[Piers]

Anyway, I think x265 could be useful for certain applications, mostly streaming content where bandwidth is an issue. I don't see me using it for backups unless I get a 4K screen, which is very unlikely for a long time. I'm happy with x264, the profiles and resulting quality. Plus hard drives aren't expensive (£75 for 3TB).

Not to be a snot, but this is what everyone was basically saying when DivX/XviD were looking to be supplanted by h.264. h.265/HEVC will come as a natural evolution, it'll get hardware and software support, it'll save bandwidth/storage and/or allow higher resolution in the same bandwidth/storage and at some point we'll wonder how we ever managed with 'icky h.264'.

DivX and XviD are very different - especially XviD. h.264 was the first mainstream codec to be adopted for high definition content and does it's job perfectly well. I've often compared my own rips (CRF 16) to the Blu-Ray versions gathering dust on shelves and find the quality to be fine. I've also created an XviD version of Avatar which I really didn't like. The size was acceptable but the quality was mediocre. I'm sure you're correct and h.265 will eventually replace 264, but I don't see that happening for a good decade or so.

Edit: When I say that DivX and XviD are very different, I don't mean from one another - I'm fully aware of the history.