|
Comparing with x264 makes sense, it's currently the mainstream codec. The claimed saving would take it into h.265 territory quality wise. They do compare it to h.265 though in terms of CPU use and battery life, only because it is supposedly much better. For the h.265 successor, efficiency needs to be worked on since it was just discussed in a recent thread. That's 64 times slower compression than h.265 and 16 times slower decompression. Savings also aren't stated, it could be only (considering requirements) 40 percent more efficient, for example. If you got an hour watching a h.265 on your phone, the battery would last about 3.5 minutes on it's successor at the current 16 times slower stat. Of course it's not exact as the screen it's only lit for the time the video plays, so that's 1 hour screen use versus 3.5 minutes.
Basically they're showing efficiency can be done, so hopefully it will give them the push they need. Nothing is said of the audio, wonder if AAC (proprietory) is used, or their own format? Codecs like Opus would be ideal, higher quality at a lower bitrate than AAC-LC (the high quality AAC variation), and unlike AAC works just as well in low bandwidth scenarios, and is more effective than AAC-HE (the AAC low bandwidth variation of AAC).
I wonder how it was achieved?
|