The Hoosier Helmet Trophy is the name of the rivalry trophy between the Butler Bulldogs and Valparaiso Beacons.

History
Both schools are members of the Pioneer Football League. Butler and Valparaiso first played in 1927, and have played each other in football every year since 1951. The two teams have met 81 times on the football field, with Butler currently holding a 51–30 edge in the all-time series. In 2006, at the suggestion of Butler head coach Jeff Voris, the Hoosier Helmet Trophy was created to commemorate and intensify the long-standing rivalry between the two schools.

The trophy is a white football helmet with Butler's logo on one side, and Valparaiso's logo on the other; mounted on a hardwood plaque. An inscription is added to the base each year with the winner and the score of each game. Since the trophy was established in 2006, Butler leads in the trophy series, 12–7.

Game results

Source:

See also
 List of NCAA college football rivalry games

References

College football rivalry trophies in the United States
Butler Bulldogs football
Valparaiso Beacons football


The Genoese map is a 1457 world map.  The map relied extensively on the account of the traveler to Asia Niccolo da Conti, rather than the usual source of Marco Polo. The author is not known, but is a more modern development than the Fra Mauro world map, with fairly good proportions given to each continents.  The map also depicts a three-masted European ship in the Indian Ocean, something which had not occurred yet at the time.

A Genoese flag in the upper northwest corner of the map establishes this map's origin, along with the coat of arms of the Spinolas, a prominent Genoese mercantile family. Niccolò de'Conti was from a noble mercantile family; at an early age he decided to follow in the family tradition by establishing a lucrative trading operation in the East.

The Genoese map's sea monsters reflect the cartographer's interest in exotic wonders, which is everywhere in evidence on the map, and typical of the scientific outlook of the early modern period, which was driven by curiosity and took a great interest in marvels. The demon-like monster in particular is evidence of the cartographer's research in recent travel literature to find sea monsters for his map.

This map was done in rich color and was not made particularly used for anything but for display. They say this map was sent to the Portuguese court in 1474 and then to Columbus and this is the map that he used to travel the India sea to the Atlantic but was never proven. The map is now the property of the Italian government and is to be found in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale of Florence.

The oval form is not unknown among medieval maps. Hugh of Saint Victor had described the world as being the shape of Noah's Ark, and Ranulf Higden world maps were oval. A standard way of describing the earth was to compare it to an egg. The main purpose of the analogy seems to have been to describe the various spheres surrounding the earth (egg white, shell), but the idea of an egg shape could have been derived from these works. Another possibility is that the oval form represents the mandorla, or nimbus, which surrounded Christ in many medieval works of art.

See also

 Ancient world maps

Notes

References

 http://www.myoldmaps.com/late-medieval-maps-1300/248-the-genoese-map/
 http://biography.yourdictionary.com/niccolo-de-conti

External links
 Interactive scholarly edition, Deep Zoom feature, highlighted details, English and Chinese translation, multimodal resources mashup (publications, images, videos). Link Engineering Historical Memory.

World maps
1457 works
15th-century maps and globes


Mouguías (Mohías in Spanish and officially Mouguías/Mohías) is one of seven parishes (administrative divisions) in the Coaña municipality, within the province and autonomous community of Asturias, in northern Spain.

The population is 989 (INE 2007).

Villages
Astás
El Espín
Foxos
Medal
Mouguías
Ortigueira
El Rabeirón
A Regueira
Os Villares
A Veiga de Pindolas

References

Parishes in Coaña


John B. Matthias (January 1, 1767 – May 27, 1848) is known as the writer of the words and music for the gospel song, “Palms of Victory” (also known as “Deliverance Will Come” or “I Saw a Way-worn Traveler”), for which he is generally given credit. He was typical of Methodist Episcopal circuit riders in early 19th Century United States.

There are two major primary sources for information about his life. First, the minutes of the New York Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church from 1811 through 1848, especially his official obituary written by his son, the Rev. John J. Matthias  Much of the obituary is available on-line in Sacred Memories, or Annals of deceased preachers, etc. The second primary source is John B. Matthias’ personal journal, housed in the United Methodist Archives, Madison, NJ.

	John B. Matthias was born January 1, 1767, in Germantown, PA., a post of the British troops, and a field of one of the battles of the revolution. His father was a German emigrant, a firm adherent to the cause of the American Revolution, and a member of the Reformed Dutch Church. John B. was educated in the German language and grew up to be a strong American patriot who spoke frequently about the political privileges enjoyed by U.S. citizens. He learned the trade of a ship-joiner, in Philadelphia, and on the expiration of his apprenticeship he went to New-York.

	In New York he began attending John Street Methodist Episcopal Church, where the Rev. John Dickens was pastor. During the 19th century it was common for the bishop to move Methodist ministers every year or two, and Mathias was apparently upset when Dickens was moved, but he warmed to the ministry of Dickens’ successors and became a regular attender. One of these successors, the Rev. Thomas Morrell, was reassigned to the Bowery where he started a congregation known as the Forsyth Street Church. Matthias followed him to that church, where he was converted. A year after his conversion, he married Sarah Jarvis, a member of the John Street Church.

	He subsequently felt that God was calling him to preach, and the New York Annual Conference granted him a license to preach in 1793. In 1796 he moved to Tarrytown, New York, where he followed the ship-joiner trade for twelve years while preaching on Sundays (often three times on a Sunday). His son, John J. Matthias, was born at Tarrytown.

	The beginning of his ordained ministry is unclear. His obituary indicated that he was ordained as a Deacon in 1797, but the Minutes indicate that he was not admitted “on trial” until 1811, and apparently ordained Deacon in 1812. In any case, he clearly was active in ministry, whether lay or ordained, from 1793 onward. (The Minutes kept no record of lay ministers or their appointments, even though they were a significant part of the development of the early Methodist Episcopal Church. Dixon noted that in 1848, almost half of the clergy in the New York Conference were lay ministers: 254 ministers and 220 local preachers.)

	The obituary indicates that he had hoped to be appointed as a full-time minister in 1810, but he was married with a family, and the church officials preferred young single men for the arduous work of circuit riding. Since there were enough such single ministers in the New York Conference, Matthias was passed over, much to his disappointment. Then, in the fall of 1810, he was asked to take responsibility for a circuit where the appointed minister had become ill. A layman from Rhinebeck, NY, gave him a horse, and he began his full-time ministry. For the next 30 years he served as minister on circuits up and down the Hudson River valley from just north of New York City to Schenectady.

	We don't have good records of the boundaries of the circuits, but their size is suggested by one bit of data: In 1814–1815, Matthias served two years on the Albany circuit (apparently not including the main congregation in Albany, but possibly including another, smaller congregation in the city), and one of the congregations on this circuit was Windham, more than  south.

In 1840 Matthias had such a serious problem with cataracts that he could not see well enough to guide his horse, so for his last year of active ministry, his wife had to accompany him on the circuit. At the 1841 meeting of the New York Annual Conference he received a superannuated relation (i.e., retired), and resided at his son's home on Hempstead, L. I. until his death on May 27, 1848. At his death, his son, John J. Matthias, was attending the infamous Methodist Episcopal General Conference of 1848, at which the decision was made to split the denomination over the issue of slavery, and was called home from Pittsburgh via the telegraph.

John B. Matthias also had a grandson who was a Methodist minister, Rev. Benjamin M. Adams, and it is possible that some traditions about the elder Matthias were never documented, but were passed down through the family. This could be the basis for the attribution that he is author of “Palms of Victory.”

During his years of retirement, Matthias received a pension based on whatever congregation members in the New York Conference contributed that year. The Minutes indicate that his annual pension ranged between $86.40 and $157.28.

References

1767 births
1848 deaths
Converts to Methodism
American Methodist clergy
Christian hymnwriters


Bands () was an Italian military term for irregular forces, composed of natives, with Italian officers and NCOs in command. These units were employed by the Italian Army as auxiliaries to the regular national and  colonial military forces. They were also known to the British colonial forces as "armed Bands".

Characteristics
A  (singular) was approximatively company sized with 100 - 200 men. An individual member of a "band" was called a "Gregario". The larger unit was the battalion size  (infantry) or  (cavalry). The  a regimental unit appeared briefly during the fascist period in the Balkans. The first of these irregular units employed by the  originated from a mercenary Arab force employed by the Ottoman Empire, called Bashi-bazouk (which became "basci buzuk" in Italian), that was created in Eritrea by the Albanian adventurer Sagiak Hassan in the second half of the 19th century. In 1885, the Italian Colonel Tancredi Saletta, commanding officer of the first Italian troops involved in the conquest of Eritrea, enlisted Bashi-bazouks in the service of Italy. As lightly armed irregulars the  were able to perform duties for which regular Italian and colonial troops were unsuited and at lower cost.

Locally recruited bands were employed in the conquest of Italian Libya from 1911 to the 1930s. Their Somali counterparts played an important role in Italian Somaliland during the 1920s. In "Somalia italiana", the Italians also employed Dubats; levies that were maintained on a permanent basis and were better trained and equipped than the . During the guerrilla war that continued in Ethiopia after the 1936 Italian invasion, Bande were recruited amongst groups collaborating with the Italian regime. One of the best known of these was the  in northern Ethiopia.

While most  were recruited in the Italian colonies in Africa, many units bearing this designation were also created as auxiliaries during the Second World War in Albania and in the occupied territories of the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The other branches of the Italian armed forces and corps created . The  n° 9 , formed of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes and local young Italians from Dalmatia, was established in Zara under the control of the  (Italian Royal Navy). These naval auxiliaries fought side by side with a company from the  from 1941 to 1943.

After the fall of Asmara the group (reduced to just 176 soldiers) did guerrilla war for many months.

See also
 Amedeo Guillet
 Dubats
 Eritrean Ascari
 Hamid Idriss Awate
 Zaptié
 Savari
 Italian Spahis
 Royal Corps of Colonial Troops (Italian)
 Ruga-Ruga, irregular troops in Eastern Africa, often deployed by western colonial forces.

Notes

Military history of Italy
Italian East Africa
Italian colonial troops


Outline of Georgia may refer to:

 Outline of Georgia (country)
 Outline of Georgia (U.S. state)


Bandulu are a British electronic and reggae music group consisting of Jamie Bissmire, John O'Connell and Lucien Thompson. The music often relies heavily on techno and dub elements. Releasing their first two albums on Creation Records sublabel Infonet, the group has also released albums on Blanco y Negro, Foundation Sound Works and Music Man Records. The group recorded three sessions for John Peel's BBC Radio 1 show.

The trio have also recorded under the names Thunderground, New Adult, Sons of the Subway, and Space DJz.

In his book Energy Flash, Simon Reynolds credited Bandulu as part of the "Texturology" subgenre, stating that "the best tracks on Bandulu's Guidance sounded like jazz-techno, as if Zawinul had somehow ended up band-leader of Tangerine Dream instead of Weather Report".

Album discography

The CD and vinyl versions of Redemption contained mostly different tracks.

References

External links
 Detailed discography on Discogs
 [ Bandulu at AllMusic]
 Bandulu at last.fm

English electronic music groups
British reggae musical groups
Musical groups from London
British musical trios


San Pascualito (also known as San Pascualito Muerte and El Rey San Pascual) is a folk saint associated with Saint Paschal Baylon and venerated in Guatemala and the Mexican state of Chiapas. He is called "King of the Graveyard." His veneration is associated with the curing of disease, and is related to the Latin American cult of death. The tradition may be related to the worship of a pre-Columbian death god. San Pascualito is represented as a skeleton, sometimes caped or wearing a crown. The veneration of San Pascualito is not approved by the Roman Catholic Church.

History

San Pascualito derived his name from the Spanish friar, Paschal Baylon, who according to historian Francisco Antonio de Fuentes y Guzmán, is said to have appeared in 1650 in a vision of an indigenous Guatemalan man in San Antonio Aguacaliente (modern day Ciudad Vieja). The man was dying from an epidemic fever called cucumatz in Kaqchikel, and had received the last rites before a tall skeleton in glowing robes appeared to him in a vision.

The figure introduced himself as "Saint Paschal Baylon," although Baylon was not canonized until 1690. (He had been beatified in 1618.) He promised to intercede to end cucumatz if he were to be adopted by the community as patron saint and his image venerated. As proof of his identity, the figure predicted that the man receiving the vision would die within nine days, at which time the epidemic would also cease. When the man died within the predicted timeframe and the epidemic ended, word of the vision spread, and images of San Pascualito became popular despite formal prohibition by the Spanish Inquisition.

Veneration

A chapel in Olintepeque, Guatemala is dedicated to the veneration of El Rey San Pascual. Devotees leave thank you notes, offer capes or burn candles. The color of the candle burned signifies the nature of the request for intercession: red for love, pink for health, yellow for protection, green for business, blue for work, light blue for money, purple for help against vices, white for the protection of children, and black for revenge. A festival is celebrated annually on May 17, the feast day of Saint Paschal Baylon. Another sacred replica, represented by a seated skeleton in a wheeled cart, is kept in the Church of San Pascualito in Tuxtla Gutiérrez in the Mexican state of Chiapas.

Literature

San Pascualito is represented by a character named Pascal in the novel El tiempo principia en Xibalbá ("Time Commences in Xibalbá") by Guatemalan author Luis de Lión (José Luis de León Díaz).

See also
 Death (personification)
 Maximón
 Pascual Abaj
 San La Muerte
 Santa Muerte

References

General

Specific

Chiapas
Christianity and death
Religion in Guatemala
Religion in Mexico
Folk saints
Guatemalan folklore
Mexican folklore
Maya mythology and religion
Superstitions of Mexico
Superstitions of the Americas
Christianity and religious syncretism
Miracle workers


Ludwik Leibler, born in 1952 is a Polish-born French physicist. He is Professor of École supérieure de physique et de chimie industrielles de la ville de Paris (ESPCI ParisTech) and member of the French Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering.

Ludwik Leibler received his PhD in 1976 in Theoretical Physics from Warsaw University, and then spent two years as a post-doctoral fellow at the Collège de France in Paris under the direction of Pierre-Gilles de Gennes. He is a researcher in Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) which he joined first in Stasbourg then in Paris where he worked on theoretical and experimental aspects of polymer self-assembly and dynamics, interfaces, gels and charged polymers. From 1996 to 2003 he was the founding director of a joint laboratory between CNRS and chemical company Elf Atochem (later Arkema) which regrouped researchers from academia and industry. In 2001 he became professor of Soft Matter and Chemistry at École Supérieure de Physique et Chimie Industrielles in Paris where his research interests include influence of molecular disorder on mesoscopic structure and properties of polymer materials, impact resistance, fracture and adhesion, design of stimuli responsive materials and supramolecular chemistry.

Awards

 2019 Honorary doctoral degree from the division of the Faculty of Sciences of Ghent University
 2019 European Polymer Federation (EPF) prize
 2015 Descartes-Huygens Prize of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW)
 2015 European Inventor Award 2015
 2014 member of National Academy of Engineering
 2014 EPJE Pierre-Gilles De Gennes Lecture Prize
 2013 CNRS Medal of Innovation
 2012 Grand Prix, Fondation de la Maison de Chimie
 2012 Netherlands Polymer Technology Network Award
 2009 Grand Prix of French Chemical Society, Prix Pierre Süe
 2009 Grand Prix of Academy of Sciences, Prix IFP
 2007 American Chemical Society Award in Polymer Chemistry
 2006 Polymer Physics Prize of American Physical Society
 2004 Foreign Associate of National Academy of Engineering, Washington DC
 2004 Distinguished Polymer Scientist Award, IUPAC World Polymer Congress Macromolecules 2004
 1989 IBM Scientific Prize in Materials Science
 1989 CNRS Silver Medal
 1986 French Polymer Society (G.F.P.) Prize
 1979 Joliot-Curie Fellowship, France
 1977 Rector of Warsaw University Award for the best Ph.D. thesis
 1974 Polish Physical Society Award for the best M. Sc. thesis

Dr. Leibler was elected a member of National Academy of Engineering in 2004 for fundamental theoretical insights into the structure, self-assembly, and properties of polymer-based formulations. He is a recipient of the CNRS Silver Medal, France IBM Prize in Material Science, the Polymer Physics prize of the American Physical Society (2006) and the Polymer Chemistry Award of the American Chemical Society (2007). In 2014, he was awarded EPJE Pierre-Gilles De Gennes Lecture Prize. In January 2015, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) has awarded him the annual Descartes-Huygens Prize. In March 2019, Ludwik Leibler received honorary doctoral degree from the division of the Faculty of Sciences of Ghent University. The 2019 European Polymer Federation (EPF) prize was awarded to Ludwik Leibler “For groundbreaking contributions to the understanding of the phase behavior of block copolymers and for the discovery of new materials based on dynamic bonds like selfhealing rubbers, vitrimers and tissue glues”.

References

1945 births
Living people
20th-century Polish physicists
Academic staff of ESPCI Paris
Members of Academia Europaea
Members of the French Academy of Sciences
21st-century French physicists
Research directors of the French National Centre for Scientific Research


High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC), also known as H.265 and MPEG-H Part 2, is a video compression standard designed as part of the MPEG-H project as a successor to the widely used Advanced Video Coding (AVC, H.264, or MPEG-4 Part 10). In comparison to AVC, HEVC offers from 25% to 50% better data compression at the same level of video quality, or substantially improved video quality at the same bit rate. It supports resolutions up to 8192×4320, including 8K UHD, and unlike the primarily 8-bit AVC, HEVC's higher fidelity Main 10 profile has been incorporated into nearly all supporting hardware.

While AVC uses the integer discrete cosine transform (DCT) with 4×4 and 8×8 block sizes, HEVC uses both integer DCT and discrete sine transform (DST) with varied block sizes between 4×4 and 32×32. The High Efficiency Image Format (HEIF) is based on HEVC.

Concept
In most ways, HEVC is an extension of the concepts in H.264/MPEG-4 AVC. Both work by comparing different parts of a frame of video to find areas that are redundant, both within a single frame and between consecutive frames. These redundant areas are then replaced with a short description instead of the original pixels. The primary changes for HEVC include the expansion of the pattern comparison and difference-coding areas from 16×16 pixel to sizes up to 64×64, improved variable-block-size segmentation, improved "intra" prediction within the same picture, improved motion vector prediction and motion region merging, improved motion compensation filtering, and an additional filtering step called sample-adaptive offset filtering. Effective use of these improvements requires much more signal processing capability for compressing the video, but has less impact on the amount of computation needed for decompression.

HEVC was standardized by the Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC), a collaboration between the ISO/IEC MPEG and ITU-T Study Group 16 VCEG. The ISO/IEC group refers to it as MPEG-H Part 2 and the ITU-T as H.265. The first version of the HEVC standard was ratified in January 2013 and published in June 2013. The second version, with multiview extensions (MV-HEVC), range extensions (RExt), and scalability extensions (SHVC), was completed and approved in 2014 and published in early 2015. Extensions for 3D video (3D-HEVC) were completed in early 2015, and extensions for screen content coding (SCC) were completed in early 2016 and published in early 2017, covering video containing rendered graphics, text, or animation as well as (or instead of) camera-captured video scenes. In October 2017, the standard was recognized by a Primetime Emmy Engineering Award
as having had a material effect on the technology of television.

HEVC contains technologies covered by patents owned by the organizations that participated in the JCT-VC. Implementing a device or software application that uses HEVC may require a license from HEVC patent holders. The ISO/IEC and ITU require companies that belong to their organizations to offer their patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing (RAND) terms. Patent licenses can be obtained directly from each patent holder, or through patent licensing bodies, such as MPEG LA, Access Advance, and Velos Media.

The combined licensing fees currently offered by all of the patent licensing bodies are higher than for AVC. The licensing fees are one of the main reasons HEVC adoption has been low on the web and is why some of the largest tech companies (Amazon, AMD, Apple, ARM, Cisco, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix, Nvidia, and more) have joined the Alliance for Open Media, which finalized royalty-free alternative video coding format AV1 on March 28, 2018.

History
The HEVC format was jointly developed by more than a dozen organisations across the world. The majority of active patent contributions towards the development of the HEVC format came from five organizations: Samsung Electronics (4,249 patents), General Electric (1,127 patents), M&K Holdings (907 patents), NTT ( patents), and JVC Kenwood (628 patents). Other patent holders include Fujitsu, Apple, Canon, Columbia University, KAIST, Kwangwoon University, MIT, Sungkyunkwan University, Funai, Hikvision, KBS, KT and NEC.

Previous work
In 2004, the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) began a major study of technology advances that could enable creation of a new video compression standard (or substantial compression-oriented enhancements of the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC standard). In October 2004, various techniques for potential enhancement of the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC standard were surveyed. In January 2005, at the next meeting of VCEG, VCEG began designating certain topics as "Key Technical Areas" (KTA) for further investigation. A software codebase called the KTA codebase was established for evaluating such proposals. The KTA software was based on the Joint Model (JM) reference software that was developed by the MPEG & VCEG Joint Video Team for H.264/MPEG-4 AVC. Additional proposed technologies were integrated into the KTA software and tested in experiment evaluations over the next four years.

Two approaches for standardizing enhanced compression technology were considered: either creating a new standard or creating extensions of H.264/MPEG-4 AVC. The project had tentative names H.265 and H.NGVC (Next-generation Video Coding), and was a major part of the work of VCEG until its evolution into the HEVC joint project with MPEG in 2010.

The preliminary requirements for NGVC were the capability to have a bit rate reduction of 50% at the same subjective image quality compared with the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC High profile, and computational complexity ranging from 1/2 to 3 times that of the High profile. NGVC would be able to provide 25% bit rate reduction along with 50% reduction in complexity at the same perceived video quality as the High profile, or to provide greater bit rate reduction with somewhat higher complexity.

The ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) started a similar project in 2007, tentatively named High-performance Video Coding. An agreement of getting a bit rate reduction of 50% had been decided as the goal of the project by July 2007. Early evaluations were performed with modifications of the KTA reference software encoder developed by VCEG. By July 2009, experimental results showed average bit reduction of around 20% compared with AVC High Profile; these results prompted MPEG to initiate its standardization effort in collaboration with VCEG.

Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding

MPEG and VCEG established a Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) to develop the HEVC standard.

Standardization
A formal joint Call for Proposals on video compression technology was issued in January 2010 by VCEG and MPEG, and proposals were evaluated at the first meeting of the MPEG & VCEG Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC), which took place in April 2010. A total of 27 full proposals were submitted. Evaluations showed that some proposals could reach the same visual quality as AVC at only half the bit rate in many of the test cases, at the cost of 2–10× increase in computational complexity, and some proposals achieved good subjective quality and bit rate results with lower computational complexity than the reference AVC High profile encodings. At that meeting, the name High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) was adopted for the joint project. Starting at that meeting, the JCT-VC integrated features of some of the best proposals into a single software codebase and a "Test Model under Consideration", and performed further experiments to evaluate various proposed features. The first working draft specification of HEVC was produced at the third JCT-VC meeting in October 2010. Many changes in the coding tools and configuration of HEVC were made in later JCT-VC meetings.

On January 25, 2013, the ITU announced that HEVC had received first stage approval (consent) in the ITU-T Alternative Approval Process (AAP). On the same day, MPEG announced that HEVC had been promoted to Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) status in the MPEG standardization process.

On April 13, 2013, HEVC/H.265 was approved as an ITU-T standard. The standard was formally published by the ITU-T on June 7, 2013, and by the ISO/IEC on November 25, 2013.

On July 11, 2014, MPEG announced that the 2nd edition of HEVC will contain three recently completed extensions which are the multiview extensions (MV-HEVC), the range extensions (RExt), and the scalability extensions (SHVC).

On October 29, 2014, HEVC/H.265 version 2 was approved as an ITU-T standard. It was then formally published on January 12, 2015.

On April 29, 2015, HEVC/H.265 version 3 was approved as an ITU-T standard.

On June 3, 2016, HEVC/H.265 version 4 was consented in the ITU-T and was not approved during a vote in October 2016.

On December 22, 2016, HEVC/H.265 version 4 was approved as an ITU-T standard.

Patent licensing

On September 29, 2014, MPEG LA announced their HEVC license which covers the essential patents from 23 companies. The first 100,000 "devices" (which includes software implementations) are royalty free, and after that the fee is $0.20 per device up to an annual cap of $25 million. This is significantly more expensive than the fees on AVC, which were $0.10 per device, with the same 100,000 waiver, and an annual cap of $6.5 million. MPEG LA does not charge any fee on the content itself, something they had attempted when initially licensing AVC, but subsequently dropped when content producers refused to pay it. The license has been expanded to include the profiles in version 2 of the HEVC standard.

When the MPEG LA terms were announced, commenters noted that a number of prominent patent holders were not part of the group. Among these were AT&T, Microsoft, Nokia, and Motorola. Speculation at the time was that these companies would form their own licensing pool to compete with or add to the MPEG LA pool. Such a group was formally announced on March 26, 2015, as HEVC Advance. The terms, covering 500 essential patents, were announced on July 22, 2015, with rates that depend on the country of sale, type of device, HEVC profile, HEVC extensions, and HEVC optional features. Unlike the MPEG LA terms, HEVC Advance reintroduced license fees on content encoded with HEVC, through a revenue sharing fee.

The initial HEVC Advance license had a maximum royalty rate of US$2.60 per device for Region 1 countries and a content royalty rate of 0.5% of the revenue generated from HEVC video services. Region 1 countries in the HEVC Advance license include the United States, Canada, European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and others. Region 2 countries are countries not listed in the Region 1 country list. The HEVC Advance license had a maximum royalty rate of US$1.30 per device for Region 2 countries. Unlike MPEG LA, there was no annual cap. On top of this, HEVC Advance also charged a royalty rate of 0.5% of the revenue generated from video services encoding content in HEVC.

When they were announced, there was considerable backlash from industry observers about the "unreasonable and greedy" fees on devices, which were about seven times that of the MPEG LA's fees. Added together, a device would require licenses costing $2.80, twenty-eight times as expensive as AVC, as well as license fees on the content. This led to calls for "content owners [to] band together and agree not to license from HEVC Advance". Others argued the rates might cause companies to switch to competing standards such as Daala and VP9.

On December 18, 2015, HEVC Advance announced changes in the royalty rates. The changes include a reduction in the maximum royalty rate for Region 1 countries to US$2.03 per device, the creation of annual royalty caps, and a waiving of royalties on content that is free to end users. The annual royalty caps for a company is US$40 million for devices, US$5 million for content, and US$2 million for optional features.

On February 3, 2016, Technicolor SA announced that they had withdrawn from the HEVC Advance patent pool and would be directly licensing their HEVC patents. HEVC Advance previously listed 12 patents from Technicolor. Technicolor announced that they had rejoined on October 22, 2019.

On November 22, 2016, HEVC Advance announced a major initiative, revising their policy to allow software implementations of HEVC to be distributed directly to consumer mobile devices and personal computers royalty free, without requiring a patent license.

On March 31, 2017, Velos Media announced their HEVC license which covers the essential patents from Ericsson, Panasonic, Qualcomm Incorporated, Sharp, and Sony.

 the MPEG LA HEVC patent list is 164 pages long.

Patent holders
The following organizations currently hold the most active patents in the HEVC patent pools listed by MPEG LA and HEVC Advance:

Versions
Versions of the HEVC/H.265 standard using the ITU-T approval dates.
 Version 1: (April 13, 2013) First approved version of the HEVC/H.265 standard containing Main, Main10, and Main Still Picture profiles.
 Version 2: (October 29, 2014) Second approved version of the HEVC/H.265 standard which adds 21 range extensions profiles, two scalable extensions profiles, and one multi-view extensions profile.
 Version 3: (April 29, 2015) Third approved version of the HEVC/H.265 standard which adds the 3D Main profile.
 Version 4: (December 22, 2016) Fourth approved version of the HEVC/H.265 standard which adds seven screen content coding extensions profiles, three high throughput extensions profiles, and four scalable extensions profiles.
 Version 5: (February 13, 2018) Fifth approved version of the HEVC/H.265 standard which adds additional SEI messages that include omnidirectional video SEI messages, a Monochrome 10 profile, a Main 10 Still Picture profile, and corrections to various minor defects in the prior content of the Specification.
 Version 6: (June 29, 2019) Sixth approved version of the HEVC/H.265 standard which adds additional SEI messages that include SEI manifest and SEI prefix messages, and corrections to various minor defects in the prior content of the Specification.
 Version 7: (November 29, 2019) Seventh approved version of the HEVC/H.265 standard which adds additional SEI messages for fisheye video information and annotated regions, and also includes corrections to various minor defects in the prior content of the Specification.
 Version 8: As of August 2021 Version 8 is in "Additional Review" status while Version 7 is in force.

Implementations and products

2012
On February 29, 2012, at the 2012 Mobile World Congress, Qualcomm demonstrated a HEVC decoder running on an Android tablet, with a Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 dual-core processor running at 1.5 GHz, showing H.264/MPEG-4 AVC and HEVC versions of the same video content playing side by side. In this demonstration, HEVC reportedly showed almost a 50% bit rate reduction compared with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.

2013
On February 11, 2013, researchers from MIT demonstrated the world's first published HEVC ASIC decoder at the International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) 2013. Their chip was capable of decoding a 3840×2160p at 30 fps video stream in real time, consuming under 0.1 W of power.

On April 3, 2013, Ateme announced the availability of the first open source implementation of a HEVC software player based on the OpenHEVC decoder and GPAC video player which are both licensed under LGPL. The OpenHEVC decoder supports the Main profile of HEVC and can decode 1080p at 30 fps video using a single core CPU. A live transcoder that supports HEVC and used in combination with the GPAC video player was shown at the ATEME booth at the NAB Show in April 2013.

On July 23, 2013, MulticoreWare announced, and made the source code available for the x265 HEVC Encoder Library under the GPL v2 license.

On August 8, 2013, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone announced the release of their HEVC-1000 SDK software encoder which supports the Main 10 profile, resolutions up to 7680×4320, and frame rates up to 120 fps.

On November 14, 2013, DivX developers released information on HEVC decoding performance using an Intel i7 CPU at 3.5 GHz with 4 cores and 8 threads. The DivX 10.1 Beta decoder was capable of 210.9 fps at 720p, 101.5 fps at 1080p, and 29.6 fps at 4K.

On December 18, 2013, ViXS Systems announced shipments of their XCode (not to be confused with Apple's Xcode IDE for MacOS) 6400 SoC which was the first SoC to support the Main 10 profile of HEVC.

2014
On April 5, 2014, at the NAB show, eBrisk Video, Inc. and Altera Corporation demonstrated an FPGA-accelerated HEVC Main10 encoder that encoded 4Kp60/10-bit video in real-time, using a dual-Xeon E5-2697-v2 platform.

On August 13, 2014, Ittiam Systems announced availability of its third generation H.265/HEVC codec with 4:2:2 12-bit support.

On September 5, 2014, the Blu-ray Disc Association announced that the 4K Blu-ray Disc specification would support HEVC-encoded 4K video at 60 fps, the Rec. 2020 color space, high dynamic range (PQ and HLG), and 10-bit color depth. 4K Blu-ray Discs have a data rate of at least 50 Mbit/s and disc capacity up to 100 GB. 4K Blu-ray Discs and players became available for purchase in 2015 or 2016.

On September 9, 2014, Apple announced the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus which support HEVC/H.265 for FaceTime over cellular.

On September 18, 2014, Nvidia released the GeForce GTX 980 (GM204) and GTX 970 (GM204), which includes Nvidia NVENC, the world's first HEVC hardware encoder in a discrete graphics card.

On October 31, 2014, Microsoft confirmed that Windows 10 will support HEVC out of the box, according to a statement from Gabriel Aul, the leader of Microsoft Operating Systems Group's Data and Fundamentals Team. Windows 10 Technical Preview Build 9860 added platform level support for HEVC and Matroska.

On November 3, 2014, Android Lollipop was released with out of the box support for HEVC using Ittiam Systems' software.

2015
On January 5, 2015, ViXS Systems announced the XCode 6800 which is the first SoC to support the Main 12 profile of HEVC.

On January 5, 2015, Nvidia officially announced the Tegra X1 SoC with full fixed-function HEVC hardware decoding.

On January 22, 2015, Nvidia released the GeForce GTX 960 (GM206), which includes the world's first full fixed function HEVC Main/Main10 hardware decoder in a discrete graphics card.

On February 23, 2015, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) announced that their UVD ASIC to be found in the Carrizo APUs would be the first x86 based CPUs to have a HEVC hardware decoder.

On February 27, 2015, VLC media player version 2.2.0 was released with robust support of HEVC playback. The corresponding versions on Android and iOS are also able to play HEVC.

On March 31, 2015, VITEC announced the MGW Ace which was the first 100% hardware-based portable HEVC encoder that provides mobile HEVC encoding.

On August 5, 2015, Intel launched Skylake products with full fixed function Main/8-bit decoding/encoding and hybrid/partial Main10/10-bit decoding.

On September 9, 2015 Apple announced the Apple A9 chip, first used in the iPhone 6S, its first processor with a hardware HEVC decoder supporting Main 8 and 10. This feature would not be unlocked until the release of iOS 11 in 2017.

2016
On April 11, 2016, full HEVC (H.265) support was announced in the newest MythTV version (0.28).

On August 30, 2016, Intel officially announced 7th generation Core CPUs (Kaby Lake) products with full fixed function HEVC Main10 hardware decoding support.

On September 7, 2016 Apple announced the Apple A10 chip, first used in the iPhone 7, which included a hardware HEVC encoder supporting Main 8 and 10. This feature would not be unlocked until the release of iOS 11 in 2017.

On October 25, 2016, Nvidia released the GeForce GTX 1050Ti (GP107) and GeForce GTX 1050 (GP107), which includes full fixed function HEVC Main10/Main12 hardware decoder.

2017

On June 5, 2017, Apple announced HEVC H.265 support in macOS High Sierra, iOS 11, tvOS, HTTP Live Streaming and Safari.

On June 25, 2017, Microsoft released a free HEVC app extension for Windows 10, enabling some Windows 10 devices with HEVC decoding hardware to play video using the HEVC format inside any app.

On September 19, 2017, Apple released iOS 11 and tvOS 11 with HEVC encoding & decoding support.

On September 25, 2017, Apple released macOS High Sierra with HEVC encoding & decoding support.

On September 28, 2017, GoPro released the Hero6 Black action camera, with 4K60P HEVC video encoding.

On October 17, 2017, Microsoft removed HEVC decoding support from Windows 10 with the Version 1709 Fall Creators Update, making HEVC available instead as a separate, paid download from the Microsoft Store.

On November 2, 2017, Nvidia released the GeForce GTX 1070 Ti (GP104), which includes full fixed function HEVC Main10/Main12 hardware decoder.

2018

On September 20, 2018, Nvidia released the GeForce RTX 2080 (TU104), which includes full fixed function HEVC Main 4:4:4 12 hardware decoder.

2022

On October 25, 2022, Chrome released version 107, which starts supporting HEVC hardware decoding for all platforms "out of box", if the hardware is supported.

Browser support

HEVC is implemented in these web browsers:
 Android browser (since version 5 from November 2014)
 Safari (since version 11 from September 2017)
 Edge (since version 77 from July 2017, supported on Windows 10 1709+ for devices with supported hardware when HEVC video extensions is installed, since version 107 from October 2022, supported on macOS 11+, Android 5.0+ for all devices)
 Chrome (since version 107 from October 2022, supported on macOS 11+, Android 5.0+ for all devices, supported on Windows 8+, ChromeOS, and Linux for devices with supported hardware)
 Opera (since version 94 from December 2022, supported on the same platforms as Chrome)

In June 2023, an estimated 88.31% of browsers in use on desktop and mobile systems were able to play HEVC videos in HTML5 webpages, based on data from Can I Use.

Operating system support

Coding efficiency

The design of most video coding standards is primarily aimed at having the highest coding efficiency. Coding efficiency is the ability to encode video at the lowest possible bit rate while maintaining a certain level of video quality. There are two standard ways to measure the coding efficiency of a video coding standard, which are to use an objective metric, such as peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), or to use subjective assessment of video quality. Subjective assessment of video quality is considered to be the most important way to measure a video coding standard since humans perceive video quality subjectively.

HEVC benefits from the use of larger coding tree unit (CTU) sizes. This has been shown in PSNR tests with a HM-8.0 HEVC encoder where it was forced to use progressively smaller CTU sizes. For all test sequences, when compared with a 64×64 CTU size, it was shown that the HEVC bit rate increased by 2.2% when forced to use a 32×32 CTU size, and increased by 11.0% when forced to use a 16×16 CTU size. In the Class A test sequences, where the resolution of the video was 2560×1600, when compared with a 64×64 CTU size, it was shown that the HEVC bit rate increased by 5.7% when forced to use a 32×32 CTU size, and increased by 28.2% when forced to use a 16×16 CTU size. The tests showed that large CTU sizes increase coding efficiency while also reducing decoding time.

The HEVC Main Profile (MP) has been compared in coding efficiency to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC High Profile (HP), MPEG-4 Advanced Simple Profile (ASP), H.263 High Latency Profile (HLP), and H.262/MPEG-2 Main Profile (MP). The video encoding was done for entertainment applications and twelve different bitrates were made for the nine video test sequences with a HM-8.0 HEVC encoder being used. Of the nine video test sequences, five were at HD resolution, while four were at WVGA (800×480) resolution. The bit rate reductions for HEVC were determined based on PSNR with HEVC having a bit rate reduction of 35.4% compared with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP, 63.7% compared with MPEG-4 ASP, 65.1% compared with H.263 HLP, and 70.8% compared with H.262/MPEG-2 MP.

HEVC MP has also been compared with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP for subjective video quality. The video encoding was done for entertainment applications and four different bitrates were made for nine video test sequences with a HM-5.0 HEVC encoder being used. The subjective assessment was done at an earlier date than the PSNR comparison and so it used an earlier version of the HEVC encoder that had slightly lower performance. The bit rate reductions were determined based on subjective assessment using mean opinion score values. The overall subjective bitrate reduction for HEVC MP compared with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP was 49.3%.

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) did a study to evaluate the subjective video quality of HEVC at resolutions higher than HDTV. The study was done with three videos with resolutions of 3840×1744 at 24 fps, 3840×2048 at 30 fps, and 3840×2160 at 30 fps. The five second video sequences showed people on a street, traffic, and a scene from the open source computer animated movie Sintel. The video sequences were encoded at five different bitrates using the HM-6.1.1 HEVC encoder and the JM-18.3 H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder. The subjective bit rate reductions were determined based on subjective assessment using mean opinion score values. The study compared HEVC MP with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP and showed that, for HEVC MP, the average bitrate reduction based on PSNR was 44.4%, while the average bitrate reduction based on subjective video quality was 66.5%.

In a HEVC performance comparison released in April 2013, the HEVC MP and Main 10 Profile (M10P) were compared with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP and High 10 Profile (H10P) using 3840×2160 video sequences. The video sequences were encoded using the HM-10.0 HEVC encoder and the JM-18.4 H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder. The average bit rate reduction based on PSNR was 45% for inter frame video.

In a video encoder comparison released in December 2013, the HM-10.0 HEVC encoder was compared with the x264 encoder (version r2334) and the VP9 encoder (version v1.2.0-3088-ga81bd12). The comparison used the Bjøntegaard-Delta bit-rate (BD-BR) measurement method, in which negative values tell how much lower the bit rate is reduced, and positive values tell how much the bit rate is increased for the same PSNR. In the comparison, the HM-10.0 HEVC encoder had the highest coding efficiency and, on average, to get the same objective quality, the x264 encoder needed to increase the bit rate by 66.4%, while the VP9 encoder needed to increase the bit rate by 79.4%.

In a subjective video performance comparison released in May 2014, the JCT-VC compared the HEVC Main profile to the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC High profile. The comparison used mean opinion score values and was conducted by the BBC and the University of the West of Scotland. The video sequences were encoded using the HM-12.1 HEVC encoder and the JM-18.5 H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder. The comparison used a range of resolutions and the average bit rate reduction for HEVC was 59%. The average bit rate reduction for HEVC was 52% for 480p, 56% for 720p, 62% for 1080p, and 64% for 4K UHD.

In a subjective video codec comparison released in August 2014 by the EPFL, the HM-15.0 HEVC encoder was compared with the VP9 1.2.0–5183 encoder and the JM-18.8 H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder. Four 4K resolutions sequences were encoded at five different bit rates with the encoders set to use an intra period of one second. In the comparison, the HM-15.0 HEVC encoder had the highest coding efficiency and, on average, for the same subjective quality the bit rate could be reduced by 49.4% compared with the VP9 1.2.0–5183 encoder, and it could be reduced by 52.6% compared with the JM-18.8 H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder.

In August, 2016, Netflix published the results of a large-scale study comparing the leading open-source HEVC encoder, x265, with the leading open-source AVC encoder, x264 and the reference VP9 encoder, libvpx. Using their advanced Video Multimethod Assessment Fusion (VMAF) video quality measurement tool, Netflix found that x265 delivered identical quality at bit rates ranging from 35.4% to 53.3% lower than x264, and from 17.8% to 21.8% lower than VP9.

Features
HEVC was designed to substantially improve coding efficiency compared with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP, i.e. to reduce bitrate requirements by half with comparable image quality, at the expense of increased computational complexity. HEVC was designed with the goal of allowing video content to have a data compression ratio of up to 1000:1. Depending on the application requirements, HEVC encoders can trade off computational complexity, compression rate, robustness to errors, and encoding delay time. Two of the key features where HEVC was improved compared with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC was support for higher resolution video and improved parallel processing methods.

HEVC is targeted at next-generation HDTV displays and content capture systems which feature progressive scanned frame rates and display resolutions from QVGA (320×240) to 4320p (7680×4320), as well as improved picture quality in terms of noise level, color spaces, and dynamic range.

Video coding layer
The HEVC video coding layer uses the same "hybrid" approach used in all modern video standards, starting from H.261, in that it uses inter-/intra-picture prediction and 2D transform coding. A HEVC encoder first proceeds by splitting a picture into block shaped regions for the first picture, or the first picture of a random access point, which uses intra-picture prediction. Intra-picture prediction is when the prediction of the blocks in the picture is based only on the information in that picture. For all other pictures, inter-picture prediction is used, in which prediction information is used from other pictures. After the prediction methods are finished and the picture goes through the loop filters, the final picture representation is stored in the decoded picture buffer. Pictures stored in the decoded picture buffer can be used for the prediction of other pictures.

HEVC was designed with the idea that progressive scan video would be used and no coding tools were added specifically for interlaced video. Interlace specific coding tools, such as MBAFF and PAFF, are not supported in HEVC. HEVC instead sends metadata that tells how the interlaced video was sent. Interlaced video may be sent either by coding each frame as a separate picture or by coding each field as a separate picture. For interlaced video HEVC can change between frame coding and field coding using Sequence Adaptive Frame Field (SAFF), which allows the coding mode to be changed for each video sequence. This allows interlaced video to be sent with HEVC without needing special interlaced decoding processes to be added to HEVC decoders.

Color spaces
The HEVC standard supports color spaces such as generic film, NTSC, PAL, Rec. 601, Rec. 709, Rec. 2020, Rec. 2100, SMPTE 170M, SMPTE 240M, sRGB, sYCC, xvYCC, XYZ, and externally specified color spaces. HEVC supports color encoding representations such as RGB, YCbCr, and YCoCg.

Coding tools

Coding tree unit

HEVC replaces 16×16 pixel macroblocks, which were used with previous standards, with coding tree units (CTUs) which can use larger block structures of up to 64×64 samples and can better sub-partition the picture into variable sized structures. HEVC initially divides the picture into CTUs which can be 64×64, 32×32, or 16×16 with a larger pixel block size usually increasing the coding efficiency.

Inverse transforms
HEVC specifies four transform units (TUs) sizes of 4×4, 8×8, 16×16, and 32×32 to code the prediction residual. A CTB may be recursively partitioned into 4 or more TUs. TUs use integer basis functions based on the discrete cosine transform (DCT). In addition, 4×4 luma transform blocks that belong to an intra coded region are transformed using an integer transform that is derived from discrete sine transform (DST). This provides a 1% bit rate reduction but was restricted to 4×4 luma transform blocks due to marginal benefits for the other transform cases. Chroma uses the same TU sizes as luma so there is no 2×2 transform for chroma.

Parallel processing tools
 Tiles allow for the picture to be divided into a grid of rectangular regions that can independently be decoded/encoded. The main purpose of tiles is to allow for parallel processing. Tiles can be independently decoded and can even allow for random access to specific regions of a picture in a video stream.
 Wavefront parallel processing (WPP) is when a slice is divided into rows of CTUs in which the first row is decoded normally but each additional row requires that decisions be made in the previous row. WPP has the entropy encoder use information from the preceding row of CTUs and allows for a method of parallel processing that may allow for better compression than tiles.
 Tiles and WPP are allowed, but are optional. If tiles are present, they must be at least 64 pixels high and 256 pixels wide with a level specific limit on the number of tiles allowed.
 Slices can, for the most part, be decoded independently from each other with the main purpose of tiles being the re-synchronization in case of data loss in the video stream. Slices can be defined as self-contained in that prediction is not made across slice boundaries. When in-loop filtering is done on a picture though, information across slice boundaries may be required. Slices are CTUs decoded in the order of the raster scan, and different coding types can be used for slices such as I types, P types, or B types.
 Dependent slices can allow for data related to tiles or WPP to be accessed more quickly by the system than if the entire slice had to be decoded. The main purpose of dependent slices is to allow for low-delay video encoding due to its lower latency.

Other coding tools
Entropy coding
HEVC uses a context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) algorithm that is fundamentally similar to CABAC in H.264/MPEG-4 AVC. CABAC is the only entropy encoder method that is allowed in HEVC while there are two entropy encoder methods allowed by H.264/MPEG-4 AVC. CABAC and the entropy coding of transform coefficients in HEVC were designed for a higher throughput than H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, while maintaining higher compression efficiency for larger transform block sizes relative to simple extensions. For instance, the number of context coded bins have been reduced by 8× and the CABAC bypass-mode has been improved in terms of its design to increase throughput. Another improvement with HEVC is that the dependencies between the coded data has been changed to further increase throughput. Context modeling in HEVC has also been improved so that CABAC can better select a context that increases efficiency when compared with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.

Intra prediction

HEVC specifies 33 directional modes for intra prediction compared with the 8 directional modes for intra prediction specified by H.264/MPEG-4 AVC. HEVC also specifies DC intra prediction and planar prediction modes. The DC intra prediction mode generates a mean value by averaging reference samples and can be used for flat surfaces. The planar prediction mode in HEVC supports all block sizes defined in HEVC while the planar prediction mode in H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is limited to a block size of 16×16 pixels. The intra prediction modes use data from neighboring prediction blocks that have been previously decoded from within the same picture.

Motion compensation
For the interpolation of fractional luma sample positions HEVC uses separable application of one-dimensional half-sample interpolation with an 8-tap filter or quarter-sample interpolation with a 7-tap filter while, in comparison, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC uses a two-stage process that first derives values at half-sample positions using separable one-dimensional 6-tap interpolation followed by integer rounding and then applies linear interpolation between values at nearby half-sample positions to generate values at quarter-sample positions. HEVC has improved precision due to the longer interpolation filter and the elimination of the intermediate rounding error. For 4:2:0 video, the chroma samples are interpolated with separable one-dimensional 4-tap filtering to generate eighth-sample precision, while in comparison H.264/MPEG-4 AVC uses only a 2-tap bilinear filter (also with eighth-sample precision).

As in H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, weighted prediction in HEVC can be used either with uni-prediction (in which a single prediction value is used) or bi-prediction (in which the prediction values from two prediction blocks are combined).

Motion vector prediction
HEVC defines a signed 16-bit range for both horizontal and vertical motion vectors (MVs). This was added to HEVC at the July 2012 HEVC meeting with the mvLX variables. HEVC horizontal/vertical MVs have a range of −32768 to 32767 which given the quarter pixel precision used by HEVC allows for a MV range of −8192 to 8191.75 luma samples. This compares to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC which allows for a horizontal MV range of −2048 to 2047.75 luma samples and a vertical MV range of −512 to 511.75 luma samples.

HEVC allows for two MV modes which are Advanced Motion Vector Prediction (AMVP) and merge mode. AMVP uses data from the reference picture and can also use data from adjacent prediction blocks. The merge mode allows for the MVs to be inherited from neighboring prediction blocks. Merge mode in HEVC is similar to "skipped" and "direct" motion inference modes in H.264/MPEG-4 AVC but with two improvements. The first improvement is that HEVC uses index information to select one of several available candidates. The second improvement is that HEVC uses information from the reference picture list and reference picture index.

Loop filters
HEVC specifies two loop filters that are applied sequentially, with the deblocking filter (DBF) applied first and the sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter applied afterwards. Both loop filters are applied in the inter-picture prediction loop, i.e. the filtered image is stored in the decoded picture buffer (DPB) as a reference for inter-picture prediction.

Deblocking filter
The DBF is similar to the one used by H.264/MPEG-4 AVC but with a simpler design and better support for parallel processing. In HEVC the DBF only applies to a 8×8 sample grid while with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC the DBF applies to a 4×4 sample grid. DBF uses a 8×8 sample grid since it causes no noticeable degradation and significantly improves parallel processing because the DBF no longer causes cascading interactions with other operations. Another change is that HEVC only allows for three DBF strengths of 0 to 2. HEVC also requires that the DBF first apply horizontal filtering for vertical edges to the picture and only after that does it apply vertical filtering for horizontal edges to the picture. This allows for multiple parallel threads to be used for the DBF.

Sample adaptive offset
The SAO filter is applied after the DBF and is designed to allow for better reconstruction of the original signal amplitudes by applying offsets stored in a lookup table in the bitstream. Per CTB the SAO filter can be disabled or applied in one of two modes: edge offset mode or band offset mode. The edge offset mode operates by comparing the value of a sample to two of its eight neighbors using one of four directional gradient patterns. Based on a comparison with these two neighbors, the sample is classified into one of five categories: minimum, maximum, an edge with the sample having the lower value, an edge with the sample having the higher value, or monotonic. For each of the first four categories an offset is applied. The band offset mode applies an offset based on the amplitude of a single sample. A sample is categorized by its amplitude into one of 32 bands (histogram bins). Offsets are specified for four consecutive of the 32 bands, because in flat areas which are prone to banding artifacts, sample amplitudes tend to be clustered in a small range. The SAO filter was designed to increase picture quality, reduce banding artifacts, and reduce ringing artifacts.

Range extensions
Range extensions in MPEG are additional profiles, levels, and techniques that support needs beyond consumer video playback:
Profiles supporting bit depths beyond 10, and differing luma/chroma bit depths.
Intra profiles for when file size is much less important than random-access decoding speed.
Still Picture profiles, forming the basis of High Efficiency Image File Format, without any limit on the picture size or complexity (level 8.5). Unlike all other levels, no minimum decoder capacity is required, only a best-effort with reasonable fallback.

Within these new profiles came enhanced coding features, many of which support efficient screen encoding or high-speed processing:
Persistent Rice adaptation, a general optimization of entropy coding.
Higher precision weighted prediction at high bit depths.
Cross-component prediction, allowing the imperfect YCbCr color decorrelation to let the luma (or G) match set the predicted chroma (or R/B) matches, which results in up to 7% gain for YCbCr 4:4:4 and up to 26% for RGB video. Particularly useful for screen coding.
Intra smoothing control, allowing the encoder to turn smoothing on or off per-block, instead of per-frame.
Modifications of transform skip:
Residual DPCM (RDPCM), allowing more-optimal coding of residual data if possible, vs the typical zig-zag.
Block size flexibility, supporting block sizes up to 32×32 (versus only 4×4 transform skip support in version 1).
4×4 rotation, for potential efficiency.
Transform skip context, enabling DCT and RDPCM blocks to carry a separate context.
Extended precision processing, giving low bit-depth video slightly more accurate decoding.
CABAC bypass alignment, a decoding optimization specific to High Throughput 4:4:4 16 Intra profile.

HEVC version 2 adds several supplemental enhancement information (SEI) messages:
Color remapping: mapping one color space to another.
Knee function: hints for converting between dynamic ranges, particularly from HDR to SDR.
Mastering display color volume
Time code, for archival purposes

Screen content coding extensions
Additional coding tool options have been added in the March 2016 draft of the screen content coding (SCC) extensions:
Adaptive color transform.
Adaptive motion vector resolution.
Intra block copying.
Palette mode.

The ITU-T version of the standard that added the SCC extensions (approved in December 2016 and published in March 2017) added support for the hybrid log–gamma (HLG) transfer function and the ICtCp color matrix. This allows the fourth version of HEVC to support both of the HDR transfer functions defined in Rec. 2100.

The fourth version of HEVC adds several supplemental enhancement information (SEI) messages which include:
Alternative transfer characteristics information SEI message, provides information on the preferred transfer function to use. The primary use case for this would be to deliver HLG video in a way that would be backward compatible with legacy devices.
Ambient viewing environment SEI message, provides information on the ambient light of the viewing environment that was used to author the video.

Profiles

Version 1 of the HEVC standard defines three profiles: Main, Main 10, and Main Still Picture. Version 2 of HEVC adds 21 range extensions profiles, two scalable extensions profiles, and one multi-view profile. HEVC also contains provisions for additional profiles. Extensions that were added to HEVC include increased bit depth, 4:2:2/4:4:4 chroma sampling, Multiview Video Coding (MVC), and Scalable Video Coding (SVC). The HEVC range extensions, HEVC scalable extensions, and HEVC multi-view extensions were completed in July 2014. In July 2014 a draft of the second version of HEVC was released. Screen content coding (SCC) extensions were under development for screen content video, which contains text and graphics, with an expected final draft release date of 2015.

A profile is a defined set of coding tools that can be used to create a bitstream that conforms to that profile. An encoder for a profile may choose which coding tools to use as long as it generates a conforming bitstream while a decoder for a profile must support all coding tools that can be used in that profile.

Version 1 profiles

Main
The Main profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits per sample with 4:2:0 chroma sampling, which is the most common type of video used with consumer devices.

Main 10
The Main 10 profile was added at the October 2012 HEVC meeting based on proposal JCTVC-K0109 which proposed that a 10-bit profile be added to HEVC for consumer applications. The proposal said this was to allow for improved video quality and to support the Rec. 2020 color space that has become widely used in UHDTV systems and to be able to deliver higher dynamic range and color fidelity avoiding the banding artifacts. A variety of companies supported the proposal which included Ateme, BBC, BSkyB, Cisco, DirecTV, Ericsson, Motorola Mobility, NGCodec, NHK, RAI, ST, SVT, Thomson Video Networks, Technicolor, and ViXS Systems. The Main 10 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 to 10 bits per sample with 4:2:0 chroma sampling. HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 10 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Main and Main 10. A higher bit depth allows for a greater number of colors. 8 bits per sample allows for 256 shades per primary color (a total of 16.78 million colors) while 10 bits per sample allows for 1024 shades per primary color (a total of 1.07 billion colors). A higher bit depth allows for a smoother transition of color which resolves the problem known as color banding.

The Main 10 profile allows for improved video quality since it can support video with a higher bit depth than what is supported by the Main profile. Additionally, in the Main 10 profile 8-bit video can be coded with a higher bit depth of 10 bits, which allows improved coding efficiency compared to the Main profile.

Ericsson said the Main 10 profile would bring the benefits of 10 bits per sample video to consumer TV. They also said that for higher resolutions there is no bit rate penalty for encoding video at 10 bits per sample. Imagination Technologies said that 10-bit per sample video would allow for larger color spaces and is required for the Rec. 2020 color space that will be used by UHDTV. They also said the Rec. 2020 color space would drive the widespread adoption of 10-bit-per-sample video.

In a PSNR based performance comparison released in April 2013 the Main 10 profile was compared to the Main profile using a set of 3840×2160 10-bit video sequences. The 10-bit video sequences were converted to 8 bits for the Main profile and remained at 10 bits for the Main 10 profile. The reference PSNR was based on the original 10-bit video sequences. In the performance comparison the Main 10 profile provided a 5% bit rate reduction for inter frame video coding compared to the Main profile. The performance comparison states that for the tested video sequences the Main 10 profile outperformed the Main profile.

Main Still Picture

The Main Still Picture profile allows for a single still picture to be encoded with the same constraints as the Main profile. As a subset of the Main profile the Main Still Picture profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits per sample with 4:2:0 chroma sampling. An objective performance comparison was done in April 2012 in which HEVC reduced the average bit rate for images by 56% compared to JPEG. A PSNR based performance comparison for still image compression was done in May 2012 using the HEVC HM 6.0 encoder and the reference software encoders for the other standards. For still images HEVC reduced the average bit rate by 15.8% compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, 22.6% compared to JPEG 2000, 30.0% compared to JPEG XR, 31.0% compared to WebP, and 43.0% compared to JPEG.

A performance comparison for still image compression was done in January 2013 using the HEVC HM 8.0rc2 encoder, Kakadu version 6.0 for JPEG 2000, and IJG version 6b for JPEG. The performance comparison used PSNR for the objective assessment and mean opinion score (MOS) values for the subjective assessment. The subjective assessment used the same test methodology and images as those used by the JPEG committee when it evaluated JPEG XR. For 4:2:0 chroma sampled images the average bit rate reduction for HEVC compared to JPEG 2000 was 20.26% for PSNR and 30.96% for MOS while compared to JPEG it was 61.63% for PSNR and 43.10% for MOS.

A PSNR based HEVC performance comparison for still image compression was done in April 2013 by Nokia. HEVC has a larger performance improvement for higher resolution images than lower resolution images and a larger performance improvement for lower bit rates than higher bit rates. For lossy compression to get the same PSNR as HEVC took on average 1.4× more bits with JPEG 2000, 1.6× more bits with JPEG-XR, and 2.3× more bits with JPEG.

A compression efficiency study of HEVC, JPEG, JPEG XR, and WebP was done in October 2013 by Mozilla. The study showed that HEVC was significantly better at compression than the other image formats that were tested. Four different methods for comparing image quality were used in the study which were Y-SSIM, RGB-SSIM, IW-SSIM, and PSNR-HVS-M.

Version 2 profiles
Version 2 of HEVC adds 21 range extensions profiles, two scalable extensions profiles, and one multi-view profile: Monochrome, Monochrome 12, Monochrome 16, Main 12, Main 4:2:2 10, Main 4:2:2 12, Main 4:4:4, Main 4:4:4 10, Main 4:4:4 12, Monochrome 12 Intra, Monochrome 16 Intra, Main 12 Intra, Main 4:2:2 10 Intra, Main 4:2:2 12 Intra, Main 4:4:4 Intra, Main 4:4:4 10 Intra, Main 4:4:4 12 Intra, Main 4:4:4 16 Intra, Main 4:4:4 Still Picture, Main 4:4:4 16 Still Picture, High Throughput 4:4:4 16 Intra, Scalable Main, Scalable Main 10, and Multiview Main. All of the inter frame range extensions profiles have an Intra profile.

Monochrome
The Monochrome profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0 chroma sampling.

Monochrome 12
The Monochrome 12 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 12 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0 chroma sampling.

Monochrome 16
The Monochrome 16 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 16 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0 chroma sampling. HEVC decoders that conform to the Monochrome 16 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Monochrome 12, and Monochrome 16.

Main 12
The Main 12 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 12 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0 and 4:2:0 chroma sampling. HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 12 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Monochrome 12, Main, Main 10, and Main 12.

Main 422 10
The Main 4:2:2 10 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 10 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, and 4:2:2 chroma sampling. HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 4:2:2 10 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, Main 10, and Main 4:2:2 10.

Main 422 12
The Main 4:2:2 12 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 12 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, and 4:2:2 chroma sampling. HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 4:2:2 12 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Monochrome 12, Main, Main 10, Main 12, Main 4:2:2 10, and Main 4:2:2 12.

Main 444
The Main 4:4:4 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling. HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 4:4:4 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, and Main 4:4:4.

Main 444 10
The Main 4:4:4 10 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 10 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling. HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 4:4:4 10 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, Main 10, Main 4:2:2 10, Main 4:4:4, and Main 4:4:4 10.

Main 444 12
The Main 4:4:4 12 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 12 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling. HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 4:4:4 12 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, Main 10, Main 12, Main 4:2:2 10, Main 4:2:2 12, Main 4:4:4, Main 4:4:4 10, Main 4:4:4 12, and Monochrome 12.

Main 444 16 Intra
The Main 4:4:4 16 Intra profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 16 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling. HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 4:4:4 16 Intra profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome Intra, Monochrome 12 Intra, Monochrome 16 Intra, Main Intra, Main 10 Intra, Main 12 Intra, Main 4:2:2 10 Intra, Main 4:2:2 12 Intra, Main 4:4:4 Intra, Main 4:4:4 10 Intra, and Main 4:4:4 12 Intra.

High Throughput 444 16 Intra
The High Throughput 4:4:4 16 Intra profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 16 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling. The High Throughput 4:4:4 16 Intra profile has an HbrFactor 12 times higher than other HEVC profiles allowing it to have a maximum bit rate 12 times higher than the Main 4:4:4 16 Intra profile. The High Throughput 4:4:4 16 Intra profile is designed for high end professional content creation and decoders for this profile are not required to support other profiles.

Main 444 Still Picture
The Main 4:4:4 Still Picture profile allows for a single still picture to be encoded with the same constraints as the Main 4:4:4 profile. As a subset of the Main 4:4:4 profile the Main 4:4:4 Still Picture profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling.

Main 444 16 Still Picture

The Main 4:4:4 16 Still Picture profile allows for a single still picture to be encoded with the same constraints as the Main 4:4:4 16 Intra profile. As a subset of the Main 4:4:4 16 Intra profile the Main 4:4:4 16 Still Picture profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 16 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling.

Scalable Main
The Scalable Main profile allows for a base layer that conforms to the Main profile of HEVC.

Scalable Main 10
The Scalable Main 10 profile allows for a base layer that conforms to the Main 10 profile of HEVC.

Multiview Main
The Multiview Main profile allows for a base layer that conforms to the Main profile of HEVC.

Version 3 and higher profiles
Version 3 of HEVC added one 3D profile: 3D Main. The February 2016 draft of the screen content coding extensions added seven screen content coding extensions profiles, three high throughput extensions profiles, and four scalable extensions profiles: Screen-Extended Main, Screen-Extended Main 10, Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4, Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4 10, Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4, Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 10, Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 14, High Throughput 4:4:4, High Throughput 4:4:4 10, High Throughput 4:4:4 14, Scalable Monochrome, Scalable Monochrome 12, Scalable Monochrome 16, and Scalable Main 4:4:4.
3D Main
The 3D Main profile allows for a base layer that conforms to the Main profile of HEVC.

Screen-Extended Main
The Screen-Extended Main profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0 and 4:2:0 chroma sampling. HEVC decoders that conform to the Screen-Extended Main profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, and Screen-Extended Main.

Screen-Extended Main 10
The Screen-Extended Main 10 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 10 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0 and 4:2:0 chroma sampling. HEVC decoders that conform to the Screen-Extended Main 10 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, Main 10, Screen-Extended Main, and Screen-Extended Main 10.

Screen-Extended Main 444
The Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling. HEVC decoders that conform to the Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, Main 4:4:4, Screen-Extended Main, and Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4.

Screen-Extended Main 444 10
The Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4 10 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 10 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling. HEVC decoders that conform to the Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4 10 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, Main 10, Main 4:2:2 10, Main 4:4:4, Main 4:4:4 10, Screen-Extended Main, Screen-Extended Main 10, Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4, and Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4 10.

Screen-Extended High Throughput 444
The Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling. The Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 profile has an HbrFactor 6 times higher than most inter frame HEVC profiles allowing it to have a maximum bit rate 6 times higher than the Main 4:4:4 profile. HEVC decoders that conform to the Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, Main 4:4:4, Screen-Extended Main, Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4, Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4, and High Throughput 4:4:4.

Screen-Extended High Throughput 444 10
The Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 10 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 10 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling. The Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 10 profile has an HbrFactor 6 times higher than most inter frame HEVC profiles allowing it to have a maximum bit rate 6 times higher than the Main 4:4:4 10 profile. HEVC decoders that conform to the Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 10 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, Main 10, Main 4:2:2 10, Main 4:4:4, Main 4:4:4 10, Screen-Extended Main, Screen-Extended Main 10, Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4, Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4 10, Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4, Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 10, High Throughput 4:4:4, and High Throughput 4:4:4.

Screen-Extended High Throughput 444 14
The Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 14 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 14 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling. The Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 14 profile has an HbrFactor 6 times higher than most inter frame HEVC profiles. HEVC decoders that conform to the Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 14 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, Main 10, Main 4:2:2 10, Main 4:4:4, Main 4:4:4 10, Screen-Extended Main, Screen-Extended Main 10, Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4, Screen-Extended Main 4:4:4 10, Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4, Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 10, Screen-Extended High Throughput 4:4:4 14, High Throughput 4:4:4, High Throughput 4:4:4 10, and High Throughput 4:4:4 14.

High Throughput 444
The High Throughput 4:4:4 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling. The High Throughput 4:4:4 profile has an HbrFactor 6 times higher than most inter frame HEVC profiles allowing it to have a maximum bit rate 6 times higher than the Main 4:4:4 profile. HEVC decoders that conform to the High Throughput 4:4:4 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: High Throughput 4:4:4.

High Throughput 444 10
The High Throughput 4:4:4 10 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 10 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling. The High Throughput 4:4:4 10 profile has an HbrFactor 6 times higher than most inter frame HEVC profiles allowing it to have a maximum bit rate 6 times higher than the Main 4:4:4 10 profile. HEVC decoders that conform to the High Throughput 4:4:4 10 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: High Throughput 4:4:4 and High Throughput 4:4:4 10.

High Throughput 444 14
The High Throughput 4:4:4 14 profile allows for a bit depth of 8 bits to 14 bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling. The High Throughput 4:4:4 14 profile has an HbrFactor 6 times higher than most inter frame HEVC profiles. HEVC decoders that conform to the High Throughput 4:4:4 14 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: High Throughput 4:4:4, High Throughput 4:4:4 10, and High Throughput 4:4:4 14.

Scalable Monochrome
The Scalable Monochrome profile allows for a base layer that conforms to the Monochrome profile of HEVC.

Scalable Monochrome 12
The Scalable Monochrome 12 profile allows for a base layer that conforms to the Monochrome 12 profile of HEVC.

Scalable Monochrome 16
The Scalable Monochrome 16 profile allows for a base layer that conforms to the Monochrome 16 profile of HEVC.

Scalable Main 444
The Scalable Main 4:4:4 profile allows for a base layer that conforms to the Main 4:4:4 profile of HEVC.

Tiers and levels

The HEVC standard defines two tiers, Main and High, and thirteen levels. A level is a set of constraints for a bitstream. For levels below level 4 only the Main tier is allowed. The Main tier is a lower tier than the High tier. The tiers were made to deal with applications that differ in terms of their maximum bit rate. The Main tier was designed for most applications while the High tier was designed for very demanding applications. A decoder that conforms to a given tier/level is required to be capable of decoding all bitstreams that are encoded for that tier/level and for all lower tiers/levels.

 The maximum bit rate of the profile is based on the combination of bit depth, chroma sampling, and the type of profile. For bit depth the maximum bit rate increases by 1.5× for 12-bit profiles and 2× for 16-bit profiles. For chroma sampling the maximum bit rate increases by 1.5× for 4:2:2 profiles and 2× for 4:4:4 profiles. For the Intra profiles the maximum bit rate increases by 2×.
 The maximum frame rate supported by HEVC is 300 fps.
 The MaxDpbSize is the maximum number of pictures in the decoded picture buffer.

Decoded picture buffer
Previously decoded pictures are stored in a decoded picture buffer (DPB), and are used by HEVC encoders to form predictions for subsequent pictures. The maximum number of pictures that can be stored in the DPB, called the DPB capacity, is 6 (including the current picture) for all HEVC levels when operating at the maximum picture size supported by the level. The DPB capacity (in units of pictures) increases from 6 to 8, 12, or 16 as the picture size decreases from the maximum picture size supported by the level. The encoder selects which specific pictures are retained in the DPB on a picture-by-picture basis, so the encoder has the flexibility to determine for itself the best way to use the DPB capacity when encoding the video content.

Containers
MPEG has published an amendment which added HEVC support to the MPEG transport stream used by ATSC, DVB, and Blu-ray Disc; MPEG decided not to update the MPEG program stream used by DVD-Video. MPEG has also added HEVC support to the ISO base media file format. HEVC is also supported by the MPEG media transport standard. Support for HEVC was added to Matroska starting with the release of MKVToolNix v6.8.0 after a patch from DivX was merged. A draft document has been submitted to the Internet Engineering Task Force which describes a method to add HEVC support to the Real-time Transport Protocol.

Using HEVC's intra frame encoding, a still-image coded format called Better Portable Graphics (BPG) has been proposed by the programmer Fabrice Bellard. It is essentially a wrapper for images coded using the HEVC Main 4:4:4 16 Still Picture profile with up to 14 bits per sample, although it uses an abbreviated header syntax and adds explicit support for Exif, ICC profiles, and XMP metadata.

Patent license terms

License terms and fees for HEVC patents, compared with its main competitors:

Provision for costless software

As with its predecessor AVC, software distributors that implement HEVC in products must pay a price per distributed copy. While this licensing model is manageable for paid software, it is an obstacle to most free and open-source software, which is meant to be freely distributable. In the opinion of MulticoreWare, the developer of x265, enabling royalty-free software encoders and decoders is in the interest of accelerating HEVC adoption. HEVC Advance made an exception that specifically waives the royalties on software-only implementations (both decoders and encoders) when not bundled with hardware. However, the exempted software is not free from the licensing obligations of other patent holders (e.g. members of the MPEG LA pool).

While the obstacle to free software is no concern in for example TV broadcast networks, this problem, combined with the prospect of future collective lock-in to the format, makes several organizations like Mozilla (see OpenH264) and the Free Software Foundation Europe wary of royalty-bearing formats for internet use. Competing formats intended for internet use (VP9 and AV1) are intended to steer clear of these concerns by being royalty free (provided there are no third-party claims of patent rights).

: Regardless of how the software is licensed from the software authors (see software licensing), if what it does is patented, its use remains bound by the patent holders' rights unless the use of the patents has been authorized by a license.

Versatile Video Coding

In October 2015, MPEG and VCEG formed Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) to evaluate available compression technologies and study the requirements for a next-generation video compression standard. The new algorithm should have 30–50% better compression rate for the same perceptual quality, with support for lossless and subjectively lossless compression. It should also support YCbCr 4:4:4, 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 with 10 to 16 bits per component, BT.2100 wide color gamut and high dynamic range (HDR) of more than 16 stops (with peak brightness of 1,000, 4,000 and 10,000 nits), auxiliary channels (for depth, transparency, etc.), variable and fractional frame rates from 0 to 120 Hz, scalable video coding for temporal (frame rate), spatial (resolution), SNR, color gamut and dynamic range differences, stereo/multiview coding, panoramic formats, and still picture coding. Encoding complexity of 10 times that of HEVC is expected. JVET issued a final "Call for Proposals" in October 2017, with the first working draft of the Versatile Video Coding (VVC) standard released in April 2018. The VVC standard was finalized on July 6, 2020.

See also
UHDTV – digital television formats with resolutions of 4K / 2160p (3840×2160) and 8K / 4320p (7680×4320)
Rec. 2020 – ITU-R Recommendation for UHDTV with standard dynamic range
Rec. 2100 – ITU-R Recommendation for HDTV and UHDTV with high dynamic range
Image file formats based on HEVC
Better Portable Graphics – a file format for images based on HEVC
High Efficiency Image File Format – a file format for images and image sequences based on HEVC
 Comparison of video codecs
 List of open-source codecs
x265 – an open-source software implementation of HEVC
 List of multimedia (audio/video) codecs
H.264/MPEG-4 AVC – the video standard predecessor of HEVC
AV1 – an open format developed by the Alliance for Open Media as a successor to VP9 and a competitor to HEVC
VP9 – an open format developed by Google as a competitor to HEVC
Daala – an open format that is being developed by Mozilla Foundation and Xiph.Org Foundation as a competitor to HEVC
Dirac (video compression format) – an open format that is being developed by the BBC Research & Development as a competitor to HEVC
Thor (video codec) – an open format that is being developed by Cisco as a competitor to HEVC
 LCEVC – differential overlays that can improve performance

References

Bibliography

Related slides:

Related slides:

External links

 Fraunhofer Heinrich Hertz Institute's HEVC website
 ITU web page for Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC)
 Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) publications on HEVC
 ITU-T Recommendation H.265: High Efficiency Video Coding

Computer file formats
Graphics file formats
High-definition television
Lossy compression algorithms
MPEG-H
Open standards covered by patents
Ultra-high-definition television
Video codecs
Video compression
Videotelephony
ITU-T recommendations
H.265
H.26x
IEC standards
ISO standards


Bud W. Brutsman (born May 6, 1970) is a television show creator, executive producer, and the President of Brentwood Communications International.
His best known productions include Overhaulin' and Rides for the Learning Channel (TLC), and Living with Ed for Planet Green. Brutsman was also one of the creators of King of the Cage, garnering attention on Pay-Per-View and worldwide video sales. , Brutsman is involved in the mixed martial arts organization, Shark Fights.

Professional background
Brutsman's first project was producing a country line dancing video in conjunction with Denim and Diamonds, a country dance club in Los Angeles and Dallas. He successfully sold the distribution rights of the video to a company in California and began creating television shows. In 1997, Brutsman established an independent television production company, which he named Brentwood Communications International, Inc. (BCII).

Military genre
Brutsman has produced several shows focusing on the U.S. military. Some of these shows include the History of Navy SEALs, Special Operations, U.S. Customs; The Complete History of Green Berets; and Inside the Britannic. He was additionally approached by a group of Navy SEALs with a consultant company outside of the military, which resulted in producing several military training videos. His documentaries have been shown on The History Channel and Discovery Channel, and sold worldwide.

In 2006, Brutsman and BCII created a U.S. Military corporate sponsorship program for a Marine platoon stationed in Iraq and their families back home. He oversaw efforts to collect exercise equipment, DVDs, magazines, and other supplies to be sent to the troops overseas, as well as organizing events and functions for the troops' families.

Filmography
Executive producer
 1990: Rock-N-Roll Legends Series
 1998: Natural Disasters
 1999: The Complete History of the Navy Seals
 1999: Femme Fatales
 1999: Hollywood Hall of Fame
 2000: Action Heroes
 2000: Cheating Las Vegas
 2000: The History of the Green Berets
 2000: Young Hollywood Superstars
 2001: U.S. Customs: Special Agents
 2001: Special Operations (Four-part military series)
 2001: Hollywood Raw
 2002: Elvis and June: A Love Story
 2002: Inside the Britannic
 2000–2003: King of the Cage (V. 1–24) Live PPV
 2004: Rides
 2006: CES: Consumer Electronics Show
 2006: Extreme Yachts Special
 2006-2013: Hot Rod TV
 2006: Payback
 2007: Forza Motorsports Showdown (mini series)
 2007: Get Out Way Out 2007: Stress Test 2007–2008: Celebrity Rides (Burt Reynolds)
 2004–2020: Overhaulin' 2008: Chasing Baja (documentary)
 2008: Celebrity Rides (Kevin Dillon)
 2008–2009: Celebrity Rides (Jay Leno)
 2008–2009: Hot Import Nights 2008–2009: Livin' the Low Life 2009-2014: Optima Ultimate Street Car Invitational 2009: Raptor Documentary 2009: Celebrity Rides (Steve McQueen)
 2009: Jet Set: with Jay Leno 2007–2010: Living with Ed 2009–2011: Garage Mahal 2009–2015: Car Crazy 2010: Midnight Munchies 2010: Xtreme Eating 2011: American Trucker 2011: Punk Payback with Bas Rutten
 2011: Shark Fights 2011: Esquire: Ultimate Bachelor Pad 2011: Single with 7 2011: The BOSS is Back 2011-2012 Inside West Coast Customs 2012-2019: Extreme RVs 2012: Naturally Beautiful 2012: Hollywood For Sale 2012: Turbine Cowboys 2012: Magic Outlaws 2012: Extreme Yachts 2013: Backroad Gold 2013: Big Cool Stuff 2013: Extreme Doomsday Vehicles 2013: Extreme Doomsday Bunkers 2013: Extreme Factories 2013: Extreme Toys 2013: Rock My RV 2013: Viper: Soul Survivor 2013: R U Faster Than a Redneck? 2014-2016: Flippin RVs 2014-2021: SEMA Battle of the Builders 2014-2021: World Desert Championship 2015: Fit, Fabulous and Famous 2015: RV Nation 2015: Animal Storm Squad 2016: Everest Air 2016: Classic Cars 2016-2017: Competition Ready 2016-2021 Road to the Battle of the Builders 2017: Race of Champions 2017: Beachin' RVs 2017: Race of Champions 2017: Beachin' RVs 2016-2018: Roadworthy 2019: Ignite Your Life 2019: Inside Overhaulin' 2020: Ready for Battle with AJ 2020: High Performance House Calls 2019-2021: The Fixers 2021: Expedition: Back to the Future 2021: Fully Torqued''

References

1970 births
Living people
American television producers


Bernard is a large crater in the Memnonia quadrangle of Mars, located at 23.4° south latitude and 154.2° west longitude. It is 128 km in diameter and was named after P. Bernard, a French atmospheric scientist. The floor of the crater contains large cracks, which may be due to erosion.

Impact craters generally have a rim with ejecta around them, in contrast volcanic craters usually do not have a rim or ejecta deposits.  As craters get larger (greater than 10 km in diameter) they usually have a central peak. The peak is caused by a rebound of the crater floor following the impact.   If one measures the diameter of a crater, the original depth can be estimated with various ratios.  Because of this relationship, researchers have found that many Martian craters contain a great deal of material; much of it is believed to be ice deposited when the climate was different. Sometimes craters expose layers that were buried.   Rocks from deep underground are tossed onto the surface.  Hence, craters can show us what lies deep under the surface.

See also
 List of craters on Mars

References

Memnonia quadrangle
Impact craters on Mars


In Zoroastrianism, there are 101 names and titles used to refer to Ahura Mazda. The list is preserved in Persian, Pazend, and Gujarati.

The names are often taken during Baj (ceremonial prayer) as part of Yasna while continuously sprinkling with the ring made of eight metals with the hair of the pure Varasya named "Vars" into the water vessel.

List of names

Two translations for each name are provided below, one by Meher Baba and the other from an online source ().

See also
 Names of God
 Names of God in Christianity
 Names of God in Judaism
 Names of God in Islam
 Names of God in Sikhism
 Sahasranama

References

Names of God in Zoroastrianism
Par


The Mt. Pleasant Presbyterian Church, known as Christian Church at Mt. Pleasant or Mt. Pleasant Community Church, was built in 1856 near Stayton, Oregon.  It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1974 for its architecture.

It was built on land donated by Washington Crabtree.  The church was subject of some conflict between two groups that used the church:In its early years, the church served alternately as a meeting place for the Cumberland Presbyterian and Christian groups. Benjamin Franklin Irvine belonged to the former sect and Crabtree to the latter. The church's denomination depended upon which of the men secured the minister. Services also were held in the buiLding whenever a circuit rider or evangelist traveled through the neighborhood. At one time a division between the "sprinkling" and "total immersion" groups became so heated that Crabtree, on whose land the building stood, is reported to have kept the church filled with hay for two years. A reconciliation was finally reached and the church reopened.

References

National Register of Historic Places in Linn County, Oregon
Churches completed in 1856
19th-century Presbyterian church buildings in the United States
Presbyterian churches in Oregon
Buildings and structures in Linn County, Oregon
1856 establishments in Oregon Territory


2009 Regional League Division 2 Bangkok Metropolitan Region ( or ไทยลีกดิวิชัน 2 กรุงเทพและปริมณฑล) is the 3rd Level League in Thailand. In 2009, contains 10 clubs from Bangkok Metropolitan region.

Changes from Last Season
from Khǒr Royal Cup (ถ้วย ข.) 2008
Kasetsart University Winner
Nakhon Sawan Rajabhat University Runner-Up

Stadium and Locations

Final league table

 Rules for classification: 1st points; 2nd head-to-head; 3rd goal difference; 4th goals scored

Results

See also

References

External links
  Football Association of Thailand

Bang
Regional League Bangkok Area Division seasons


An Account of Capers is a novel by Scottish writer Bruce Marshall. His last book, it was published posthumously in 1988.

Plot summary
Set against the background of an Italy poised on the brink of war with Abyssinia in 1935, the story focuses on chartered accountant Arthur Waters. He is sent to Milan to audit the books of an Italian firm. His job, which at first glance seems simple, is complicated by his involvement with Emma, a stunning woman, and Bazzini, a cunning man. But his problems really begin when he is mistaken for a British spy and prevented from leaving the country.

References

1988 British novels
Novels by Bruce Marshall
Novels published posthumously
Novels set in Milan
Fiction set in 1935
Novels set in the 1930s
Robert Hale books