VVenC 1.11 Brings More Performance Improvements For H.266/VVC Encoding

[Nocifer]

I still don't understand. Why do even people bother to check the comments section for this news piece and why do they need to express their desire to use a totally different unrelated codec?

Because this is a fscking open source software forum and most all of us here are pro open source, patent-free software/practices/businesses like Linux, AMD and AV1 and against closed source, pattern-riddled software/practices/businesses like Windows, Nvidia and VVC. With our posting here we satisfy our need to promote the former and criticize the latter, and/or express our hope that the former can achieve the quality of the latter in the few cases where there is a noticeable disparity between the two (hint: VVC is not one of these cases). What we do NOT do, however, is resort to using closed-source, patent-riddled crap just because they may be 10% faster or prettier compared to their (pro-)open source equivalents.

The real question then is, wtf are YOU doing here spewing toxic anti open source bs on a 25/7 basis?

P.S. I too have a vested interest in encoding and have even encoded a couple of frames in AV1, I'm a "codec aficionado" as you put it; all I will say is a) thank God I haven't encountered you on Doom9, b) there is a reason H.264 is still used for anything and everything under (non-HDR) 4K, even though on paper H.265 is better, and c) VVC is practically DOA.

[OneTimeShot]

VVC relied heavily on AV2 research. Then they added some patented stuff and shipped it. That’s the reality of what VVC is.

It doesn’t matter though, because everything after h264 is just pointless engineering for geeks.

People are still buying MPEG2 DVDs because subsequent improvements don’t justify paying $5 extra for most people.

Who cares if VVC is 10% better than AV1 or AV2 is 10% better than VVC? It’s still not providing any end user features that justify upgrading from h264. Video is video.

[avis]

VVC relied heavily on AV2 research.

I will stop you right there. I would like to see some really strong citations on that because this is the first time I've heard such lunacy.

From what I know people who developed VVC had not seen or touched the AV1 or AV2 codecs ever. Not a single piece of them. Those two codecs were developed completely separately.

Then they added some patented stuff and shipped it. That’s the reality of what VVC is.

It doesn’t matter though, because everything after h264 is just pointless engineering for geeks.

People are still buying MPEG2 DVDs because subsequent improvements don’t justify paying $5 extra for most people.

Who cares if VVC is 10% better than AV1 or AV2 is 10% better than VVC? It’s still not providing any end user features that justify upgrading from h264. Video is video.

H.265/H.266 run circles around H.264 specially at higher resolutions. I've posted comparisons even in this topic.

You could check multiple industry recognized comparisons made by the MSU video group as well:

https://compression.ru/video/

To say that anything beyond H.264 is useless is just jarring. Maybe resolutions beyond 1080p are useless as well? Who says though? You. You decide what will people use and consume? What about professionals, including doctors who need 8K/16K (132.7 megapixels per frame) 60/120/240 fps footage where H.264 bitrates jump through the roof and it becomes impossible to store such videos or send them in an appropriate amount of time?

[OneTimeShot]

. I would like to see some really strong citations on that because this is the first time I've heard such lunacy.

Well... The spec for AV1 is on aomedia, the spec for VVC is on the ISO website, so go ahead and compare.

There’s nothing wrong with VVC using AV2 techniques, of course. They can even use Google patents, because Google are pool members.

There's a bit of a misconception that AV1 is not patented. It very much is, with an interesting patent license (sort of GPL-like). What they are doing is researching algos in AV1, patenting them and then also adding then to the MPEG codec where they can charge. I mean... why wouldn't you?

[avis]

Well... The spec for AV1 is on aomedia, the spec for VVC is on the ISO website, so go ahead and compare.

There’s nothing wrong with VVC using AV2 techniques, of course. They can even use Google patents, because Google are pool members.

There's a bit of a misconception that AV1 is not patented. It very much is, with an interesting patent license (sort of GPL-like). What they are doing is researching algos in AV1, patenting them and then also adding then to the MPEG codec where they can charge. I mean... why wouldn't you?

You made the claim, the onus of proving your lunacy/egregious lies not seen even on 4chan is on you.

[OneTimeShot]

You made the claim, the onus of proving your lunacy/egregious lies not seen even on 4chan is on you.

What "egregious lies"? Google is a big patent holder in HEVC and VVC. How did you think that happened? All that AV2 research is in VVC too.

[Quackdoc]

There is not really much market for VVC IMO, the gains over av1 are marginal when comparing the current encoders (at the expensive of great speed), decoding av1 isn't that expensive anymore as most new hardware supports AV1 hwdec. intel, amd, and nvidia's new gpus all support it, A lot of newer midrange socs now support av1 now so it's just a matter of waiting for those devices to roll out, though some already have. Most of the new high end phones already do support av1, but even without that dav1d is fairly cheap so that's not too much the issue. (I can watch hours of content on my s9+ with mpv-android)

VVC may have had a better chance if it wasn't patent encumbered, The royalty system is just as bad as HEVC, and unlike when HEVC was popular, we have a real alternative to VVC with av1. so I don't think too many companies will adopt VVC outside of things like television and bluray stuff (which granted is not a small market).

[DanL]

ROTFLMAO!!! In the event you were not making a joke: OMFG!!!

You've been here for 8 years and you haven't figured out that uid313 (seriously) wants everything (re)written in Rust?

[TheMightyBuzzard]

To say that anything beyond H.264 is useless is just jarring. Maybe resolutions beyond 1080p are useless as well? Who says though? You. You decide what will people use and consume? What about professionals, including doctors who need 8K/16K (132.7 megapixels per frame) 60/120/240 fps footage where H.264 bitrates jump through the roof and it becomes impossible to store such videos or send them in an appropriate amount of time?

They're not useless but they're just shy of it. They take a hell of a lot longer to encode unless you're a gamer and manage to get a new GPU before the $COIN miners/AI nerds bought them all. Same for any resolutions over 1080p. And even then, you can't tweak GPU encoding to your own arbitrary preferences like you can with CPU encoding.

And the fun bit is, even if you could encode in H265/H266/AV1 and resolutions beyond 1080p in a decent amount of time, it's not going to play back on all of your devices. For instance, I'm not throwing out my xbox1 that's hooked to a 1080p television in the livingroom as a media center device just because a codec with better efficiency came out. I could care less if H264 is less efficient, I care that it's efficient enough and works on everything I own (and everything anyone else owns who I might want to share some arbitrary bit of media with) without having to transcode a whole flipping media library.

I'm against software patents existing because copyright and patents should not overlap--not ever--but I was never going to respect them in the privacy of my home anyway, so I don't really care about that aspect of the debate.

[TheMightyBuzzard]

You've been here for 8 years and you haven't figured out that uid313 (seriously) wants everything (re)written in Rust?

Except x.org. The intersection of Rust fanbois and Wayland fanbois is too near 100% for them to marshal a realistic push for that.