Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

H.266/VVC Standard Finalized With ~50% Lower Size Compared To H.265

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by mppix View Post

    mp3 was brilliant when it was released because it enabled thousands of songs on inexpensive mp3 players
    mp3 players were not inexpensive for a huge number of years and the mp3 players that were released only had 64MB storage - enough for 1 album.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by Michael_S View Post

      What do you use to rip your 4K disks?
      DeUHD is an excellent solution for Ripping 4K UHD Movies to you PC For watching on 4K UHD TVS & Other Devices and it removes protection of Blu-ray 4K UHD automatically in the background, without losing quality. You can download trial version for free!

      Comment


      • #53
        I got wondering about how the implemntaion of AV1 is going and came across this Youtube page.

        The first videos to receive YouTube's AV1 transcodes. Support for AV1 in MP4 within Media Source is available in Chrome 70, and Firefox 63 builds newer than ...


        What caught my attention other than the videos was this line.

        "Using a supported browser and choosing the 'Prefer AV1 for SD' setting on youtube.com/testtube, you should see AV1 used for these videos when playing less than 480p, switching to VP9 for higher resolutions."

        Can any one think of why they would use AV1 for low res and VP9 for high res? Is that due to some limitation in AV1 or just a lack of hardware decoders? Can any one speak to how AV1 implementation is doing in Mac land?

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by mppix View Post

          mp3 was brilliant when it was released because it enabled thousands of songs on inexpensive mp3 players, that did not have the DACs or headphones to hear the difference to a CD (and CD quality).

          Today, mp3 is beaten easily by a number of lossy compression formats at a given bitrate, in particular opus and aac/m4a. Then, people with decent audio setups tend to use lossless compression (flac and alac files) because filespace is not a big concern anymore.
          You can't spot the MP3 in a blind test if it's encoded at 256kbps or more.
          AAC beats MP3 at lower bitrates, MP3 beats AAC at compatibility...

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by hajj_3 View Post

            mp3 players were not inexpensive for a huge number of years and the mp3 players that were released only had 64MB storage - enough for 1 album.
            That brings back memories.

            It was the early 2000s, around 15 years old, when I truly grasped the concept of bit rates and megabytes in regards to music. Long story short, I bought some crappy mp3 player from Walmart and its software transcoded my mp3s from 128+kpbs down to 32kpbs to fit more songs on the 64MB worth of storage. The worst part was it deleted the original files so I had to get on Kazaa and re-download around 15 some-odd songs.

            I learned two lessons that day: "Technically Correct" in business speak usually means "WTF Correct" and "Make backups before using sketchy software".

            Comment


            • #56
              I don't trust x266 at all.
              First off, patents and shit. They should make it a real thing, freedom, esp. since Fraunhofer lives off public money for a good part.

              Moreover, as people already wrote, h265 was claimed to be like 50% size of h264 at the same optical quality blah blah. It's not true. Maybe in especially tuned videos, but not on average. I tried.
              It sucks computing power like crazy, though, en- and decoding (unless you have an ASIC support).
              Stop TCPA, stupid software patents and corrupt politicians!

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by bug77 View Post

                You can't spot the MP3 in a blind test if it's encoded at 256kbps or more.
                AAC beats MP3 at lower bitrates, MP3 beats AAC at compatibility...
                I disagree with this statement- but I have high quality source material (actual recording sessions of acoustic instruments, singers, and genuine percussion instruments). When I downgrade my 24-bit/96000 recordings into something else for distribution, the differences between AAC @ 384kb and MP3 @ 384kb is obvious. But MP3 presents another quality problem: AFAIK, only LAME can encode at more than 320Kb, and many consumer devices can't handle higher nonstandard bit-rates. I always store my originals as FLAC. For compressed audio at lower bit rates, I prefer OPUS > AAC > AC3 > MP3, although I don't use OPUS very often. (I only encode to Opus when creating VP9 Videos).

                If the comparison is made by starting with a highly compressed and typically mis-engineered pop music CD - then yeah, 320Kb MP3 will be nearly as "good" as the original.
                - - - -
                BTW, I play on a violin which is well into 5 figures, and own two decent microphones.
                Last edited by rickst29; 06 July 2020, 07:17 PM. Reason: Added note at the bottom.

                Comment


                • #58
                  What would be the 8Mbps Mpeg2 equivalent for SD content? I have DVD rips and I want to know the needed bitrates for pre-encoded videos on placebo to get DVD quality on mobile.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by MadeUpName View Post
                    I got wondering about how the implemntaion of AV1 is going and came across this Youtube page.

                    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...eZUlNUQAVLwrZS

                    What caught my attention other than the videos was this line.

                    "Using a supported browser and choosing the 'Prefer AV1 for SD' setting on youtube.com/testtube, you should see AV1 used for these videos when playing less than 480p, switching to VP9 for higher resolutions."

                    Can any one think of why they would use AV1 for low res and VP9 for high res? Is that due to some limitation in AV1 or just a lack of hardware decoders? Can any one speak to how AV1 implementation is doing in Mac land?
                    this playlist is quite old(if i remember right end of 2018) and youtube did rollout the encoding in steps.
                    First this playlist to show the codec and for testing. Then a few months long for up to 480p only(thats why the statement is there).

                    And now are we in a state where usually more than 50/200 videos per day(sometimes 1-2weeks pause) are in the 'Popular right now' playlist in AV1 (all resolutions till 1080p and sometimes up to 4k videos) But there are a lot more AV1 videos but the playlist is easy to track

                    TBH not sure how Apple will do their thing in the Future. They did not support VP9, and its hard to predict if there will be native support. But there is a project that brings playback/decoding support to play AV1 in safari (video player for websites)https://github.com/brion/ogv.js
                    Last edited by Toggleton; 06 July 2020, 07:06 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by rickst29 View Post

                      I disagree with this statement- but I have high quality source material (actual recording sessions of acoustic instruments, singers, and genuine percussion instruments). When I downgrade my 24-bit/96000 recordings into something else for distribution, the differences between AAC @ 384kb and MP3 @ 384kb is obvious. But MP3 presents another quality problem: AFAIK, only LAME can encode at more than 320Kb, and many consumer devices can't handle higher nonstandard bit-rates. I always store my originals as FLAC. For compressed audio at lower bit rates, I prefer OPUS > AAC > AC3 > MP3, although I don't use OPUS very often. (I only encode to Opus when creating VP9 Videos).

                      If the comparison is made by starting with a highly compressed and typically mis-engineered pop music CD - then yeah, 320Kb MP3 will be nearly as "good" as the original.
                      Well, yeah, master copies are still with us for a reason. Most of us won't hear the differences you speak about though.
                      I've had this conversation with a guy who recently spent like 2k on audio equipment (obviously not high-end, but better than what 90% of others have) and he laughed at my face when I told him he wouldn't be able to spot the MP3. But then he went on to actually try to spot the MP3 and came back telling me I was right.
                      Obviously, higher-end equipment makes the most minute differences apparent, but how relevant is that in this day and age when people turn to their phones for music consumption? Sure, it's more than relevant for producing music, but never in its wildest dreams has MP3 gone into a studio

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X