Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
14th July 2016, 14:16 | #221 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
|
Quote:
HEVC isn't just a small slight improvement. And are we forgetting already that VP9 is basically just a copy of HEVC with some nerfs (worse reference structure, weird hacky b-frames, lack of weighted prediction or SAO, IIRC)? On2 still did it the usual way: take ideas from the MPEG standard, and obfuscate them a bit to not be directly exposed to patent lawyers. And currently, VP9 is the format that AV1 is being built on! So I'd say we should get a bit more mature on the freetard/fanboy feelings toward MPEG. Not to mention when the best video coding technology to this day (x264) was based on their codec. Also, MPEG-LA royalties are sane and okay. It is the greedy companies that split off from MPEG-LA pool that went overboard and caused a SNAFU. |
|
14th July 2016, 14:42 | #222 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 201
|
Quote:
Quote:
This has continually caused problems, e.g. the big drama when Apple held Quicktime 6 hostage until they dropped per-use royalties on AAC all the way up to the current HEVC nonsense (which again caused Apple remove any mention of HEVC from their iPhone page). You know it's gone too far when Apple, who generally have no big issue with patent encumbered formats, is calling you out. Last edited by dapperdan; 14th July 2016 at 14:48. |
||
14th July 2016, 20:31 | #223 | Link | ||||
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 98
|
Actually, considering how old h264 is and the amount of extra cpu time HEVC needs in order to actually see those benefits, I can't say I'm overly impressed with the improvements. That said this will most likely hold just as true for AV1.
Quote:
Quote:
From what I've read, it's built on VP10, which was supposed to be the VP9 successor, and is now to become AV1. Quote:
Quote:
That's your opinion. |
||||
15th July 2016, 03:03 | #224 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 41
|
Quote:
Consider that we don't need to decompress images at constant rate of at least 21 FPS so even most mobile should be able to handle it reasonably fast and if you factor the download time I think it wouldn't in most cases cause a considerable lag at page loading. |
|
15th July 2016, 03:59 | #225 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 41
|
Quote:
Quote:
libvpx doesn't exploit all the possibilities that the format has to offer and I think it would come much closer to the quality of HEVC if an alternative implementation emerges and starts exploiting such things (my hope is Eve will better show what VP9 is capable of). |
||
15th July 2016, 17:07 | #226 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 930
|
Quote:
Last edited by mzso; 15th July 2016 at 17:16. |
|
15th July 2016, 17:21 | #227 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 930
|
It's countries like the US that truly need a good beating, because they allow software patents. There wouldn't be any need for this pathetic comedy with "free" formats and patented formats. They could just take HEVC and improve upon it...
|
15th July 2016, 18:14 | #228 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
|
IMHO the only problem with HEVC is that payments got too high because of HEVC Advance and then Technicolor or which company it was that went rogue as the third party. The mistake was not having/enforcing binding agreements that would guarantee sane royalties/terms of use.
Otherwise, I don't see a problem with codec not being completely beer-free if it means better technology/compression (and indirectly, incentive for further development). H.264 showed it works well, although some people think it is some catastrophe or something. Last edited by mandarinka; 15th July 2016 at 18:17. |
15th July 2016, 21:34 | #229 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 98
|
Quote:
Instead I'd argue that in reality software patents obstructs and slows down technology, and I think the MPEG LA pool is a perfect example of that, they dictate when and how much progress in video codecs will be made available by holding a vast array of encoding techniques locked under what is again aggressively broad software patents. IMHO we'd be further along in video encoding if we did not have software patents, as we can see with AOM's effort with AV1 and what Google has done all along with the VP series, there is huge commercial incentive beyond cashing in on royalties to improve technology, and yet again even this effort is hampered by software patents, and will likely be attacked by software patents as MPEG LA fights to keep their business model of piecemealing video encoding progress. Quote:
Now, I (and I assume you) want to see the best video compression technology possible, in my/your hands as soon as possible, MPEG LA's business model of controlling video compression progress through software patents means we will get what they deem is enough of a step forward to create enough demand for them to kickstart a new codec and royalties cycle, rinse and repeat, continously artificially limiting progress in order for them to milk as much royalties as possible. Take AOM as a comparison, since their model is not based upon royalties at all, there's no reason whatsoever for them to artificially limit the capacity of their codec, in fact the better the codec is, the more money they save on bandwidth, and the more attractive their services are to customers, but here again the sad concept of software patents rear it's ugly head, as it will limit what AV1 can provide, just as it limits video compression progress as a whole. |
||
16th July 2016, 01:18 | #230 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
|
Quote:
I would much rather see efforts like AV1/Daala to happen this way, together with the commercial development, so that the best of all camps can be combined. I'd say that it is those projects limiting themselves from use of patented technology, rather then the patented technology makers limiting them, strictly speaking. Of course, it is very unlikely that Xiph/Mozilla/On2 will change their policy and license patented stuff for themselves (well, Google did that, for VP8/9, actually), given how their whole goal is to be royalty free. But it is their choice, not result of somebody harassing them into it and denying them the option to do otherwise. |
|
16th July 2016, 05:47 | #231 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 706
|
Quote:
Video streaming services and video creation companies pay licensing fees for not only the hours and hours of movies and TV shows that viewers watch but also the basic coding technology that enables files to be created and displayed. The cost to license this technology has become a major impediment to innovation for companies trying to make content easily available to millions (billions!) of consumers, which is why Adobe is proud to join the Alliance for Open Media. Quote:
Not only for himself royalty free. Along with other members like Amazon, Cisco, Google, Intel Corporation, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix, and many others, Adobe is working to develop technology for open video compression and delivery across numerous devices. As a member of the alliance, Adobe will collaborate with industry leaders to create a leading edge and royalty-free video codec. Bottom line: this means faster and higher resolution video is on its way at a lower cost to the consumer. Wonder, will it be free plugin like to VP9? Last edited by Jamaika; 16th July 2016 at 06:15. |
||
20th July 2016, 09:46 | #232 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 201
|
Daala update from IETF 96:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/...96-netvc-4.pdf And video (Daala section starts 1 hour in): http://recs.conf.meetecho.com/Playou...pter=chapter_1 Probably the headline is that "main development switched to AV1, Daala is primarily being used as a testbed to implement ideas that then get moved to AV1, though it might be revived as a standalone codec at a future date when some of the techniques they've come up with have matured". |
20th July 2016, 17:55 | #236 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 218
|
Another thing is the design of encoder is much more challenging than design of format. Today, if I am to encode a video without x264/x265, honestly, I'd use Easy Real Producer. I've seen how it beats those crappy H.264/H.265/VP9 encoders.
R.I.P. daala, hope AV1 can fulfill its destine. |
21st July 2016, 13:46 | #239 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
|
Quote:
The only "hostility" is in me not caring about the topic of "encumbered" or "free" things, which lots of people here put into the front. I just want to see technical progress regardless of whichever party will bring it about. Daala was quite interesting in that regard (at least in theory), whereas On2's stuff, not much - hence lack of respect from me. The fact that lots of stuff projected for Daala failed in practice is true, though (sadly). Their attempt to reconcile intra prediction with lapping/OBMC is probably the most important part there, because it has lead to problems for the whole codec, need to add 1-2 loopfilters that the design originally didn't mean to use etc. Their lapping itself had a tough ride, for a long while they didn't even know if it they should really keep it (I am not up to date on how that ended up). These things are what I meant when I said that thing about nature of Daala's lessons. It doesn't mean I hate them/it. I'm not even disappointed in the sense that I would blame them or think they did a bad job. I know that this happens when you do scientific work - you go through number of theories but most of them are ruled out as wrong, with positive results/inventions being rare. The jury is still out on AV1, but currently it seems like it will mostly inherit On2 DNA, so I don't expect much there. Hopefully Xiph/Mozilla will still manage to influence it in a good way, though. Last edited by mandarinka; 21st July 2016 at 13:53. |
|
|
|