backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by augiem.. on Aug 17 at 5:55 PM

New compression standard could be in commercial products as early as next year

The Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) met recently to issue a draft international standard of a new video compression format offering twice the performance of current standards. The new video compression format is called High Efficiency Video Coating or HEVC. The new H.265 compression codec is roughly twice as effective as the current H.264/AVC standard.
 
“There’s a lot of industry interest in this because it means you can halve the bit rate and still achieve the same visual quality, or double the number of television channels with the same bandwidth, which will have an enormous impact on the industry,” says Per Fröjdh, Manager for Visual Technology at Ericsson Research, Group Function Technology, who organized the event as Chairman of the Swedish MPEG delegation.
 
H.265 could usher in ultra high definition television with significantly more clarity than the 1080p we have today. The new compression format will also significantly reduce the bandwidth required for streaming video on mobile networks where wireless spectrum is at a premium. The format will pave the way for wireless carriers to offer more video services within the confines of their available spectrum.
 
“Video accounts for the vast majority of all data sent over networks, and that proportion is increasing: by 2015, it is predicted to account for 90 percent of all network traffic,” Fröjdh says.
 
He believes that the HEVC format discussed during the meeting in Stockholm could find its way into commercial products as early as 2013.
 
“It will take time before it’s launched for a TV service, but adoption is much quicker in the mobile area, and we’ll probably see the first services for mobile use cases next year,” Fröjdh added.

Source: Ericsson





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: You know what would be even more helpful?
By crimsonson on 8/16/2012 10:42:31 AM , Rating: 1
They will never do that. It goes "beyond" being a snob.

The aesthetic connotation of 24 fps for the world is something very hard to replicate with 30 fps. We associate 24fps for cinematic work. Many have tried to shoot dramatic movies at 30fps even at 60 fps. The effect is not the same. It is a subconscious effect for many viewers. You can simmilate the difference now by watching HBO or Showtime with your TV 120 Hz mode on and off. You will notice the difference.

Second, at higher frame rate cost increases regarding production. It was more so with film but with today's digital process (and cost are calculated per frame) I am sure price difference between frame rates will remain to exist. Imagine the cost of Lord of The Rings with 25% cost higher in renders, compositing, labor, etc.

Third, distribution. Until a standardized digital distribution is found for theaters it would be difficult to change the current film projectors that are in all movie theaters. There are major inroads happening now, but no local movie theater is going to pay for add and maintain new equipment unless compensated. Are we willing ot pay for 25% price increase?
At 25% less frames, digital distribution via file or optical is also cheaper at 24 fps.

There was and currently a push to go to 48fps (peter Jackson). It solves the aesthetic argument but makes the economic argument worse, not better.

For the most part, this has nothing to do with MPAA BTW. Just simple artistic and economic issues.

Unless TV manufacturers offer to pay for the cost to go higher frame rates, your idea will fall on deaf ears.


By TakinYourPoints on 8/16/2012 12:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
One reason people have rejected higher framerates in narrative for so long, at least outside of found footage films, is because of its increased realism. It is something that turns plausible fictional reality into sets, costumes, lights, etc.

It is the difference between watching hobbits and dwarves, and watching grown men play dress-up.


RE: You know what would be even more helpful?
By FaceMaster on 8/16/2012 4:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
For a tech site a lot of people seem against higher frame rates. 'It looks too real!' 'it gives away the flaws!' ...then CGI and sets will have to get better. Revealing the flaws in the scene isn't something I have a problem with, HD over SD, colour over black and white. Film it at 60, then lop out every other frame for the movie enthusiasts. I'd take the 60 any day, thank you.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/16/2012 9:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't a "tech site" issue. We're not talking CPU's where you ALWAYS want a faster one. 24fps gives a cinematic experience. The goal of movies isn't to make them as "real" as possible.

Why do you think they add motion blur and film grain effects in video games, despite their higher frame rate?

Look at peoples reaction to seeing the Hobbit screened at 48FPS. Not good at all.

"It looked completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets. I've been on sets of movies on the scale of The Hobbit, and sets don't even look like sets when you're on them live... but these looked like sets. The other comparison I kept coming to, as I was watching the footage, was that it all looked like behind the scenes video. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely."

nuff said


By TakinYourPoints on 8/16/2012 11:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
60hz has been with us for decades and for narrative work it looks ridiculous. It is the difference between believalbe fiction and behind-the-scenes footage. The difference between the actual cameras they use for filming and the BTS cameras is smaller than its ever been.

If you really like the look of cheesy realism where everything looks like sets and costumes and lights and makeup, go for it, but I'd have to question your taste in general. Its the same "smooth motion" nonsense that they build into some LCDs, so bad.


RE: You know what would be even more helpful?
By Jeffk464 on 8/16/2012 3:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, because people associate the motion blur with speed/action but this isn't how our eyes see motion in the real world.


By augiem on 8/17/2012 2:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
Really? Take a pencil and hold onto nee end of it in front of you. Now start waving the pencil up and down. Biological equivalent of motion blur related to speed. This is not forced conditioning, its nature.


By someguy123 on 8/16/2012 6:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
Many theaters have already installed new, upgraded equipment, like digital projectors, "high definition" digital projectors with higher framerate support like XD, and stereoscopic 3D projectors. Equipment swaps aren't holding anyone back, though they may increase ticket price.


"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad










botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki