x266 VVC Encoder

[kurkosdr]

Originally Posted by ksec

It also uses mostly H.264 era patents. And would actually becomes patents free relatively quickly. If it was combined with LC-EVC ( Another set of standard ) it would give HEVC level plus quality with a much lower complexity.

Do we have a patent list for EVC Baseline and Non-Baseline? LC-EVC?

[birdie]

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by kurkosdr

Unfortunately, nobody wants EVC. Mozilla and Google don't want it due to the "Baseline" vs "Additional tools enabled" thing (sure, you can choose to decode without using the additional tools, but at what quality cost?), and Microsoft and Apple don't want it because it's a threat to HEVC and by extension the patents they have in HEVC.

Lots of incumbent players, including Apple, already have HEVC encode and decode capabilities, and generally a new codec has to offer >40% compression efficiency reductions to justify the huge transitional costs of shifting an ecosystem. It seems like HEVC licensing hit the "good enough" threshold while EVC didn't have path to big gains over HEVC. VVC clearly does have that path, with the >40% bitrate reduction quite feasible within the next couple of years.

Apple's done very will the the HEIC (HEVC still frame) format for photography, cutting file sizes a bunch over JPEG, and offering better quality with sharp edged and synthetic content. EVC would have had to offer something really compelling for Apple to introduce a new non-backwards compatible format.

[nakTT]

Originally Posted by birdie

Nice one!

I have been waiting for x266 for while now.

[kurkosdr]

Their faq says:

What's your very rough and approximate ETA for the public x266 1.0 release?
H2 2023 is what we are looking at for the release of x266. An update will be given for the same

To me this means that they will release until 31st December 2023 or an update will be given on 1st January 2024.

Anyway, the GPL obligates them to provide source code if they release, so the only way for them to avoid releasing source code is to avoid releasing at all, basically abandon the whole project. I don't think they will do that considering the effort they've already put in.

[oibaf]

Originally Posted by kurkosdr

Unfortunately, nobody wants EVC. Mozilla and Google don't want it due to the "Baseline" vs "Additional tools enabled" thing (sure, you can choose to decode without using the additional tools, but at what quality cost?)...

Any source for this? I didn't find any.

[birdie]

Doesn't look like we're getting x266 this year:

Hello Artem,

Thanks for reaching out and for your continued enthusiasm. The x266 video codec development is on-going. If you have any specific requirement, please let us know. I am sure our team can help you out with the right solution. And when the x266 codec is nearing completion, we will get in touch with you!

Best Regards,
Suchithra Thyagarajan

[rwill]

(sure, you can choose to decode without using the additional tools, but at what quality cost?)

Originally Posted by oibaf

Any source for this? I didn't find any.

I think he pulled that one out of his rear as you cannot decode EVC Main Profile streams with a EVC Baseline decoder.

[rwill]

Originally Posted by birdie

Doesn't look like we're getting x266 this year:

What a fail.

He noted your enthusiasm though. Maybe you should start a Go-Fund-Me to support their development effort. I mean Duke Nukem Forever took a while too. BTW anyone got news of Star Citizen?

[FranceBB]

Originally Posted by kurkosdr

I don't think they will do that considering the effort they've already put in.

This and the fact that they would upset the companies funding the development via the current x266 consortium partnership program (like the one I work for).
In other words, we will get x266, that's for sure, the only question is "when".

[rwill]

Originally Posted by kurkosdr

Anyway, the GPL obligates them to provide source code if they release, so the only way for them to avoid releasing source code is to avoid releasing at all, basically abandon the whole project. I don't think they will do that considering the effort they've already put in.

What makes you think they have to adhere to the GPL?

[kurkosdr]

Originally Posted by rwill

What makes you think they have to adhere to the GPL?

All the VideoLan code that's inside. VideoLan has given them "selling exceptions" for the binaries (which allows them to distribute the binaries under a license different than the GPL), but they have to release the source code under the GPL.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by rwill

Maybe you should start a Go-Fund-Me to support their development effort. I mean Duke Nukem Forever took a while too. BTW anyone got news of Star Citizen?

I think Star Citizen is more of an example of how little can be completed despite huge developer funding!

[rwill]

Originally Posted by kurkosdr

All the VideoLan code that's inside. VideoLan has given them "selling exceptions" for the binaries (which allows them to distribute the binaries under a license different than the GPL), but they have to release the source code under the GPL.

I think you are mistaken.

Multicoreware is distributing x265 under a different License to their paying customers so their customers do not have to release their products under the GPL. Multicoreware paid of the x264 people for that or customers of Multicoreware have to deal with x264's commercial arm. I see no reason for Multicoreware to distribute binaries under a different license as x265 its source is available openly. Customers of Multicoreware can compile and link to it mostly freely and can keep their stuff to themself.

And I wonder where you got the information from that there is VideoLan code inside of x266. Do you have access to x266's source code? The x264 code x265 is based on has not been state of the art for a long time.
From my perspective it would be one of the first things I would replace - from a business and development perspective.

[rwill]

Originally Posted by benwaggoner

I think Star Citizen is more of an example of how little can be completed despite huge developer funding!

Well they completed lots of development progress videos. And Starships for this hangar thing...

This is what Star Citizen is all about right?

[kurkosdr]

Originally Posted by rwill

I think you are mistaken.

Multicoreware is distributing x265 under a different License to their paying customers so their customers do not have to release their products under the GPL. Multicoreware paid of the x264 people for that or customers of Multicoreware have to deal with x264's commercial arm.

That's what "selling exceptions" is. A compiled binary of x265 that is distributed under a different license than the GPL (for a price) so it can be integrated into a product without the product being bound by the GPL. It can be done if you have the copyright to the entire x265, which VideoLan and MulticoreWare do. Basically a form of dual-licensing.

More info here:
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions
(warning: some FSF lecturing, but generally a good rundown of what it is about)

[kurkosdr]

Originally Posted by rwill

And I wonder where you got the information from that there is VideoLan code inside of x266. Do you have access to x266's source code? The x264 code x265 is based on has not been state of the art for a long time.
From my perspective it would be one of the first things I would replace - from a business and development perspective.

Good point, but we haven't any indication they are starting from scratch either. Big rewrites tend to cost more than expected, take more time than expected, and not be better than a targeted refactoring, so there is a good chance they'll keep the existing VideoLan code inside

[kurkosdr]

Originally Posted by rwill

I think he pulled that one out of his rear as you cannot decode EVC Main Profile streams with a EVC Baseline decoder.

First things first: You don't gain anything by being a rude twat, nor are you contributing anything to the forum. Also, I don't care what pretend indignation you're going to use as "justification" for being a rude twat.

Secondly, according to Wikipedia, EVC Main Profile "consists of a royalty-free subset (baseline) and individually switchable enhancements". Also, "each of the 21 payable (aka non-Baseline) tools can be individually turned off and, when necessary, replaced by a corresponding cost-free baseline profile tool. This structure makes it easy to fall back to a smaller set of tools in the future, if, for example, licensing complications occur around a specific tool, without breaking compatibility with already deployed decoders.". This means an EVC baseline decoder can decode EVC Main with a quality hit, right? Haven't played with an EVC encoder because I haven't found a compelling reason to, but again, the ability to have the payable tools be switchable and replaceable by cost-free aka baseline tools is the big sell of EVC.

[rwill]

I contributed by calling you out. What are you contributing to the forum by spreading misinformation about EVC?

[kurkosdr]

Originally Posted by rwill

I contributed by calling you out. What are you contributing to the forum by spreading misinformation about EVC?

You could've said "this person made a mistake". People make honest mistakes, you know. Nobody needs a jerk who treats another person's mistake as an opportunity to be a rude twat.

Also, I still don't understand what ISO means by "individually switchable enhancements", I thought it meant that a Baseline decoder can play Main.