The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

WTF is... H.265 aka HEVC?

Ultra-efficient vid codec paves way for MONSTER-res TVs, decent mobe streaming

Feature When Samsung unveiled its next-generation smartphone, the Galaxy S4, in March this year, most of the Korean giant’s fans focused their attention on the device’s big 5-inch, 1920 x 1080 screen, its quad-core processor and its 13Mp camera. All impressive of course, but incremental steps in the ongoing evolution of the smartphone. More cutting edge is the S4’s promised support for a technology called HEVC.

HEVC is short for High Efficiency Video Coding. It’s the successor to the technology used to encode video stored on Blu-ray Discs and streamed in high-definition digital TV transmissions the world over. The current standard is called H.264 - aka MPEG 4, aka Advanced Video Coding (AVC) - so it’s no surprise that HEVC will become H.265 when the Is and Ts are dotted and crossed on the final, ratified version of the standard later this year.

This final standardisation is just a formality. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T), the body which oversees the "H" series of standards, and its partner in video matters, the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG), have both given HEVC sufficient approval. This means device manufacturers such as Samsung, chipmakers such as Broadcom, content providers such as Orange France and mobile phone network operators such as NTT DoCoMo can begin announcing HEVC-related products safe in the knowledge that the standard will be completed with few, if any further changes.

HEVC bit-rate savings

Bit players: each successive generation of video codec delivers comparable picture quality at half its predecessor's bit-rate

It has taken H.265 three years to reach this stage, though exploratory work on post-H.264 standards goes back to 2004. The drive to develop the standard - a process overseen by a committee called the Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JVT-VC) and comprising members of both MPEG and ITU-T - was outlined in January 2010 in a call for specification proposals from technology firms and other stakeholders.

Their brief is easy to summarise: H.265 has to deliver a picture of the same perceived visual quality as H.264 but using only half the transmitted volume of data and therefore half the bandwidth. H.264 can happily churn out 1920 x 1080 imagery at 30 frames per second in progressive - ie, frame after frame - mode, but it’s expected to start running out of puff when it comes to the 3840 x 2160 - aka 4K x 2K - let alone the 7680 x 4320 (8K x 4K) resolutions defined as Ultra HD pictures. H.265, then, was conceived as the technology that will make these resolutions achievable with mainstream consumer electronics kit like phones and televisions.

High resolution, low bandwidth

Of course, 4K x 2K and up are, for now, thought of as big-screen TV resolutions. But it wasn’t so very long ago that 1920 x 1080 was considered an only-for-tellies resolution too. Now, though, plenty of phones, of which the Galaxy S4 is merely the latest, have screens with those pixel dimensions. Some tablets have higher resolutions still.

And while today’s mobile graphics cores have no trouble wrangling 2,073,600 pixels 30 times a second, that’s still a heck of a lot of data for mobile networks to carry to them, even over the fastest 4G LTE links. And so, in addition to supporting Ultra HD resolutions on large TVs, H.265 was conceived as a way to deliver larger moving pictures to phones while consuming less bandwidth requirements than H.264 takes up. Or to deliver higher, smoother frame rates over the same width of pipe.

This explains NTT DoCoMo’s interest in the new video technology. Its 2010 proposal to the JVT-VC was one of the five shortlisted from the original 27 suggestions in April 2010. All five could deliver a picture to match a good H.264 stream, but only four, including NTT DoCoMo’s, were also able to deliver a compression ratio as low as a third of what H.264 can manage. The JVT-VC’s target was 50 per cent more efficient compression for the same image size and picture quality.

HEVC vs AVC

HEVC assembles its coding units into a tree structure
Source: Elemental Technologies

The remaining proposals were combined and enshrined the the JVT-VC’s first working draft, which was published the following October. The committee and its partners have been refining and testing that specification ever since. Since June 2012, MPEG LA, the company that licences MPEG video technologies, has been bringing together patent holders with intellectual property that touches on the H.265 spec, before licensing that IP to anyone making H.265 encoders and decoders, whether in hardware or software.

So how does the new video standard work its magic?

Like H.264 before it - and all video standards from H.261 on, for that matter - HEVC is based on the same notion of spotting motion-induced differences between frames, and finding near-identical areas within a single frame. These similarities are subtracted from subsequent frames and whatever is left in each partial frame is mathematically transformed to reduce the amount of data needed to store each frame.

Next page: Singing, ringing tree

Re: Ah, another patent encumbered format

I'm perfectly happy with software being paid for running on Open Source platforms, but patenting the codecs such that you can't legally provide them as part of a free (as in free beer) OS puts huge amounts of leverage against projects who want to provide a free OS.

The problem is that if you stay within the law, and don't ship what may become the de-facto standard for video, then something like Linux will always be seen as not for general consumption.

Alternatively, if you ship the codecs as part of a distribution regardless, so that the experience to the end user is good, then MPEG-LA can then demand a payment from you. You have no revenue stream because you are providing the software for free, and cannot pay unless you are Mark Shuttleworth (who paid for an H.264 distribution license for Ubuntu, and got heavily criticised for it).

The problem clauses in the H,264 are the volume, which says something like the distributor has to pay a licence fee per copy deployed if they ship more than 10,000 copies, and the one that says that if you have to pay a fee if you use the encoder to produce commercial videos.

Bearing in mind how viral Linux distributions can be, how do you measure how many times it has been deployed. I download one install image, and use it to install thousands of systems, and offer re-distribution from my web site. How is that measured? And who should pay?

And what qualifies as commercial? If one of my kids record the neighbours cat doing something comical, and upload it to YouTube, and Google attaches adverts, is the video for commercial purposes? Should I pay for the encode? Should Google, even though that may not have encoded it?

Licensing like this is a legal minefield for Open Software since the days of MPEG2 Layer 3 (aka MP3) or GIF. My point is that it would be so much better if the codecs (or even just the algorithms) were available under a permissive license.

19
1

Re: Ah, another patent encumbered format

I've looked at the H.264 license when we developed software using it and it hardly seemed crippling. I also see no particular reason why something that represents man-decades of work shouldn't require payment as long as that payment is reasonable.

The roots of the OSS movement, Stallman at least, were NOT about software being free but about it being open source so you could buy/license software and get the source-code in case you needed to alter it. That model of OSS is better in my view than the "software shouldn't cost anything" view most take now... I have no problem paying for software.

15
3

Re: All those pretty words and not a single mention of WebM

VP8 never stood up against H.264 in quality tests at the same bitrate. We'll just have to wait and see how VP9 does.

Patent free video codecs are a false economy if you have to pay more in bandwidth and storage than the amount you saved on the codecs.

10
2

Re: Ah, another patent encumbered format @ Spaniel

The problem here is in my opinion not that you make something you want to be paid for. The problem is that what you want to get paid for is a standard, ie something that others will be more or less forced to use and in reality you have no option to use anything else. TV is not broadcast in multiple formats so you can chose the one you want, it is broadcast in one format take it or leave it.

6
0

Re: Ah, another patent encumbered format @ Spaniel

I take your point Peter but if I make something I want to sell, the fact you use it in software you choose to give away isn't really my problem - give your software away for free but I don't want you giving away mine.

6
1

More from The Register

Pirates scoff at games dev sim's in-game piracy lesson
Dev seeds cracked version of 'Game Dev Tycoon', watches as Pirates run rampant
Fanbois vs fandroids: Punters display 'tribal loyalty'
Buying a new mobe? You'll stick with the same maker - survey
iPhone 5 totters at the top as Samsung thrusts up UK mobe chart
But older Apples are still holding their own
Google to Glass devs: 'Duh! Go ahead, hack your headset'
'We intentionally left the device unlocked'
Japan's naughty nurses scam free meals with mobile games
Hungry women trick unsuspecting otaku into paying for grub
 breaking news
Turn off the mic: Nokia gets injunction on 'key' HTC One component
Dutch court stops Taiwanese firm from using microphones
Next Xbox to be called ‘Xbox Infinity’... er... ‘Xbox’
We don’t know. Maybe Microsoft doesn’t (yet) either
Sord drawn: The story of the M5 micro
The 1983 Japanese home computer that tried to cut it in the UK
Nudge nudge, wink wink interface may drive Google Glass
Two-finger salutes also come in handy, as may patent lawyers
Black-eyed Pies reel from BeagleBoard's $45 Linux micro blow
Gigahertz-class pocket-sized ARM Ubuntu rig, anyone?