Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Netflix Talks Up SVT-AV1 Video Encode/Decode Effort

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by shmerl View Post
    How does it compare to rav1e?
    Depends on your use case SVT-AV1 is build for server/PC with lot of RAM(last time i tested 6GB for 1080p, but that was a while ago could be better now) and needs avx2 or avx512 https://www.reddit.com/r/AV1/comment...ifferent_simd/

    Rav1e has more broad CPU support cause they use the assembly from dav1d(av1 decoder) avx2 ssse3, arm and uses ~2GB for 1080p.

    I think both projects still need work and they are in heavy development so quality and speed wise can things change quite a bit.

    My personal opinion is so far that aom (build from git) is quality wise, with https://github.com/master-of-zen/Av1an even speed wise quite competitive. Cause av1an will split the video and encode it in parallel.(for me a sweet spot is cpu-used 3 --end-usage=q --cq-level=30 ## 0–63. Lower values mean better quality and greater file size.)

    Quality wise(at a reasonable speed) is it hard to compare and there is no up to date test. This one is 1 month old https://www.reddit.com/r/AV1/comment...vp9_vs_svtvp9/
    Last edited by Toggleton; 03-15-2020, 09:56 AM.

    Comment


    • #12
      hardware decoding needs to be there before we'll see adoption

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
        hardware decoding needs to be there before we'll see adoption
        AV1 had, as one of it's goals, efficient software decoding (because, as you rightfully point out, hardware decoding is going to take quite time to get out to the masses). And while no where near as battery efficient as hardware assisted decoding, AV1 decoding performance and power utilization is already adequate for many purposes on mobile devices today (using dav1d with neon on arm devices for example), as long as you don't insist on 4K decoding at 120fps for hours upon hours.

        Comment


        • #14
          If avx2 or avx512 is a must, it sucks.
          Sure the 'other' implementation works with ssse3.
          Intel crippled our systems right enough...

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by nuetzel View Post
            If avx2 or avx512 is a must, it sucks.
            Sure the 'other' implementation works with ssse3.
            Intel crippled our systems right enough...
            not every intel cpu supports avx2. on the other hand my amd cpu does support it

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by OneTimeShot
              Hmm... the patent trolls are out to get VP9 and AV1.

              let’s hope Google can hit back hard with their video patent stack and Android support.
              Originally posted by Toggleton View Post
              Hope it will be Fun to watch once the Alliance for open media does fight against these claims
              What now? If a large percentage of those patents are invalid, it's still a thousand. This is quite devastating for royalty-free video. Is it back to VP8 now?

              Also, they forgot to have a software exemption, which is akin to declaring war against Mozilla. I hope at least this can be negotiated.

              Here is what I think:


              To protect against bad surprises in the future, AV2 should have bitstream switchable features, like XVC or EVC.

              Comment

              Working...
              X