Not using H.265 codec again.

Skybird

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
83
Reaction score
14
Country
New Zealand
Hi everyone.

I will be changing my record option from H.265 to H.264 from now on. I have a Windows 10 64 bit PC with Intel Core i7-6700k, EVGA GTX 1070SC, 16GB DDR4 2400 Fury HyperX RAM and a 1TB Samsung Evo 850 SSD. I'm also a YouTuber too who uploads personal and gameplay videos using my Hauppauge HD PVR2 (Xbox One X, Xbox 360) and NVidia Shadowplay (PC).

It's disappointing how H.265 is not widely adopted yet and is not compatible with most devices. Windows Movie Maker and Windows Media Player both can play H.265/HEVC thingy video format. Blackvue advertises "new H.265" so it's not compatible with many things and isn't widely adopted yet.

I use Power Director 16 for editing my videos before putting them up on my YouTube channel. There's an Australian YouTuber who solely does dashcam videos. Power Director 17 launched recently claiming to support playback importing and exporting to H.265 format. However after trying to play one of my H.265 videos from my dash cam, Power Director only shows a black screen during playback of those clips. Yet Windows Movie Maker and Windows Media Player can play them fine. However Windows Movie Maker only produces videos up to 1920x1080 format, not 4k which is what Power Director 16 can do.

I upgraded to Power Director 17 but it can't play the videos. So I contacted their Support and they gave me a LONG (I'm not joking, like a 10,000 word essay of what to do) list of things to do. They offer a 30 day money back guarantee so have asked for a refund of the upgrade and to downgrade back to Power Director 16. Reason why I wanted to try PD17 was cause they said it supports H.265 when it can't on my end. And I have all the up to date software and hardware on my PC.

So it's H.264 format for me with BlackVue 900S. I'll edit my current videos using Windows Movie Maker, then produce it to a format which Power Director accepts. Then edit on Power Director, produce, then upload to YouTube. Power Director has more editing features than Movie Maker which I like to use.

The thing is does Blackvue have an app that lets you change the format from H.265 to H.264 using Blackvue Viewer app for PC if so how. Otherwise yes that's my experience. Tried playing it on my Samsung S9 and HP laptop (has an i5-6200U, model: HP 15'ab222tx white). And the video stutters a lot. But not on my desktop PC which has the i7-6700k processor. Editing software is on my i7-6700k PC.

Does anyone know how long you can record for on extreme mode (4k 25 front 1080p 10~ rear) using H.264? I have a Samsung Pro + Endurance 128GB (119GB is available for use). In H.265 that's enough for 7.5 hours approximately recording. If I record to H.264 using the same settings will I still be able to pull around 6 hours recording on extreme mode for my Blackvue 900S 2-CH setup?

Thanks for reading.
 
Though I don't have answers to some of your questions, I will agree that BlackVue hyped the 4K format a bit too much with only a disclaimer in "small print" stating that H.265 is not widely used yet. I am a fan of BlackVue, however this tactic took them down a couple on notches in my book.

I too have reverted back to H.264 for the same reason you stated. I have not tried Windows Media Player, (and I don't have Windows Movie Maker) to play back the H.265 format, but do use Camtasia 9.1. It too cannot handle the format and Camtasia is being sketchy as to whether they will or not in the near future.

I am not really sorry I purchased the DR900S, but think they jumped the gun by introducing the H.265 into this model.
 
H.265 sounds promising with the idea of storing the same quantity of video in around half the space, but in reality as you have found, adoption is not universal across devices, operating systems and software. As has been mentioned many times before on DCT, the last thing you want is for your dashcam to record an accident only to find that the people you really need to view your video (law enforcement, lawyers etc) just get that black screen.....
 
H.265 sounds promising with the idea of storing the same quantity of video in around half the space, but in reality as you have found, adoption is not universal across devices, operating systems and software. As has been mentioned many times before on DCT, the last thing you want is for your dashcam to record an accident only to find that the people you really need to view your video (law enforcement, lawyers etc) just get that black screen.....

the same struggle exists even for H.264 4k, try getting your local insurer or police station to view your 4k files with their 5+ year old hardware and see how far you get
 
hmm i haven't had much issue with 2.65. I use shotcut and windows movie maker (when I wanna do something super quick and simple).
 
Kind of off subject, but is there any noticeable difference between a 900S 4k video shot with h.264 versus h.265? Once uploaded to YouTube, I'm guessing there's no difference. Right?
 
Same quality in H.264 as in H.265. Remember once on YouTube the youtube video quality will NOT be as good as your original file. Power Director 16 and 17 doesn't understand either codecs so I have to edit in windows movie maker first. Windows movie maker supports nitrates up to 135mb.s in custom but no higher than 1080p. I just upscale using power director to 4k and post to youtube. I record in 4k extreme. Point is youtube servers understand H.265 format.
 
I just upscale using power director to 4k and post to youtube.
Why do you do that? Surely all that does is make the file size bigger without affecting PQ? If you start off with 1080 in PD then you can't fill in all the 'missing' detail to make it up to 4k or whatever. Pointless.
Remember once on YouTube the youtube video quality will NOT be as good as your original file.
My point exactly.
 
Point is youtube servers understand H.265 format.
Are you sure? Since when?

I use VP9, YouTube's own format.

Why do you do that?
YouTube has been giving a higher bitrate for 4K uploads, even if they are from upscaled FHD so there is some advantage, but an unscaled 4K H264 or VP9 upload would be better still, although if you are starting from DR900S footage then I doubt that many people are going to notice the difference so maybe it is a waste of time and you would be better off using the extra resolution to allow use of zoom in the editor so that people viewing on phone screens can see the detail.
 
YouTube has been giving a higher bitrate for 4K uploads, even if they are from upscaled FHD....
But the raw bitrate would be a lot lower for 1080 anyway. Do they give 4 times the bitrate for 4k compared with 1080 then?
If not, surely you might as well upload the 1080 from your editor?
I'm not arguing one way or the other, just trying to understand the logic of what you are doing by first reducing to 1080 (I do understand why you have to do that) then upscaling back to 4k.:love:
 
But the raw bitrate would be a lot lower for 1080 anyway. Do they give 4 times the bitrate for 4k compared with 1080 then?
If not, surely you might as well upload the 1080 from your editor?
I'm not arguing one way or the other, just trying to understand the logic of what you are doing by first reducing to 1080 (I do understand why you have to do that) then upscaling back to 4k.:love:
YouTube recommends 8Mbps for 1080 uploads and 35-45Mbps for 4K uploads, so yes it appears that they give more than 4 times the bitrate for 4K. compared to 1080.

Those are not the playback bitrates, but they wouldn't be asking for that level of detail if they weren't going to use it, and those are probably the most they are going to use so there is no point uploading 1080 at more than 8Mbps. A lot of dashcams can record 1080 at 16Mbps, if you upload it raw then expect half the detail to be instantly thrown away before YouTube does anything else, if you convert it to 4K @ 16Mbps then YouTube will keep all 16Mbps and people with good download links and 4K compatible computers will see it at close to original quality.

If you upload 4K 12Mbps from your BlackVue 900S then presumably you will end up with less detail than uploading Viofo A129 1080 16Mbps video that has been converted to 4K 16Mbps. Obviously you wont get more resolution from converting it, but it is the bitrate that controls the amount of detail stored.
 
Thanks Nigel. I've got a bit better handle on it now.
 
Thanks Nigel. I've got a bit better handle on it now.

Anybody catch the pun there? Thanks SkyBird, M8TJT and Nigel for the additional detail and clarifications. I plan on getting a 900S 2ch for the MINI; the current GoPro has been dropped on garage floor once, and slid across the dash once or twice (after loss of mount suction). Image doesn't appear to be as sharp as it once was. After getting the 900s, I might experiment with mounting the GoPro on a side window. Current workflow for the GoPro: Extract the event clip(s) from GoPro MP4 file with MPEG Streamclip. Delete GoPro MP4 file (3.9 GB). Uncompress the clip file from GoPro codec to Apple Pro Res 422 HQ codec with MPEG Streamclip. Create compilation with FCPX 10.3 (saved as .mov, avc1 codec, ~27Mbps for 60fps). The biggest difference between apparent video quality (.mov file on my harddrive versus what YouTube displays) occurs when there are frequent changes in lighting (e.g. driving down a tree-lined street on a sunny day). The YouTube video looks terrible in comparison. The advantage of uploading high bitrate files, however, is that (perhaps) one day, YouTube will be able to narrow the quality gap (harddrive versus streamed).
 
... and I forgot to mention. My computer can't handle h.265. Hence the original question about quality of h.264 vs h.265.
 
... and I forgot to mention. My computer can't handle h.265. Hence the original question about quality of h.264 vs h.265.
H265 is supposed to use half the bitrate of H264 for the same quality, however it can only do this when the image is easy to compress, when you are driving at speed under trees there is not much difference and since our cameras use fixed bitrate recording and you need to choose a bitrate that is adequate for worst conditions, such as under trees, the H265 is not much advantage. In medium difficult conditions you may notice that the H265 gives slightly better quality, in easy conditions the H264 is good anyway.

H265 is good for archiving where you can use a variable bitrate, but if your computer can't manage it then don't worry, your not missing much.
Once uploaded to YouTube, I'm guessing there's no difference. Right?
Given that most people will view it at 1080, or less, they will not see any difference. YouTube will convert it to H264 anyway, unless you get over 1000 views in which case it will produce a VP9 version which may actually be better, but only if the original H265 recording was better, which generally isn't noticable!
 
Thanks! OK, until I get new computer (the current Mac is on a 10-year plan; "refresh" will occur either 2019 or 2020), being confined to h264 will primarily carry only a storage penalty. But, since I have 3.64 TB, and 2-year backlog of 1080p 60fps event clips (so far) only takes up 0.2 TB, then no worries. As an aside, the GoPro uses variable bitrate.
 
H265 is supposed to use half the bitrate of H264 for the same quality, however it can only do this when the image is easy to compress, when you are driving at speed under trees there is not much difference and since our cameras use fixed bitrate recording and you need to choose a bitrate that is adequate for worst conditions, such as under trees, the H265 is not much advantage. In medium difficult conditions you may notice that the H265 gives slightly better quality, in easy conditions the H264 is good anyway.

I already noted that if I drive under trees the quality is poor like a cheap camera.
Currently I use the H265 (4K standard settings) but if I understand you correct the H265 is under trees better than die H264 ?
I dont care about storage but in my humble opinion the bigger H264 file should contain more data than the smaller H265 file which should lead to a better quality ?
 
the bigger H264 file should contain more data than the smaller H265 file which should lead to a better quality ?
I don't have this camera, so can't check, but I would expect that the files are the same size and contain the same amount of data if they are using the same bitrate, and with this camera it is you that chooses the bitrate, so you choose the file size. The choice of h265 or h264 is separate, and with h265 being more advanced it should do a better job, my point was that in most circumstances the improvement from using h265 will be hard to see since in easy conditions there is plenty of bitrate for H264 to do a good job and when things get difficult the H265 doesn't do much better than H264, it only gives a significant advantage in easy conditions.
 
I don't have a problem with the h265 codec using the BlackVue software, however trying to view the files on a cellphone without their software has not worked for me without converting first. Honestly I've only had three occasions where I really needed to do that. When I've needed to convert or make a video with the raw footage, I use VideoPad Professional by HCH Software. It's inexpensive software with a lot of bang for the buck. The video shown below was made using their software.

 
Back
Top