Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open-Source Software Encode/Decode For H.266/VVC Progressing

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by CommunityMember View Post

    I do wonder how much silicon area will be needed to implement some of the various proposed AI algorithms. Maybe we will go back to having dedicated encoding/decoding chips (like the Broadcom Crystal HD chip).
    Laptop CPUs (from AMD, Intel, and Apple), phones and dGPUs are already shipping with beefy dedicated inference hardware, the question is whether AV2 can utilize them portably and sanely.

    EDIT: Or maybe stuff like AMX or whatever the ARM equivalent is called are more appropriate.
    Last edited by brucethemoose; 11 February 2023, 05:05 PM.

    Comment


    • #22
      it's very funny to read about your horror stories with patents here, but this does not interfere with hevc and normal 4k hdr streams and 1080p we have in it in online cinemas, and not in av1 and vp9
      -
      at the same time, I am interested in the free av 1, that is, for an ordinary user it is free and he will not be forced to buy an extension in the microsoft store for $ 1, but how are things going with corporations that encode videos on their servers, they really don't pay anything? does anyone know the details of this, or has google just put it into our heads that it is free, but this is not the case at all for the business that uses it.
      -
      then why didn't all the companies rush back with vp9 if it's so free, and didn't switch to it. That is, not everything is so clean here, I think,
      And we just don't know much about the use of these seemingly free codecs by companies​
      Last edited by Adventurer_Kun; 11 February 2023, 05:17 PM.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by CommunityMember View Post

        Whether VVC is a success will depend on whether the major consumer and business product vendors find the advantages valuable to their customers use cases (which has been true for all the previous video codecs too), and nothing to do with its licensing costs (which will just be added to the cost of the various products, just as all previous video codecs licensing has been (for what it is worth, the VVC license will have a discount if you also license HEVC)). TTBOMK important software (in the video industry) such as Adobe Premiere Pro does not yet support VVC but I would expect if Adobe's customers want it it will happen soon enough.
        Licensing is an important factor, and it is not just cost, it is also to simply figure out whom to pay in the first place.
        It was a big challenge with HEVC.
        Adoption of HEVC wasn't amazing to say the least.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by nazar-pc View Post

          Licensing is an important factor, and it is not just cost, it is also to simply figure out whom to pay in the first place.
          It was a big challenge with HEVC.
          Adoption of HEVC wasn't amazing to say the least.
          I'd venture to say that H.265/HEVC has never taken off. I've heard Apple uses it here and there but that's it. Some Android phones have an option to enable HEVC video encoding but even in 2023 it's still not enabled by default.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by avis View Post

            I'd venture to say that H.265/HEVC has never taken off. I've heard Apple uses it here and there but that's it. Some Android phones have an option to enable HEVC video encoding but even in 2023 it's still not enabled by default.
            Its definitely more popular than that. For instance, any HDR stream you watch (other than on YouTube) is probably HEVC.

            But you are not wrong. However, I think the bigger adoption problem is that AVC is just so entrenched now. Even if aom av1 was magically 2% the bitrate of x264, it would still have trouble catching on.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by avis View Post

              I'd venture to say that H.265/HEVC has never taken off. I've heard Apple uses it here and there but that's it. Some Android phones have an option to enable HEVC video encoding but even in 2023 it's still not enabled by default.
              ATSC 3.0 (the US nextgen TV broadcast standard) uses H.265 as its expected default codec. While ATSC 3.0 is not available everywhere at this time, the OTA broadcast industry does see it was their eventual future.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by brucethemoose View Post

                Some of the biggest users will probably be streaming services, where even tiny bandwidth reductions translate to millions of dollars saved. And streaming box/smart tv SOCs appear to be the first hardware decode adopters: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versatile_Video_Coding


                IDK about the big editing suites. They still default to x264 (with not very optimal settings) or ProRes from what I've seen, so they seemingly arent in a rush to optimize the quality of exports.
                Streaming services will take what's usable and easy enough to implement. That will probably be H264, shifting to AV1 (like Netflix is slowly doing) for quite some years to come. AV1 is old enough, there are very efficient software encoders and decoders (with SVT-AV1 being developed by Intel and Netflix) and hardware support is already arriving in many products. With Google making it mandatory for Android TV (and maybe for Android devices on some point of they haven't already) only helping that.

                And fact is, streaming services know they are already stretching their luck very thin, switching to something as expensive as MPEG crap could be just too much. Sure, companies holding patents that are part of the MPEG patent pool like Apple, Microsoft and what not will go all in on VVC, but that's it. There will most likely never be a physical medium where VVC is standardized for, it's questionable if TV broadcasters can afford, most streaming services most likely can't. Users are already pissed because everyone makes their own service making their content exclusive to have you pay multiple services, and stuff like Netflix account share ban. People are already frequenting illegal streaming sites more because of that, so any change in conditions that don't benefit the users have to be considered well, otherwise the people will just drop the service.

                And off course,in generell it won't have any success on the web. No video conferencing software, no video streaming software will pay that much money to save bandwidth, AV1 will become the standard of the web.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Adventurer_Kun View Post
                  it's very funny to read about your horror stories with patents here, but this does not interfere with hevc and normal 4k hdr streams and 1080p we have in it in online cinemas, and not in av1 and vp9
                  -
                  at the same time, I am interested in the free av 1, that is, for an ordinary user it is free and he will not be forced to buy an extension in the microsoft store for $ 1, but how are things going with corporations that encode videos on their servers, they really don't pay anything? does anyone know the details of this, or has google just put it into our heads that it is free, but this is not the case at all for the business that uses it.
                  -
                  then why didn't all the companies rush back with vp9 if it's so free, and didn't switch to it. That is, not everything is so clean here, I think,
                  And we just don't know much about the use of these seemingly free codecs by companies​
                  First of, if you want to imply that VP9/AV1 have any hidden fees for encoding on servers, educate yourself, that's rubbish.

                  About the topic at hand: VP9 never took off because efficiency gains aren't that great and companies didn't like Googles approach with it. That's where AV1 comes in. Google gathered many big names in software and hardware behind them to create a completely free codec that can compete with h.265 with all the companies either investing in the creation of the codec, writing very well optimized software implementations and/or committing to creating hardware support for their products.

                  Back when h.265 was released, some companies moved to it because they didn't really have a choice, but even so, they did very reluctantly. And I don't really know anyone that has switched to it 100 %. VP9 came kinda quickly, but while it was supposed to be competing with h.265, it was more in the middle between h.264 and h.265. For Google that was good enough to make it the default in YouTube having support in Android devices and even creating their own hardware encoder for their server farms. Even Netflix committed to it where it was useful. But fact is, most companies still don't like the insane prices they need to pay for it and most will be glad if they can drop support for h.265 in favor of AV1 to save money. But fact is, especially encoding AV1 still isn't a piece of cake, even with SVT-AV1. And even taking that out of the equation, it takes quite some time to figure out encoding settings for their use cases for the result to be as good looking as needed while using as little bandwidth as possible.

                  And since most streaming is done on mobile devices, they simply have to wait for hardware support in smartphones to not kill their users battery, or simply overload the SoC resulting in bad playback behavior. Sure, Netflix is already streaming AV1 to select devices supporting it in hardware, Google Meet is using it, YouTube uses it for videos with enough views up to FHD, Cisco WebEx is using it on some desktops for screen sharing. But for a broader usage, devices with hardware support still need to be more common in the target user group. Those things take years. Of course it would be best if support for it was ubiquitous, but if course Apple and Microsoft want to secure their patent earnings, purposefully making it difficult to use it (you need an extension for MS Edge, Apple doesn't support it in Safari for anything else than AVIF still images and it's doubtful if they will ever built in support for it into their SoCs. But in the other hand, they added support for VP9 back in 2021, even though most likely only in software).

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by CommunityMember View Post

                    ATSC 3.0 (the US nextgen TV broadcast standard) uses H.265 as its expected default codec. While ATSC 3.0 is not available everywhere at this time, the OTA broadcast industry does see it was their eventual future.
                    Going all in on H.265 at this point in time...how much did MPEG LA pay them? In Europe, for all I know only DVB-T2 (terrestrial TV in the 2nd gen) and only in Germany uses it, and they switched in 2017 when AV1 wasn't a thing. No use via satellite and only experiments with it for UHD via cable. At this point they should just go with AV1 and save the ridiculous amounts of patent fees.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Artim View Post

                      Streaming services will take what's usable and easy enough to implement. That will probably be H264, shifting to AV1 (like Netflix is slowly doing) for quite some years to come. AV1 is old enough, there are very efficient software encoders and decoders (with SVT-AV1 being developed by Intel and Netflix) and hardware support is already arriving in many products. With Google making it mandatory for Android TV (and maybe for Android devices on some point of they haven't already) only helping that.
                      Netflix uses HEVC for high quality streams, and I think AVC as a fallback. Last I heard, they are only using AV1 for low res local downloads (which makes sense, as low res is easy to software decode and those downloads are very bandwidth/space limited). Obviously they would like to use AV1 everywhere (and maybe they already are on supported devices), but there will have to be HEVC/AVC fallbacks for the forseeable future.

                      IDK what they encode content with, but svt-av1 does not make sense since they are not limited by time or CPU.

                      Yeah, live streaming is largely not going to use vvc. Just getting Discord to embed AV1 or users to send YouTube AV1/VP9 has been like pulling teeth... actually Discord embedding may not even work yet, even though they just enabled beta AV1 streaming in 2023 (and probably only on Windows).

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X