.blogspot.com/
Dashcam Buyer's Guide & Advice: https://viofo-dash-cam-selection-advice.blogspot.com/

 

[kamkar]

My hardware ( computer & phone ) have no issues handling H.265, and i might give it a try like i also did with the Mobius 2
But i think in general i will keep with H.264 for day 2 day use.

My sisters budget dualcore laptop almost locked up when i tried to play H.265 on it though it is also a very old and very low budget laptop.

 

[Yooshaw]

Depends on the content of the video, and if the codec is capable of variable bitrate.
For dashcam video it will come nowhere close to the 50% file size that is normally claimed without a big loss of image quality.

Agree - and in the case of the A119V3, I saw a difference of 100-110MB file size difference between H264 and H265, with all setting identical. Output looked the same to me.

My hardware ( computer & phone ) have no issues handling H.265, and i might give it a try like i also did with the Mobius 2
But i think in general i will keep with H.264 for day 2 day use.

My sisters budget dualcore laptop almost locked up when i tried to play H.265 on it though it is also a very old and very low budget laptop.

It's funny though, my Intel Core 2 Quad processor from 2007 will play H265 just fine. For that old computer, it's more about finding a player that can support H265 well. Potplayer on that old system plays it just fine, albeit with about 50-60% CPU usage, but it plays smoothly.

 

[kamkar]

I think my sisters laptop are dual core sempron or something like that, clearly my geek-ness have not rubbed off on little sis that have her computer on for a few minutes once every month.
i cant even match that with my phone

 

[Dashmellow]

It's funny though, my Intel Core 2 Quad processor from 2007 will play H265 just fine. For that old computer, it's more about finding a player that can support H265 well. Potplayer on that old system plays it just fine, albeit with about 50-60% CPU usage, but it plays smoothly.

It may well be that older CPUs will handle H.265 but there are other key factors at work such as a compatible graphics card, adequate RAM and, as you mention, the all important media player. The chances are that most insurance adjusters, attorney's or prosecutor's offices, police departments or whomever would not know to switch to a different media player or go looking for one that might work. As I said, most of these folks wouldn't even know what the term H.265 means and there is a good chance they wouldn't know why the video won't play.

I think when it comes to dash cam footage the best practice is to make it as idiot-proof as possible for literally anyone to easily view the footage.

 

[Kremmen]

Would it be possible to record in 265 then convert to 264 for third parties ?

 

[jokiin]

Would it be possible to record in 265 then convert to 264 for third parties ?

yes, but the point is in some cases the files may be required to be unedited which could be a problem

 

[Nigel]

yes, but the point is in some cases the files may be required to be unedited which could be a problem

The conversion from H265 to H264 should be seen as similar to the conversion from microSD to USB stick (or CD for Dashmellow), they would still be unedited. Same again for conversion from H264 to HDMI for display on a monitor. Of course your justice system might have other ideas.

However I have yet to see a clear advantage from H265 when used inside dashcams so I don't think it is currently an issue, and since H265 is likely to be superseded by AV1 soon, I wouldn't even use H265 for archiving in case it became unplayable in future; AV1 does a better job for archiving anyway.

 

[Dashmellow]

The conversion from H265 to H264 should be seen as similar to the conversion from microSD to USB stick (or CD for Dashmellow), they would still be unedited. Same again for conversion from H264 to HDMI for display on a monitor. Of course your justice system might have other ideas.

However I have yet to see a clear advantage from H265 when used inside dashcams so I don't think it is currently an issue, and since H265 is likely to be superseded by AV1 soon, I wouldn't even use H265 for archiving in case it became unplayable in future; AV1 does a better job for archiving anyway.

There is no reason you couldn't have a conformed copy on CD but when you use a different compression scheme than used on the original you no longer have a true copy of the original. Either you have a legally conformed copy of an original or you don't! One compression technique may suppress certain fine detail whereas another may not, so a copy with different compression used on that copy may in fact not be suitable and could be challenged by an expert witness. This issue also often comes up with questions of which codecs are used in video.

The fact is that these digital issues and questions are part of vastly complex and quickly evolving field still being thrashed out by the courts in various legal jurisdictions and at various scholarly institutions and professional associations such as the National Institute of Justice or the National Technical Investigators Association (among many others) so new standards and best practices are being published on a regular basis. The issue of digital compression standards come under the headings of "preservation of evidence" and "chain of custody" which differ from former analogue practices. Federal Rules of Evidence, for example spells out the requirement for digital copies of images to be "exact" copies but there is still much confusion, misinformation and debate about what constitutes an "exact" copy.

 

[Nigel]

There is no reason you couldn't have a conformed copy on CD...

With 2 channel 4K using up a GB per minute, a CD is going to be about as useful as a floppy disk!

Does this mean that we should only record original footage at 1080 resolution so that the original can be stored on CD and played on 1080 TVs that can't handle 4K video? Sometimes the legal system has to catch up!

 

[Tractor]

I don't think all and sundry in the legal profession are ignorant to technology. They can't afford to be. But an easily played format is essential and not a format that is in it's infancy to the public.

 

[Dashmellow]

With 2 channel 4K using up a GB per minute, a CD is going to be about as useful as a floppy disk!

Does this mean that we should only record original footage at 1080 resolution so that the original can be stored on CD and played on 1080 TVs that can't handle 4K video? Sometimes the legal system has to catch up!

So typical from you Nigel. What a gormless and irrelevant comment! This recent discussion has been about conversion of H.265 files to H.264 and it's suitability as a judicially acceptable copy, not about what media you decide to use to convey your files regardless of size. For decades now digital media has been constantly evolving in concert with technical advancement and data requirements. And people will use hard drives in a court of law and elsewhere if the amount of data requires it. As long as you copy the files without any alteration whatsoever it is irrelevant what media you use to convey them.

For some reason Nigel you mentioned my name in the context of CD, so I responded to you using CD as the storage medium example. And so now you reply with a sarcastic sounding rhetorical question about CDs. I guess it's been awhile since you've picked a gratuitous spat with me over some manufactured petty issue but it seems you just couldn't hold out any longer.