H.265, also known as HEVC, was introduced as the successor to H.264 — a video compression standard designed to shrink massive video files without sacrificing quality. On paper, it’s brilliant: less bandwidth, smaller archives, and smoother handling of high-resolution streams like 4K or even 12MP surveillance cameras. But in practice, things aren’t quite so perfect.
1. Patents and Licensing: No Free Lunch
The biggest problem with H.265 is that it’s wrapped in patents. That means camera manufacturers and software vendors have to pay licensing fees, and end users are stuck with limited compatibility. Unlike H.264, which has become the “universal language of video,” HEVC faces legal and financial barriers. Most browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari) refuse to embed support, since it would mean stepping into a licensing minefield. For you, the user, that means your H.265 video won’t just play in a standard HTML5 player.
2. Transcoding = A Resource Nightmare
To view H.265 footage in a web player, you often have to transcode it into H.264 or another open format. And transcoding is brutally resource-intensive. If your system records 24/7 in FullHD or 4K, server load skyrockets. Instead of saving on storage and bandwidth, you end up burning through CPU cycles and investing in more powerful (and expensive) hardware.
3. Slow Adoption Across the Industry
Many VMS platforms dragged their feet on supporting H.265 because of these patent issues and compatibility headaches. Even when camera makers started touting HEVC as the “next big thing,” integrators often discovered the hard way: cameras support it, but the software doesn’t. Or the software does, but the client’s hardware can’t keep up. Either way, deployment hits a wall.
4. Lack of Universal Accessibility
H.264 is everywhere. From smartphones to aging PCs and smart TVs, just about anything can decode it. H.265? Not so much. It demands more powerful hardware, and licensing walls limit its availability. You risk recording video you can’t easily share or play back without extra steps.
5. Business Risks
In surveillance, quick and reliable access to video archives is more valuable than saving a few gigabytes. With H.265, you may end up in a scenario where you’ve got the footage, but you can’t open it without transcoding. And in critical situations, lost time can cost far more than lost storage space.
The Bottom Line
Yes, H.265 reduces bandwidth and saves disk space. But the trade-offs include licensing fees, spotty compatibility, lack of HTML5 playback, and heavy transcoding requirements.
If you need flexibility, cross-platform access, and quick playback, sticking with H.264 (or at least running H.265 in hybrid mode) may be the smarter choice. Think carefully: is the extra compression worth the extra hassle?
H.264 vs. H.265: A Practical Comparison
H.264 has long been the workhorse of video surveillance. It offers good compression, works reliably even on older hardware, and — most importantly — enjoys universal support. Almost every device, from smartphones to web browsers, can play H.264 without extra effort. For most projects, it’s the safe, dependable choice.
H.265 (HEVC), on the other hand, was designed to be more efficient. It can cut bandwidth and storage needs by up to 50% while delivering the same or even better visual quality. This makes it especially appealing for high-resolution cameras, whether FullHD, 4K, or even 12MP models. In theory, you get the same video at half the cost.
But here’s where the problems start. H.265 is locked behind patents and licensing fees. Unlike H.264, it isn’t natively supported in browsers or open HTML5 players, which means you can’t just drop a file into a webpage and expect it to play. To make it viewable, the video often has to be transcoded back into H.264 — a process that is extremely resource-hungry. For surveillance systems that record 24/7, transcoding can overload servers and wipe out any efficiency gains.
Compatibility is another sore spot. Many VMS platforms and older devices don’t fully support H.265, which leads to headaches during deployment. Even if the cameras handle HEVC, the monitoring software might not — or the client’s hardware may simply lack the horsepower to decode the stream smoothly.
So the trade-off looks like this: H.264 gives you maximum compatibility and ease of use but takes up more storage and bandwidth. H.265 saves on disk space and network traffic but introduces licensing restrictions, playback issues, and heavy hardware demands.
In other words, H.265 is best suited for projects where ultra-high resolution and long-term storage savings matter more than flexibility, while H.264 remains the go-to option when accessibility, simplicity, and universal support are the priority.