Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

uvg266 Rolls Out More AVX2 Optimizations For Open-Source VVC/H.266 Encoding

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

  • SteamPunker
    replied
    Originally posted by arQon View Post

    av1 decode isn't THAT expensive (for 1080, at least, and with most video consumed on 6" screens that's all you need) - roughly 2.5x h265. what that means is that basically every chip coming out of a fab can just handle it in software if it has to (and many will). i think the piece you're missing is that unless you're selling into the "luxury" market you just *do not care* how expensive decode is: you're not the one paying for it.

    > That's why I was so livid to learn that the Raspberry Pi 5 only has hardware acceleration for h.265 and not AV1. WHY, EBEN?

    "disappointing" for me rather than upsetting, but to be fair it was pretty obvious they were going to keep going with broadcom socs, and, well, that's what you get from broadcom.
    But someone in this forum actually stated that the h.265 hardware IP core in the RP5 was actually developed by Raspberry Pi in-house, which is even more baffling. The license fees unnecessarily inflate the price of the product.

    Leave a comment:


  • arQon
    replied
    Originally posted by SteamPunker View Post
    [*]AV1 being CPU-intensive is the reason why we should push more for hardware-accelerated support for it.
    av1 decode isn't THAT expensive (for 1080, at least, and with most video consumed on 6" screens that's all you need) - roughly 2.5x h265. what that means is that basically every chip coming out of a fab can just handle it in software if it has to (and many will). i think the piece you're missing is that unless you're selling into the "luxury" market you just *do not care* how expensive decode is: you're not the one paying for it.

    > That's why I was so livid to learn that the Raspberry Pi 5 only has hardware acceleration for h.265 and not AV1. WHY, EBEN?

    "disappointing" for me rather than upsetting, but to be fair it was pretty obvious they were going to keep going with broadcom socs, and, well, that's what you get from broadcom.

    Leave a comment:


  • geerge
    replied
    You're using plenty of fallacious reasoning yourself

    Leave a comment:


  • sophisticles
    replied
    The objections regarding open source implementations of patent encumbered standards reminds me of the broader fallacious reasoning that many within the open source community espouse regarding closed source, proprietary technology in general.

    They want the OS and drivers to be open source, yet they have no problems with using proprietary hardware with open source software.

    The design of all hardware from Intel, ARM, AMD, Nvidia, etc? Proprietary, patented.

    The ATM's you use for banking? Proprietary, patented, and the software is closed source.

    The cameras and other equipment used to make the movies you watch? Proprietary, patented.

    The cars you drive, including the software that controls the engine and transmission? Proprietary, patented, and the software is closed source.

    It is impossible to go an entire day without using some patented, proprietary technology that relies in some respect on closed source proprietary software, unless you spend the day in the woods camping, and even then, if you have a GPS with you, you are using patented, proprietary technology.

    It absolutely amazes me, there are people that expect someone with the brains and motivation to earn an engineering degree or a computer science degree, to go to school, study, get really good at their job and then work for free; or in the case of companies, to invest large amounts of money on R&D, hiring people, equipment and then turn around and give away the secrets to the technology they created for free.

    Yet i guarantee you the same people that demand open standards and open source software would have a fit if they showed up for work on day and their employer demanded that they work for free that week.

    It's time for the open source community to grow up.

    Leave a comment:


  • geerge
    replied
    Originally posted by SteamPunker View Post
    • AV1 being CPU-intensive is the reason why we should push more for hardware-accelerated support for it. That's why I was so livid to learn that the Raspberry Pi 5 only has hardware acceleration for h.265 and not AV1. WHY, EBEN?
    That takes time. We were fortunate how quickly AV1 hardware decode made its way into the big stuff. Raspberry pi is playing in the old tech paddling pool on older nodes, it doesn't make business sense to backport av1 decode even if it would make consumer sense. h.265 was released 5 years before av1 so hardware decode made it into what was at the time bleeding edge, when av1 may not even have been a twinkle in the eye.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteamPunker
    replied
    • "free only for non-commercial use" is not Free (as in Freedom)
    • Fair point about AV1 not being the same generation as h.266, but even then, focus should be about helping improve AV2, which I believe is already under development. At the very least, open-source efforts should not be wasted on encouraging adoption of h.266, unless somehow miraculously it is declared as a truly royalty-free standard.
    • AV1 being CPU-intensive is the reason why we should push more for hardware-accelerated support for it. That's why I was so livid to learn that the Raspberry Pi 5 only has hardware acceleration for h.265 and not AV1. WHY, EBEN?

    Leave a comment:


  • sophisticles
    replied
    Originally posted by SteamPunker View Post
    Why are open-source developers wasting their efforts on implementing a patent-encumbered codec that requires royalties to use?

    If you are going to develop something that is open-source, then go for an open and royalty-free standard. Same as with the open-source h.264 project (what was its name again?). Pointless. If they want to collect royalties for the codecs, then pay developers to write commercial implementations. Don't count on the open-source community to give you freebees. (And open-source developers: don't give them those freebees! Your hard-earned work is much more deserving than that.)
    You're thinking about x264.

    As for why, the answer(s) are sort of nuanced. Software patents are not enforceable in all countries. Also, for h264, iirc, the royalties are not required for noncommercial use.

    There is currently an open and royalty free standard, AV1, but it's very CPU intensive.

    But the biggest reason is quality. MSU recently did a test of large number of encoders and every single VVC/H266 implementation beat every H264, H265, VP9 and AV1 encoder by significant margins, in some cases requiring half the bit-rate to achieve the same MS-SSIM score.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteamPunker
    replied
    Why are open-source developers wasting their efforts on implementing a patent-encumbered codec that requires royalties to use?

    If you are going to develop something that is open-source, then go for an open and royalty-free standard. Same as with the open-source h.264 project (what was its name again?). Pointless. If they want to collect royalties for the codecs, then pay developers to write commercial implementations. Don't count on the open-source community to give you freebees. (And open-source developers: don't give them those freebees! Your hard-earned work is much more deserving than that.)

    Leave a comment:


  • OneTimeShot
    replied
    Would be amusing if patent holders started taking down vvc projects. Boot is on other foot now. Taste of your own medicine MPEG-LA

    Leave a comment:


  • geerge
    replied
    Down with this sort of thing.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X