SVT-AV1 Can Now Achieve 1080p @ 60 FPS AV1 Video Encoding On Select Configurations

[JanW]

And how's the quality when compared to the reference encoder?

That.

Or even better: What's the speed of the new version and the file size produced when set to obtain the same quality as the reference encoder?

[Spooktra]

There is no question that the SVT family of encoders are the future, I did a quality test of SVT-HEVC here:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/...C-encoder-test

When I get home tonight I will be posted test encodes of Intel's SVT-VP9 encoder as well.

The FFMPEG people need to pull these encoders into the main branch ASAP!!!

[cb88]

In Firefox (nightly at the least) you can force to use dav1d, in about:config and searching for AV1, and then you access youtube.com/testtube to force AV1 in all videos.

I didn't see any difference in the videos besides not having any HD video uploaded on YouTube in AV1, don't know if it is checking something and not showing any of those higher resolution to me

Since AV1 is so expensive to encode, it gets used on video's that cost the most to host which saves google the most money. Below 480p because this is what most people get on thier phones, and music videos as they tend to have the highest number of views. It looks like it does indeed save about 50% of bandwidth though.

[AndyChow]

Probably terrible : https://www.reddit.com/r/AV1/comment...rible_quality/

Wow. Usually, I can never tell the difference in quality between two images, but this is really bad. So what's the big deal with AV1 anyway? It has 20% better compression than h265 or VP9, but takes 10000% longer to encode than h265. And that wouldn't matter if the decode was similar to h265 or VP9, but my understanding is that it's not.

So, what's the excitement about?

[profoundWHALE]

Wow. Usually, I can never tell the difference in quality between two images, but this is really bad. So what's the big deal with AV1 anyway? It has 20% better compression than h265 or VP9, but takes 10000% longer to encode than h265. And that wouldn't matter if the decode was similar to h265 or VP9, but my understanding is that it's not.

So, what's the excitement about?

h265 already has optimized code. h265 has confusing patent pools.

AV1 doesn't have optimized code yet. It only recently (thanks to the VLC team) got a good performing decoder which AFAIK is already in ffmpeg and firefox. AV1 also free from these patent pools so everyone wants to use it.

I'm still hoping for something like what opus did for audio, but I don't think AV1 is that guy. But it's currently the best so I'll take it.

[andreano]

Let's not worry about quality yet. The encoder was run in its fastest, lowest quality setting, and it delivered the speedup we sorely needed!

That just means you can take the speedup, but you could also buy quality for it.

I see hope.

[M@GOid]

oops.

[andreano]

avc1

Sorry to disappoint you, but "avc1" = AVC = Advanced Video Coding = H.264

What you're looking for is "av01". I see that in this video:

[M@GOid]

Sorry to disappoint you, but "avc1" = AVC = Advanced Video Coding = H.264

What you're looking for is "av01". I see that in this video:

Ops. You are right, I mixed up the things.

[Snoop05]

iirc videos that are already encoded in AV1 on youtube ("av01") tend to have actually higher bitrate than avc or vp9 streams. Reason for that is decoder stress testing, not bandwidth reduction (at least not yet).