Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AV1 Decoder dav1d Lands 10-bit AVX2 Assembly For Big Speed-Up, Thanks Facebook + Netflix

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by curfew View Post
    I beg to differ. Software decoding causes my laptop's fans to spin up like crazy. Firefox recently optimized their hardware decoding to be about 50 % more efficient than in previous versions, so now the difference should be pretty major, although I haven't tried that. But even video players are horribly slow in software rendering mode.
    Yeah, hardware accelerated decoding is always superior. Intel's already there, need AMD to buck up and get it on future iGPUs.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

      It will for some stuff, but 10-bit encoding can still be pretty brutal on devices. I can just barely watch 4k 10-bit content on a custom build of mpv-android with compiler optimizations on my s9+ I think it will be a little while longer yet, but it is definitely a large step.
      Lol, you should just use whatever video codec is hardware accelerated on your device. Much better for battery life. For normal video watching that is, if this is some special project where you're editing video and wanting to see how it looks, I'd understand.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by sandy8925 View Post

        Lol, you should just use whatever video codec is hardware accelerated on your device. Much better for battery life. For normal video watching that is, if this is some special project where you're editing video and wanting to see how it looks, I'd understand.
        Nah, Bandwidth is very much a thing in short supply for many people. for instance, there are many public places where I can get a smooth video stream, when I stream youtube AV1 where I would have to let it buffer before.

        On youtube AV1 videos are often literally half the size of vp9 videos, this is from yt-dl of an 8k video so you can see file size comps. if you are on data, or have slow internet, AV1 is phenomenal

        400 mp4 2560x1440 1440p60 5733k , mp4_dash container, [email protected], 60fps, video only, 222.03MiB
        308 webm 2560x1440 1440p60 12962k , webm_dash container, [email protected], 60fps, video only, 501.98MiB
        401 mp4 3840x2160 2160p60 11841k , mp4_dash container, [email protected], 60fps, video only, 458.57MiB
        315 webm 3840x2160 2160p60 26353k , webm_dash container, [email protected], 60fps, video only, 1020.55MiB
        402 mp4 7680x4320 4320p60 16140k , mp4_dash container, [email protected], 60fps, video only, 625.04MiB
        571 mp4 7680x4320 4320p60 25262k , mp4_dash container, [email protected], 60fps, video only, 978.30MiB
        EDIT: I also like seeing how the 8k videos have two different bitrates but same codec.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post
          Very good. AV1 is shaping up to be an incredible game changer. will definitely be the next AVC or Mjpeg. whichever one you think more popular.

          once we start to see chips with dedicated av1 encoders at a budget spectrum, AV1 will take the world by storm for consumer stuff too.
          I presume the next AVC will be VVC. AV1 seems like yet another codec solely for distributing pre-recorded content over the Internet, i.e. aside from Google and maybe Netflix no one will use it. Google/Twitch/all other content providers continue to use AVC for real-time content. Neither VP9, nor H.265 is used for real-time content/encoding.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

            Nah, Bandwidth is very much a thing in short supply for many people. for instance, there are many public places where I can get a smooth video stream, when I stream youtube AV1 where I would have to let it buffer before.

            On youtube AV1 videos are often literally half the size of vp9 videos, this is from yt-dl of an 8k video so you can see file size comps. if you are on data, or have slow internet, AV1 is phenomenal



            EDIT: I also like seeing how the 8k videos have two different bitrates but same codec.
            VVC beats AV1 handily: a much better encoding efficiency, a lot faster at both encoding and decoding. For archival purposes it's a much better codec.
            Last edited by birdie; 15 May 2021, 04:01 PM.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by birdie View Post

              VVC beats AV1 handily: a much better encoding efficiency, a lot faster at both encoding and decoding. For archival purposes it's a much better codec.
              Comparing VVC to AV1 is like comparing HEVC to VP9.

              It's meant to be like this:

              AV2 > VVC > AV1 > HEVC > VP9 > H.264 > VP8 and so on.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

                Comparing VVC to AV1 is like comparing HEVC to VP9.

                It's meant to be like this:

                AV2 > VVC > AV1 > HEVC > VP9 > H.264 > VP8 and so on.
                Originally posted by birdie View Post

                I presume the next AVC will be VVC. AV1 seems like yet another codec solely for distributing pre-recorded content over the Internet, i.e. aside from Google and maybe Netflix no one will use it. Google/Twitch/all other content providers continue to use AVC for real-time content. Neither VP9, nor H.265 is used for real-time content/encoding.
                what is VVC's licensing? that's what killed hevc on the www for the most case, I have high hopes for AV2, but that is a long way off. im not sure of the state of VVC, but if it doesn't have good licensing, it doesn't matter.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post



                  what is VVC's licensing? that's what killed hevc on the www for the most case, I have high hopes for AV2, but that is a long way off. im not sure of the state of VVC, but if it doesn't have good licensing, it doesn't matter.
                  I am pretty sure you will have to pay royalties to use/implement VVC, and they will be at least 10 times more expensive than the HEVC royalties.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

                    I am pretty sure you will have to pay royalties to use/implement VVC, and they will be at least 10 times more expensive than the HEVC royalties.
                    Yikes, Im sure that will be a deal breaker. the main reason HEVC was not implemented on the web widely is because of licensing, it was hasslesome for everyone to implement and in the end, it wasn't worth implementing to any serious degree. If this is true, looks like VVC will be another HEVC.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

                      what is VVC's licensing? that's what killed hevc on the www for the most case, I have high hopes for AV2, but that is a long way off. im not sure of the state of VVC, but if it doesn't have good licensing, it doesn't matter.
                      For personal use it's basically free. You have to pay for it once you start implementing it in HW, software or start distributing VVC content.

                      HEVC didn't take off not because of its licensing but because pirates and porn industry didn't embrace it. It's kind of a joke, except it's not, these two industries were the driving force behind most recent successful codecs, MPEG-4 part 2 (Xvid, DivX) and H.264/AVC.

                      As for AV2 it'll be extremely computationally expensive again, IOW inaccessible for most users out there. Google still barely uses AV1 which was finalized over a year ago. And we have zero good encoders for AV1 either (libaom is dead slow, SVT-AV1 is faster but blurry and is not good for transparent encoding). I tried to reproduce the same quality as H.264 and the SVT-AV1 encode ended up being ... larger than the H.264 encode.
                      Last edited by birdie; 16 May 2021, 02:46 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X