The Linux Kernel Begins Preparing For AV1 Decode Support

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • arQon
    replied
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
    Uh what, how does this make sense?
    Because VAAPI was written to match the capabilities of Intel's IGP of the time. Since Broadcom half-assed the SoC the way they did, the video block can't do ANYTHING except decode. (And it's also stateless-only).
    I can't remember now if the issue is that VAAPI requires that the same device is also capable of 2D ops, or if it's the stateless part that breaks it (there was a lot to dig up and make sense of, with none of it being particularly well documented), but the end result is the same: no VAAPI, and no possibility of it, ever.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdedetrich
    replied
    Originally posted by arQon View Post

    Nope, it's duplication, like v4l2.

    Partly because reinventing the wheel is what ALWAYS happens with anything to do with media (insert links to any of a dozen xkcd strips here :P), but also partly because VAAPI has some pettiness in it that guarantees you can't actually have a conformant implementation unless the hardware is built in a particular way / has certain capabilities that have nothing at all to do with video.
    Uh what, how does this make sense?

    Leave a comment:


  • OneTimeShot
    replied
    Google paid a bit of money for VP8 a long time ago (10 years) when there were still some valid video patents around. Patents only last for 20 years, so even the original h264 patents will expire in the next couple of years.

    The days of claiming patents on video technology is basically over. In any case, the primary inventors these days are YouTube and Netflix - so the shoe is very much on the other foot as to who is infringing who's IP.

    Leave a comment:


  • microcode
    replied
    Originally posted by discordian View Post
    IF we go conspiracy mode, this is more like swaying the public opinion for their own format, instead of being upfront about patents.
    Thanks for sharing the list, I guess this was published finally this year. Has anyone done a review of these to see which ones are the most credible, and evaluate which tools they affect?

    Seems like the best response, if practical, is to simply avoid the credible claims (if this is practical).

    Leave a comment:


  • chithanh
    replied
    Originally posted by microcode View Post
    Sisvel's conduct suggests that their intent is to harm the adoption of AV1; not to get licensing money out of it, and not to get specific infringers to cease.

    Sisvel may never bring a claim in court.
    Even before that, if they ever try to extract royalty payments out of any Chinese company, they will have to reveal the specific relevant patents. China ensured this after Microsoft made Android vendors pay for their patents on Linux. (What happened next is that independent review of the patent claims could start, few months later Samsung stopped royalty payments, Microsoft sued but ultimately was left with only getting Office apps preinstalled on Samsung Android devices, others followed suit).

    Originally posted by discordian View Post
    Yeah, might not be worth fighting for years. You Do know, that Google claimed VP8 is not infringing (not sure if thats a word) on Mpeg LA patents, then got the license they dont infringe on years later (likely paid for it)?
    There was only a token one-time payment, it suggests that MPEG LA had a very weak case, and it was more a payment to make the inconvienience of prolonged lawsuits go away, and MPEG LA could save some face.

    Leave a comment:


  • agaman
    replied
    Originally posted by ResponseWriter View Post
    Does that mean one day I'll have an AV1 hardware decoder supported by both my hardware (RDNA2, supports OpenMAX) and my media player (mpv, supports VA-API)?
    Looks like radeonsi will soon have supoort for AV1 in VA-API: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/...requests/12307

    Leave a comment:


  • MadeUpName
    replied
    Originally posted by microcode View Post

    It's not AOM delaying the discovery of this pool, Sisvel knew ahead of time that they would be making the claim that patents relevant to AV1 were left in their care, but they refuse to disclose which patents (still to this day, afaik) so there's nothing for AOM to be "shy" of. AOM literally can't say anything except that they'll address it if Sisvel ever brings a claim in court.

    Sisvel's conduct suggests that their intent is to harm the adoption of AV1; not to get licensing money out of it, and not to get specific infringers to cease.

    Sisvel may never bring a claim in court; maybe the patents are of tenuous relevance, maybe they're pretending (the dealings behind this are entirely confidential after all) and getting paid to do so (it's kinda the perfect crime; who can sue for the reputation of the AV1 mark? Who would have standing?).
    Any idea if they filed in East Texas?

    Leave a comment:


  • discordian
    replied
    Originally posted by microcode View Post

    It's not AOM delaying the discovery of this pool, Sisvel knew ahead of time that they would be making the claim that patents relevant to AV1 were left in their care, but they refuse to disclose which patents (still to this day, afaik) so there's nothing for AOM to be "shy" of. AOM literally can't say anything except that they'll address it if Sisvel ever brings a claim in court.
    The list is right here: https://www.sisvel.com/images/docume...ntList_AV1.pdf

    Originally posted by microcode View Post
    Sisvel's conduct suggests that their intent is to harm the adoption of AV1; not to get licensing money out of it, and not to get specific infringers to cease.
    Well, unless AV1 is used, there is no infringment?

    Originally posted by microcode View Post
    Sisvel may never bring a claim in court; maybe the patents are of tenuous relevance, maybe they're pretending (the dealings behind this are entirely confidential after all) and getting paid to do so (it's kinda the perfect crime; who can sue for the reputation of the AV1 mark? Who would have standing?).
    Yeah, might not be worth fighting for years. You Do know, that Google claimed VP8 is not infringing (not sure if thats a word) on Mpeg LA patents, then got the license they dont infringe on years later (likely paid for it)?

    IF we go conspiracy mode, this is more like swaying the public opinion for their own format, instead of being upfront about patents.

    Leave a comment:


  • microcode
    replied
    Originally posted by discordian View Post
    Thats worded wrong, the claim is that AOM used methods that already have patents (knowingly or not), and sisvel compiled a list of these.

    Anything you create can be already covered by patents, actually AOM should handle these assertions immediately. Its way worse if those claims come years after the format gained traction (submarine patents). The fact that they are shy of that is not a good sign.
    It's not AOM delaying the discovery of this pool, Sisvel knew ahead of time that they would be making the claim that patents relevant to AV1 were left in their care, but they refuse to disclose which patents (still to this day, afaik) so there's nothing for AOM to be "shy" of. AOM literally can't say anything except that they'll address it if Sisvel ever brings a claim in court.

    Sisvel's conduct suggests that their intent is to harm the adoption of AV1; not to get licensing money out of it, and not to get specific infringers to cease.

    Sisvel may never bring a claim in court; maybe the patents are of tenuous relevance, maybe they're pretending (the dealings behind this are entirely confidential after all) and getting paid to do so (it's kinda the perfect crime; who can sue for the reputation of the AV1 mark? Who would have standing?).

    Leave a comment:


  • discordian
    replied
    Originally posted by Aryma View Post
    didn't AV1 get patent by sisvel

    without consent of Alliance for Open Media by force
    Thats worded wrong, the claim is that AOM used methods that already have patents (knowingly or not), and sisvel compiled a list of these.

    Anything you create can be already covered by patents, actually AOM should handle these assertions immediately. Its way worse if those claims come years after the format gained traction (submarine patents). The fact that they are shy of that is not a good sign.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X