The H.265 codec brings Ultra HDTV resolution in 2013

Just got a new, shiny 50” Full HD (1080p) TV set for your home video needs? Prepare to purchase something newer, shinier and with a much, much higher resolution soon. The Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding reached a new milestone for the H.265 video codec during the past week, and is about to unleash the new “monster” video standard within the next year.

The H.265 video codec, also known as High Efficiency Video Coding or HEVC, is being designed to replace the current H.264 standard used for high definition and Full HD (1920x1080) video encoding and decoding. The Joint Collaborative Team, a collaboration effort between the Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) and ITU-T, has just achieved a “committee draft” in a meeting in San Jose.

The new video standard is expected to provide a huge difference in data transmission and streaming efficiency compared to the previous one, with one of the speakers present at the meeting suggesting a 67% improvement.

H.265 will be designed to support new, still to be created video delivery and streaming technologies from day one, including devices working at 4K and Ultra HDTV (also known as 8K or 4320p) resolutions. Just to put things in perspective, the Ultra HDTV definition contains about 16 times the amount of pixels present in a 1080p video stream.

Before appearing on the market as a proper video standard, H.265 will have to achieve two more milestones: the draft international standard meeting is expected to be held within six months from now and the final standard ratification should arrive in January 2013.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft: Hotmail has better spam protection than Gmail

Next Story

Google-Motorola merger approved in US and Europe

80 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I can't wait to view ultra compressed video on an ultra HD display. Nothing like looking at large compression blocks in high definition. All at the same time it will probably require eight of Intel's latest CPU's. At the end it will cost us more and make others money. New TV, new set-top players, new computers, new media, new cameras (video and picture), more bandwidth, new satellite, new cable box. Yay!

Lovely. I've been hoping for another reason to burn through my already **** usage cap. Wish the ISPs in Canada would stop ****ing around and give us unlimited usage or at least significantly higher monthly caps.

every generation of technology, there's always the people that say WE DONT NEED IT! it's hilarious. every generation it's the same thing.

i remember reading people's comments that dvd was better looking than blu-ray or HD DVD. i remember when people didnt like 720p television b/c it looked funny compared to their antiquated tube tvs. there were people that opposed 16:9 and wanted their 4:3 back b/c that's how it should look, damnit, and everything in widescreen looks stretched. i remember when people said you dont need 1080p for tv's less than 50"! omg oh noes!

people are hilarious. you wanna go back to dial-up too?

Hope it brings some compression efficiency and even better quality at existing resolutions as well. The standards committees suck because they only define the standards and create a reference implementation but don't take the effort of creating an optimized and highly usable implementation on at least the major platforms.

I do not think this technology will be mainstream before four years at least but still, it is surely more interesting than 3D.....

Fritzly said,
I do not think this technology will be mainstream before four years at least but still, it is surely more interesting than 3D.....

It may not even be mainstream for more than four years. I don't think cable and satellite service providers offer 1080p streams because of bandwidth limitations. It's either 720p or 1080i and even then, it isn't full quality.

what's the big deal? show us the content first at affordable mass-market price. you guys all forget how long it takes for the 1080p content to be widely available? i can't say even now.

I dont think it is possible for a video to get any clearer than 1080p... I mean studies show you need perfect 20/20 vision to fully enjoy 1080p anyways... this "Ultra HD" is just a gimmick and a waste of time and resources

Xerino said,
I dont think it is possible for a video to get any clearer than 1080p... I mean studies show you need perfect 20/20 vision to fully enjoy 1080p anyways... this "Ultra HD" is just a gimmick and a waste of time and resources

Actually, it is. But you'd need the right display for it. Also, anything beyond 1920x1080 isn't required for TVs in your house. Unless of course you sit right in front of your TV and the individual pixels bother you. Anyway, it doesn't mean progress shouldn't be made with high-resolution displays. If anything, it may lead to higher resolution displays for computers and higher pixel density for TVs. Personally though, I think it'd be a waste of money for any consumer. I'd rather see improvements to 1080p than new standards that we don't need.

Finally, I'm tired of seeing pixels on my tvs just because I sit closer to them, I am waiting til I can go up to a set and oul not see

Do I need ultra HD? I mean really I think not in most cases, hell I can barely tell the difference between 720 or 1080, it's not like vhs to dvd where I was immediately like ok this is clearly better quality.

Will my caps and data rates be increased to account for this massive size increase with no additional cost...yeah I thought not.

UltraHD doesn't matter unless you have a screen bigger than 60". This has been out in Japan for quite sometime now. It's designed for real home theaters. Not 50" TV you have in your living room. The human eye can't tell the difference.

Detection said,
Well.... thats one way to drastically reduce piracy, Ill be damned if I would be downloading many 500GB Movies

Expect internet speeds to catch up. 1gbit connections will be here soon

sanke1 said,

Expect internet speeds to catch up. 1gbit connections will be here soon

I still download @ 250 KB/s (when I'm lucky).

sanke1 said,

Expect internet speeds to catch up. 1gbit connections will be here soon

Here...... where? In the US we will have to wait a long time and will be extremely expensive.
Why so? Well, "taking care" of all those so called "People' s representatives", and related lobbyists, in Washington is very, very expensive.

LaP said,
Star Wars ULTRA HD remixed.

Pay for the same mvoie AGAIN. No thanks 1080p is moe than enough for me.

LaserDisc for life!

Trying to do the math.... on 4320p on 4G.... how long will I be able to stream video before I go over my AT&T data plan?

cralias said,
It must come with a new disc standard and new (pointless) DRM scheme. Otherwise it's worthless. /s

This is where SD of MicroSD is finally used for physical distribution, and existing online purchase distribution overtakes physical content.

Right now XBox/Zune Live can provide better than BluRay content to users, and it also can provide better to 'almost as good' quality streaming the content, and not fill up your local HD depending on your internet connection.

Why would we want rooms of discs, or even HDs filled with movies if we can have access to anything we want from any computer we sign in to?

thenetavenger said,

This is where SD of MicroSD is finally used for physical distribution, and existing online purchase distribution overtakes physical content.

Right now XBox/Zune Live can provide better than BluRay content to users, and it also can provide better to 'almost as good' quality streaming the content, and not fill up your local HD depending on your internet connection.

Why would we want rooms of discs, or even HDs filled with movies if we can have access to anything we want from any computer we sign in to?

As far as I am concern I could list few ones:

HD storage is cheaper than overpriced/under delivering DSL connections

If enough people would start buy this "everything online" mantra prices and limitations on what you are allowed to do will accelerate exponentially.

Most important of any other reason: having my movies on my HDs with back up copies in my basement gives me peace of mind................ which is priceless.

Hopefully it won't take too long for deciders to get hardware support so playing back H.265 video doesn't drain your battery.

As great as this is, I was kind of hoping that an open CODEC would beat it to the punch. By "open" I mean open source, license free, as opposed to open "we promise not to sue you for using it...promise!", but there you have it.

Kushan said,
As great as this is, I was kind of hoping that an open CODEC would beat it to the punch. By "open" I mean open source, license free, as opposed to open "we promise not to sue you for using it...promise!", but there you have it.

There are difference between 'open source' 'open license' , and 'free'...

And none of them offer 'open idea' which is often never given away with OSS, making a lot of OSS worthless for sharing the concept and idea of its functionality and purpose.

To date what you ask for DOES NOT exist of any Codec. The closest one that was 'almost' a codec was the code and ideas Microsoft gave away on the MPEG4 project from 1997/1998 that is now at the heart of what you think are 'open' codecs like xvid.

Truly is seeing the 'code' more important than the actual technology or the base idea of the codec being freely given away with any license?

Microsoft gives away ideas all the time without any licenses, and why they have their own 'open source' license that basically says, do anything you want with the code or don't, there are no rules. Which is far more 'open' and 'free' than GPL'd or other faux OSS 'free' licenses.

Pink Floyd said,
like every new technologies, it will takes a couple years before the price drop enough for the average user

Isn't something like Ultra HD a bit pointless for the average consumer? Some say that 1080 is unnecessary unless you have a very large screen.

Lamp0 said,

Isn't something like Ultra HD a bit pointless for the average consumer? Some say that 1080 is unnecessary unless you have a very large screen.

yep, and this is why I still don't own a 1080p TV yet My main TV is 720p as I personally don't see the difference between the 2. As for the ultra HD, I guess I could watch some porn with the wife hehe

As much as I think it's completely ridiculous that not just are we watching a VHS in science class right now, but the teacher doesn't consider it an obsolete technology, this makes me think that 10x more so...

MASTER260 said,
As much as I think it's completely ridiculous that not just are we watching a VHS in science class right now, but the teacher doesn't consider it an obsolete technology, this makes me think that 10x more so...

Surprised he didnt break out the laserdisc player !

I noticed some lack of clarity while staring a few inches away from my 105" projector set-up. This should solve the problem.

DClark said,
I noticed some lack of clarity while staring a few inches away from my 105" projector set-up. This should solve the problem.

Nah, this will provide higher resolution but it won't be able to stop your big head getting in the way of the screen =P

Kushan said,

Nah, this will provide higher resolution but it won't be able to stop your big head getting in the way of the screen =P

LOL, that was a good one!

Tony. said,
Glad this is for 1080p content as well as we need better codecs.

I think H.264 is a VERY good codec, but you're right in saying that we need a new step forward again, just as it means better image bang for less giga.

GS:mac

Jose_49 said,

Although useless, 10-bit can do the job.

Yes, but compatibility is limited.
10bit is a nice addition to H.264 granted, and yes, obviously H.265 doesn't even have compatibility to begin with, but I'm just trying to say that 10-bit isn't a solution without worries.

GS:mac

Glassed Silver said,

Yes, but compatibility is limited.
10bit is a nice addition to H.264 granted, and yes, obviously H.265 doesn't even have compatibility to begin with, but I'm just trying to say that 10-bit isn't a solution without worries.

GS:mac

Maybe Apple will finally get off their butt and get 10bit support in OS X and iOS. Winodws has been offering 10,12,16bit since 2009.

A higher color bit rate means little when only one consumer level OS supports it. Although it has helped the Windows 7 embedded sales for devices that want to produce true higher color quality.

Still amusing to watch Mac users buy the new addressable 10,12bit displays, and then hook them up to OS X. Without the internal digital upscale color processing, it is giving them nothing.

thenetavenger said,

Maybe Apple will finally get off their butt and get 10bit support in OS X and iOS. Winodws has been offering 10,12,16bit since 2009.

A higher color bit rate means little when only one consumer level OS supports it. Although it has helped the Windows 7 embedded sales for devices that want to produce true higher color quality.

Still amusing to watch Mac users buy the new addressable 10,12bit displays, and then hook them up to OS X. Without the internal digital upscale color processing, it is giving them nothing.


Yeah, it's JUST ABOUT the color depth when people praise the Apple displays. /s

Oh, nice to see Windows have it, well, but there are so many more that lack it:
e.g. VLC and pretty much any hardware player

Oh and mind you: You can actually use Windows on Macs. Yeah, it's giving us nothing at all. Maybe not in OS X and the colors, but mind you, you're generalizing too much.

GS:mac

Glassed Silver said,

Yeah, it's JUST ABOUT the color depth when people praise the Apple displays. /s

Oh, nice to see Windows have it, well, but there are so many more that lack it:
e.g. VLC and pretty much any hardware player

Oh and mind you: You can actually use Windows on Macs. Yeah, it's giving us nothing at all. Maybe not in OS X and the colors, but mind you, you're generalizing too much.

GS:mac

I don't know why do you care so much about Apple? Is somebody paying you to hate anybody that thinks different? Pun intended. You do know that no product is perfect and if you do you're silly to think apple is best at every single aspect of the computing business. They're making some of the most popular and trendy devices out there so why do you still feel like in order for apple to succeed you must trash talk anybody that talks about a company that innovates on a certain area that apple hasn't tapped yet. Its called selfactualism, be your self not a brand.

trashoner said,

I don't know why do you care so much about Apple? Is somebody paying you to hate anybody that thinks different? Pun intended. You do know that no product is perfect and if you do you're silly to think apple is best at every single aspect of the computing business. They're making some of the most popular and trendy devices out there so why do you still feel like in order for apple to succeed you must trash talk anybody that talks about a company that innovates on a certain area that apple hasn't tapped yet. Its called selfactualism, be your self not a brand.

Insecure much? Nothing he said was hating on anybody? He simply corrected the over generalization that was incorrectly made. That's it... If anything, you're the one who made yourself look like a fool since you couldn't resist jumping at somebody who defends the all-evil Apple. Get over yourself...

trashoner said,

I don't know why do you care so much about Apple? Is somebody paying you to hate anybody that thinks different? Pun intended. You do know that no product is perfect and if you do you're silly to think apple is best at every single aspect of the computing business. They're making some of the most popular and trendy devices out there so why do you still feel like in order for apple to succeed you must trash talk anybody that talks about a company that innovates on a certain area that apple hasn't tapped yet. Its called selfactualism, be your self not a brand.

apple is a religion, and just like any other religion, you can't argue with it's followers. Just accept that the PC, gui's mice, keyboards, tablets, laptops, cell phones and everything else was invented and made magical by apple, and move on. You won't win this fight, especially from a zealot who feels the need to put "mac" in their sig.

SirEvan said,

apple is a religion, and just like any other religion, you can't argue with it's followers. Just accept that the PC, gui's mice, keyboards, tablets, laptops, cell phones and everything else was invented and made magical by apple, and move on. You won't win this fight, especially from a zealot who feels the need to put "mac" in their sig.


Obviously you don't keep any track of me on this forum.

In other news, you just proved you're a freaking "FANBOY!" screamer at any occasion even when you might should be in doubt.

Well done. I salute you.

GS:win

Give google a while to opose the format and recommend something else just to get the market confused again. Or maybe so that they will finally invent something

Riva said,
Give google a while to opose the format and recommend something else just to get the market confused again. Or maybe so that they will finally invent something

Sorry, that's the job of Sony to do that....

TruckWEB said,

Sorry, that's the job of Sony to do that....


*cough*
He was uh, referencing actual history, where Google confused the market over standards for video on the web.

Joshie said,

*cough*
He was uh, referencing actual history, where Google confused the market over standards for video on the web.

Wasn't it Microsoft and Apple who refused to use Theora, a patent free video codec, as set out in the HTML5 standard? Hence why we now have fragmented web video support.

simplezz said,

Wasn't it Microsoft and Apple who refused to use Theora, a patent free video codec, as set out in the HTML5 standard? Hence why we now have fragmented web video support.

Microsoft, Apple, and others refused to use Theora because it sucks.
Period.

TruckWEB said,

Sorry, that's the job of Sony to do that....

Makes no sense. They supported both DVD and Blu-ray, neither of which is their invention, DVD being mostly Toshiba and Blu-ray mostly Panasonic.

Nerd Rage said,
Storage better get more impressive so I can start filling my machine with UltraHD video!

Pointless without a monitor to support those resolutions.

Nerd Rage said,
Storage better get more impressive so I can start filling my machine with UltraHD video!

Holodisc tech can supposedly do upto a TB on an optical disc (and the standard was finalised in 2008), so the storage is there - it just doesn't have a use yet until the video catches up!

~Johnny said,

Holodisc tech can supposedly do upto a TB on an optical disc (and the standard was finalised in 2008), so the storage is there - it just doesn't have a use yet until the video catches up!


Hollywood movies are shot at only half the resolution right? 4K or something?

.Neo said,

Hollywood movies are shot at only half the resolution right? 4K or something?

4K isn't unheard of for Hollywood movies, but it's still pretty rare. Most are 2K. My main concern is with the framerate though. They're all still 24fps, even with digital. I heard they were considering upping it to 240fps, but as far as I know, that's just a rumor. I'd consider that to be more important than resolution. All those extra pixels don't mean much if the image will still be extremely blurry.

Scorpian8867 said,
My main concern is with the framerate though. They're all still 24fps, even with digital. I heard they were considering upping it to 240fps, but as far as I know, that's just a rumor.

Well, Peter Jackson's starting to buck that trend at least with the Hobbit shooting at 48fps. Whether we'll be able to enjoy that or not is another question - most Blu-Ray players aren't expecting anything more than 24fps, and I'm not sure most cinema projectors would be able to handle it either >.<

Tony. said,

Pointless without a monitor to support those resolutions.

Exactly! , which is why this is something i don't really think about into the foreseeable future as even current tech is not really FULLY into the market yet as not everyone has bluray players along with a fancy TV set yet as i suspect many people who have some form of modern HDTV but at the same time i don't think bluray has really taken over unlike DVD where pretty much everyone has something that can play those.

but in all honesty.... i just can't see there being THAT much of a difference between h264 and h265. maybe in terms of keeping good image quality at a smaller file size, which is always nice. but in terms of actually looking THAT much better than bluray.... i have my doubts to put it simply. plus even if it does look better your going to have to re-buy some arm and a leg TV which will take YEARS before they even start to become affordable for the average person.

~Johnny said,

. . . I'm not sure most cinema projectors would be able to handle it either >.<

Not sure about blu-ray players, but I know that cinema projectors should be able to hand it with no trouble at all. To my understanding, a DLP chip can handle up to 480fps.

Scorpian8867 said,

Not sure about blu-ray players, but I know that cinema projectors should be able to hand it with no trouble at all. To my understanding, a DLP chip can handle up to 480fps.

Assuming they're using Digital projectors - and a lot of cinemas still aren't (and a lot of those that do only have them in certain screens). I've also heard Peter Jackson rumbling about how a lot of digital projectors right now won't be able to handle it, but a software upgrade might do the trick for them.

Although, speakers are probably the biggest let down in most cinemas anyway :3

LOL...
That's quite nice, but 8K will be whopping!
At the same quality provided by a 50MBit BluRay just at 8K resolution that would equal about 471GB of data...

(120*60*50/8*16/100*67/1024)

GS:mac

Glassed Silver said,
LOL...
That's quite nice, but 8K will be whopping!
At the same quality provided by a 50MBit BluRay just at 8K resolution that would equal about 471GB of data...

(120*60*50/8*16/100*67/1024)

GS:mac

Except you cannot mix bit rate and compression with Quality... There are ways to push out higher Quality with more advanced processing compression technologies.

So it comes down to what is possible and affordable computing processing to decode and encode video at higher quality levels. There are ways to compress video much further than consumer standards and codecs currently do; however, consumer computing power is not capable of decoding the video yet.

So with the BluRay VC1 or H.264 codecs, it would be a jump in data, but assuming computing power catches up, Quality can stay the same within a modest bandwidth range as well.

Sadly even now, BluRay movies are not in a 'great' quality level because of how Film is pulled digitally and holding to the 24fps that is still used. Which is funny that people insist on 1080p @ 60fps when most content they are viewing is not a full 1080p and usually 24fps.

Shaving pixels is common with satellite and cable carriers, deliver 7/8 or 3/4 the pixels at 24fps that is then upscaled back to 720 or 1080 and 60fps. Also depending on the BluRay production, they often shave or use lower compression quality to stay in the 25gb range of the cheaper BluRay media format.

This was an argument Microsoft made years and years ago, back around 2001 when they were pushing for VC1 on traditional DVD, which would offer 1080p HD in 8gb of space - Using higher compression computing instead of moving to more bandwidth and larger file sizes.
(They released T2 in a higher processing variation of VC1/WMV at that time which was true 1080 on a traditional DVD.)

This is where BluRay screwed up in its design, again as Microsoft warned, as HDDVD had overhead for newer compression technologies that would require more processing. Sony didn't care and used this difference to make a case to keep their products price competitive.

Now BluRay is locked to a processing level in consumer devices that can't move beyond the computing limitations, with only larger GB media being an option, but will hit hard when most BluRay players can't get a simple firmware update to support the new 100gb and 200gb media that it will need to remain viable.

Sony will do a few dances and tell everyone BluRay will be the future, but outside of the PS3, there are no many consumer BluRay players that will make the transition to more processing or support for new disc size technologies.

This is where Flash and Online take over fully, and right now is making a dent that Sony tries to hide, as Movie quality is already being chopped to fit the cheaper BluRay disc sizes, yet on XBox/Zune Live through an online download, the user can get a higher quality version. (Streaming this is not true because of the smooth streaming technology, but downloads, yep.)

There is a lot of confusion about 'size/compression/bandwidth/quality' and consumers are sadly messed with too much already.

thenetavenger said,

There is a lot of confusion about 'size/compression/bandwidth/quality' and consumers are sadly messed with too much already.

You have no idea what you're posting about here.
1: VC-1 is inferior to H264 for one, most studios aren't even using it anymore.
2: The majority of releases are on BD50 discs
3: Blu-ray is NOT a Sony format. Panasonic actually has more patents in it for one thing. Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, and Sony were the founding members.
4: It's a no-brainer that 4K and 8K will require new formats and new players. Except that the Blu-ray format with higher capacity discs and higher bandwidth is a medium capable of delivering this.
5: You seriously are going to pretend downloads on Zune marketplace are better quality than current Blu-ray? Really? The fact that lossless audio isn't supported alone makes that statement an absolute farce.