720p please

My 4 TV is not paying it????????? 1080p is also perfect for all of us

the preview reminds me of the HBO's Westworld

Hed_pe: I think what you are referring to is chroma subsampling, which both H.264 and H.265 encode, and the interpolation of luma and chroma sub-pixels for motion estimation, again, which both H.264 and H.265 do. The difference is that HEVC uses a higher-precision filter with more taps. Regarding chroma subsampling, it is an old technique used in most video, H.264 and H.265, where colour information is stored (usually) at half resolution (our eyes being more sensitive to brightness). Open any video file and look for YUV 4:2:0. Note that I am not trying to promote 2160p or HEVC.

No thank you. I am not watching this on a 50 foot screen, nor do I need to be able to count each individual nose hair. 720 is more than adequate, plus downloads faster and allows for storage of more in a much smaller space. 4k sucks.

Nerd fight!

it doesnt have 4 times the pixels if 265 id blending them together.. thats a unique funtion of it. it doesnt take a rocket scientist. one adds pixels the other takes them away. again dog chasing his own tail. i promise you no matter how you spin it you will never ever get a true 2160 with hevc and/or 265.

yes even though 4k is cinematic not many video players can play 4k. So 720 or 1080 would be great to have. Appreciate you guys, thanks and have a Merry Christmas

Hed_pe: No, I prefer AVC myself, but for 4K content, HEVC is standard. As for the differences between AVC and HEVC, they do not encode video in completely different ways. Both use similar techniques that go back to the beginning of lossy transform codecs (such as MPEG-1). The controversial part of HEVC was its SAO filter, which resulted in blurring and loss of detail, though x265 has matured in this regard. If one turns off SAO and uses no-strong-intra-smoothing, x265 behaves very much like x264. After all, it is based on the latter's source code. As for the resolution difference, 2160p has four times the pixels of 1080p.

also not every video file uses hevc. just because its what you prefer or are used to doesnt mean everyone does it.

no. wrong. 264 and 265 encode video in completely different ways. and no the bitrate in avc would not be unreasonable. if you want high def video pay the cost. 2160 actively adds pixels to the same frame scale to aquire better resolution. 265 cheats the chroma sample and blurs matching pixels together to keep the file size down. 264 does not. in the end a 2160 265 video does not have any better video quality than a 1080 264 file. its like a dog chasing his own tail.

lower file size please....

Hed_pe: All 2160p material is encoded with HEVC or higher; in AVC, the bitrate would be unreasonable. If you're referring to chroma subsampling, most lossy codecs use it and the majority of these films are encoded with 4:2:0 subsampling, including the Blu-rays and web rips from which they come. If you're referring to chroma location, AVC and HEVC do use a different default (left and top-left, respectively), but that doesn't make any material difference. The problem is when chroma location is not respected, or assumed wrongly, during decoding.

Thanks

lol here we go again. some stupid uploader seems to think 2160 still looks good in 265. hey moron. go look up chroma sample and see what 265 does to it. then tell me its still a great idea paired with 2160. you putz.

1080 please all other sites offer 720 and 1080 before 2160

720 please

720 pls

1080 please

any smaller file size than 4GB?