h265+

iammarco29

n3wb
Oct 16, 2024
3
0
italy
hello, on my nvr DS-7608NXI-K2 with my six cameras DS-2CD2047G2-LU (I don't have the firmware numbers at the moment, but this morning they were all updated to the latest version), when I click "save" after setting h265+ to "active", I get the following message and h265+ does not activate: "This function is available only for compression standards Н.264/H.265." Can anyone help me? Thank you. (photo in Italian)
 

Attachments

  • dopo.png
    dopo.png
    310.9 KB · Views: 7
  • prima.png
    prima.png
    249.8 KB · Views: 7
Most of us don't use h265+

You will have much better functionality and consistency if you use just h264.

H265 doesn't save like you think and the + adds compatibility issues.
 
Most of us don't use h265+

You will have much better functionality and consistency if you use just h264.

H265 doesn't save like you think and the + adds compatibility issues.
my goal was to take up as little space as possible, should I put on h264?
 
Between the issues most of us have seen with h265, and for me it was literally a few minutes difference compared to h264, h264 is a better standard that is consistent across manufacturers.

H265 can be implemented different across manufacturers and causes issues.
 
Between the issues most of us have seen with h265, and for me it was literally a few minutes difference compared to h264, h264 is a better standard that is consistent across manufacturers.

H265 can be implemented different across manufacturers and causes issues.
ok, I based it on Surveillance Hard Drive Storage Calculator | Western Digital, which to record 13 days 24/7 six 4MP cameras at 24fps, gave me a difference of 5TB between archiving in h264 and h265
 
Like I said, most of us don't see the savings that are calculated. Mine was literally a few minutes each day.

H265 in theory provides more storage as it compresses differently, but part of that compression means it macro blocks big areas of the image that it thinks isn't moving. That can be problematic for digital zooming with H265.

However, it also takes more processing power of the already small CPU in the camera and that can be problematic if someone is maxing out the camera in other areas like FPS and then it stutters.

Further some cameras can handle H265 better than others, even if the camera "claims" to support it.

In theory it is supposed to need 30% less storage than H264, but most of us have found it isn't that much. My savings were less than few minutes per day. And to my eye and others that I showed clips to and just said do you like video 1 or video 2 better, everyone thought the H264 provided a better image.

The left image is H264, so all the blocks are the same size corresponding to the resolution of the camera. H265 takes areas that it doesn't think has motion and makes them into bigger blocks and in doing so lessens the resolution in those larger blocks yet increases the camera CPU demand to develop these larger blocks.

1667974399793.png




In theory H265 is supposed to need half the bitrate because of the macroblocking. But if there is a lot of motion in the image, then it becomes a pixelated mess. The only way to get around that is a higher bitrate. But if you need to run the same bitrate for H265 as you do H264, then the storage savings is essentially zero.


In my testing I have one camera that sees a parked car in front of my house. H265 sees that the car isn't moving, so it macroblocks the whole car and surrounding area. Then the car owner walked up to the car and got in and the motion is missed because of the macroblock being so large. Or if it catches it, because the bitrate is low, it is a pixelated mess during the critical capture point and by the time H265 adjusts to there is now motion, the ideal capture is missed.

In my case, the car is clear and defined in H264, but is blurry and soft edges in H265.

Digital zooming is never really good and not something we recommend, but you stand a better chance of some digital zoom with H264 rather than a large macroblocked H265. I can digital zoom on my overview camera and kinda make out the address number of the house across the street with H264, but not a chance with H265 as it macroblocked his whole house.

H265 is one of those theory things that sounds good, but reality use is much different.

Some people have a field of view or goals that allow H265 to be sufficient for their needs.

As always, YMMV.
 
@wittaj interesting description, thanks for it

right now I record in h265 and i am now wondering if should not switch to h264

for 4k, i currently do 15 fps at constant 6144kbps

if I want the "same" quality with h264, should I go to 8192kbps or 12288kbps or stay at the same bitrate? any bonus of going into variable instead of constant?
 
Most here would do 4K at 12k bitrate.

I tell people use that as a starting point and then go up and down until you notice a difference. Too much bitrate and it can get oversharp and take more storage and too low and it can get soft but uses less storage.

Most here are fans of CBR instead of VBR. VBR has the potential of not ramping up fast enough to get the good quality image we want.

But each camera and field of view is different. Test it with someone walking in the field of view and see how quickly the camera adjusts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spirch