Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AV2 Is In R&D As The Eventual Successor To The AV1 Video Codec

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by hajj_3 View Post
    Michael, your OP is incorrect. AV1 was ratified in March 2018 not early 2019. It has been out for ~2.5yrs.

    Some of you guys are saying that it is slow to encode and decode, it isn't slow to decode. I played a 1080p 6.7mbps AV1 video using the latest version of VLC player on windows using a 4yr old dual core intel kaby lake 2.4ghz laptop, it uses just 24% cpu.

    One of the big benefits for this will be smartphones. Video uses a lot of your phone's data allowance, reducing the bandwidth will therefore save many users money in their phone contract cost. It will also mean that people can watch 1080p and 4k netflix using slower broadband connections.
    The problem is watching video with 25% CPU is acceptable on Laptop, it is not on Smartphone, where the Hardware Decoder usage are expected to be in mW range. And the required transistor budget for an Hardware AV1 decoder is quite a lot more than say, HEVC. Transistor Budget means a lot more in Smartphone. Energy usage means a lot more than saving bandwidth.

    So it isn't so simple as simply snapping on a Hardware decoder. There is always going to be trade offs. Hence the reason why I wish AV2 would pay more attention to these areas. I am waiting to see if on 5nm Av1 hardware decoder would make more sense on Smartphone. There were news Google are already putting in hardware engineers into Av1 hardware decoder.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Min1123 View Post
      I don't blame the complexity of the codec, I blame the GPU manufacturers. Intel, on some of their chips with GPUs, supports VP9 encoding at 8-bit, in a few newer ones VP9 at 10-bit. AMD and NVidia only support the proprietary codecs for encoding, not any of the FOSS codecs.

      Google pushes for VP8, VP9, and AV1, because they have to pay licensing costs to encode videos in HEVC and H264. I didn't actually see where this ( https://www.osnews.com/story/22787/m...-license-h264/ ) changed, so I attempt to leave that shit alone, not on technical merits, but on ethical merits.
      https://developer.nvidia.com/video-e...support-matrix

      NVidia does support VP8 and VP9 decoding, even at 8 10 and 12 bit. Also Nvidia in 3xxx RTX series is confirmed to decode AV1 up to 8k 60fps as well.

      About encoding, not every codec is suitable for hardware encoding, https://www.reddit.com/r/VP9/comment..._vp9_on_intel/

      Even intel's VP9 hardware encoding is generating file sizes of 60% bigger at same quality. At such point file size increase, most benefits of VP9 loses sense. This is why hardware decode is much more important then hardware decode.
      Last edited by piotrj3; 09-08-2020, 08:31 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Min1123 View Post

        Absolutely not, my understanding is that if I film something with a proprietary codec, the content is mine, but I technically owe a licensing fee that I cannot pay to the patent pool, because it only has the actual agreements set up with corporations, and so my video is in a state of limbo by the license not being paid, and by the rights to encode with that codec not being transferable from the device manufacturer to me. I wanted to find a reference to that, but it is such an old thing (dating to original arguments about Theora), that I couldn't find a reference (in a reasonable amount of time) and couldn't cite one.
        Hopefully that information is inaccurate or obsolete, but I don't have citations to know so, and I'm not going to spend hours of reading legalese to try to confirm/deny it.
        That is actually a very very valid concern. Thank you for pointing this out, I just spend sometime looking into it and haven't gotten a valid answer. Hopefully I will get some time to look into it over the /next weekend.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by ksec View Post

          That is actually a very very valid concern. Thank you for pointing this out, I just spend sometime looking into it and haven't gotten a valid answer. Hopefully I will get some time to look into it over the /next weekend.
          I believe your license is paid for by the equipment manufacturer. And you pay for it when you make your purchase. I have never heard of anyone getting in trouble for posting their h265 videos anywhere.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by topolinik View Post

            Daala codec is now an abandoned repository, nothing more.
            Knowledge and ideas from that and Thor codecs converged into AV1.
            Incorrect. AV1 codec did not use the best features from Daala because they wanted a useable codec NOW and not some time in the future. The "best of what could be taken while keeping the existing codebase of VP10" is not the same thing as "the best of what was there".

            ​​​​​

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by lyamc View Post

              Incorrect. AV1 codec did not use the best features from Daala because they wanted a useable codec NOW and not some time in the future. The "best of what could be taken while keeping the existing codebase of VP10" is not the same thing as "the best of what was there".

              ​​​​​
              Very much this. I had such high hopes for Daala. Daala should have been the base codec. If they had done that, then AV1 wouldn't have all of the issues it has now. They wouldn't need to wait for hardware encode and decode because software would be just that efficient. It was even optimized to make it easy to make hardware encoders/decoders. Hopefully they use Daala as the baseline for AV2. That would fix everything that people are complaining about with AV1.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                > if I film something with a proprietary codec, the content is mine, but…

                I believe your license is paid for by the equipment manufacturer. And you pay for it when you make your purchase. I have never heard of anyone getting in trouble for posting their h265 videos anywhere.
                That's the codec license. It covers encode and decode. If you want to distribute, you may need a distribution license.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_E..._license_terms
                Last edited by andreano; 09-08-2020, 05:03 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by andreano View Post

                  That's the codec license. It covers encode and decode. If you want to distribute, you may need a distribution license.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_E..._license_terms
                  I don't see how any of that clauses covers my vacation movies. Those are clearly geared towards physical distribution of BluRay discs or, in case of AVC, subscription schemes.
                  Even if it did, nothing stops me from transcoding to a royalty free format before distributing. There's really no problem here.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    If YouTube, Netflix, etc. are the primary users, encoding complexity almost doesn't matter. Make AV2 encoding 10x more complex than AV1 if it improves bitrate. Home users can encode it later with 3D chips.

                    https://rethinkresearch.biz/articles...s-up-momentum/

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      pal666 i was not referring for personal computer. i meant for those companies to encode in real time the video that they need to deliver to their clients.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X