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.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > VP9 and AV1

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 20th July 2017, 23:46   #261  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clare View Post
I've updated all the codecs and added VP9. I also fixed some erroneous numbers. VP9 is doing pretty good, but I don't think we will see anyone making it an image codec. The guys doing WebP can't change codec because it would modify their bitstream and all efforts to be integrated in browsers would go to waste.

BPG is based on HEVC, although it's an older revision, I've tried a more recent git revision from x265 and there's no real gain.

Nice blog btw.
HEIF is likely to leave BPG in the dust due to Apple's strong support. Same basic concept, but with a richer wrapper format.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2017, 07:12   #262  |  Link
mzso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
HEIF is likely to leave BPG in the dust due to Apple's strong support. Same basic concept, but with a richer wrapper format.
Since it's not some fashion gunk Apple support means very little.
mzso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2017, 07:15   #263  |  Link
nevcairiel
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 10,342
New still image formats have just never taken off, and I doubt any will for quite a while. Most people are content with JPEG, especially due to it being supported by everything everywhere, and if you want quality you just go PNG.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders
nevcairiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2017, 14:37   #264  |  Link
bstrobl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevcairiel View Post
New still image formats have just never taken off, and I doubt any will for quite a while. Most people are content with JPEG, especially due to it being supported by everything everywhere, and if you want quality you just go PNG.
I actually think HEIF is a well thought out container format. As long as there are no patent fees for the spec itself it would actually be neat if it replaced jpeg/png. The HEVC part can be thrown out for AV1 in the future and an additional lossless codec would make it pretty much the all-rounder image format.

The problem with a new image format is that if it can't do everything the previous ones do it won't succeed. HEIF seems extensible as well as containing pretty much every feature I can think of. WebP on the other hand was rushed and did not have too many benefits over jpeg/png (not to mention being stuck with VP8 as compression codec).
bstrobl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2017, 17:26   #265  |  Link
Blue_MiSfit
Derek Prestegard IRL
 
Blue_MiSfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,988
Yeah, Apple support for HEIF is a big deal, honestly. Lots of iOS apps will start using it internally to save bandwidth I'm sure - especially bandwidth hogs like facebook, instagram, snapchat, reddit, etc...
Blue_MiSfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2017, 17:41   #266  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_MiSfit View Post
Yeah, Apple support for HEIF is a big deal, honestly. Lots of iOS apps will start using it internally to save bandwidth I'm sure - especially bandwidth hogs like facebook, instagram, snapchat, reddit, etc...
Yeah, HEIF HEVC is a superior superset of JPEG, PNG, and Animated GIF. It spans all those use cases, and offers much improved encoding efficiency.

Also, Apple support means a LOT for an image format, given the overrepresentation of Macs in the creative and web design community.

HLS was a bad technology, and Apple's support made it extremely widely used. Apple's support of a really good format is going to be a big deal.

HEIF AV1 would be ballpark equivalent. However, the lack of HW decoders relative to HEVC could add friction for using AV1 instead of HEVC, particularly in mobile devices, Smart TVs, and other non-PC devices.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2017, 23:11   #267  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
looking at VP9 hardware decoder which are standard on nvidia cards, on intel iGPUs and at lest TVs have them too for some time now. i have no clue about mobile devices. i can see AV1 hardware decoder in late 2018.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2017, 23:27   #268  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
looking at VP9 hardware decoder which are standard on nvidia cards, on intel iGPUs and at lest TVs have them too for some time now. i have no clue about mobile devices. i can see AV1 hardware decoder in late 2018.
VP9<>AV1 AV1 should be more competitive versus HEVC than VP9 is.

I found this interesting paper comparing HEVC HM and VP9 for intra-coded images, looking how different features impact efficiency. It's just PSNR based, but that is fair as HM and VP9 are both heavily tuned for optimizing PSNR.

http://www.m-hikari.com/ams/ams-2013...7-140-2013.pdf

This looks interesting as well:
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/krrao/dip...eport_0508.pdf

I wouldn't want to extrapolate how AV1 would compare from these, of course.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2017, 23:41   #269  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
my biggest problem with these papers is that they are pretty old and the encoder software made huge gains over the time up to this date.
only a new test can give a better idea how well they perform today.

ok this is about intra coding right now but i wouldn't be so sure anymore if VP9 can't beat HEVC.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th July 2017, 15:30   #270  |  Link
Beelzebubu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY (USA)
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
VP9<>AV1 AV1 should be more competitive versus HEVC than VP9 is.

I found this interesting paper comparing HEVC HM and VP9 for intra-coded images, looking how different features impact efficiency. It's just PSNR based, but that is fair as HM and VP9 are both heavily tuned for optimizing PSNR.

http://www.m-hikari.com/ams/ams-2013...7-140-2013.pdf

This looks interesting as well:
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/krrao/dip...eport_0508.pdf

I wouldn't want to extrapolate how AV1 would compare from these, of course.
If one paper claims 40-50% and another 10-15% BDRATE reduction, then you know - factually - at least one of them is bogus... A bigger issue is that neither of them offers actual parameters used, so it's impossible to reproduce.

That said, in my tests on intra-only cases, I have found that libvpx does indeed under-perform (in my tests by approximately 10%) versus HEVC encoders in any metric. I believe this makes sense, given per-symbol adaptivity in CABAC versus global fw/bw adaptivity in libvpx (which - for intra-only cases - accounts for 5-10%) and less intra prediction angles (which - according to 2nd paper - accounts for approximately 5%). The rectangular block sizes for intra, decomposed ADST/DCT combinations and ADST at larger transform sizes for VP9 gives a few % points back to VP9, but not enough to make up for this. Therefore, I'm willing to give the second paper the benefit of the doubt that it may be sensible (although results are still bigger than what I see in my tests). I think the first paper is bogus. Obviously these are time snapshots and since then, x265/libvpx would both have seen improvements.

Note again that this is intra-only. In inter coding, you will see AMVP (HEVC), filtered predictors (VP9) and entropy retention (VP9) making big differences. I believe entropy retention is by far the biggest one, and is the cause that as the keyframe interval increases, VP9 (libvpx) not only matches, but even overtakes HEVC in efficiency. This is obviously limited to VoD use-cases only, and cannot be used for RTC use-cases, so it also acts as an indication of particular cases where HEVC or VP9 would be more useful.

And I haven't talked about coefficient coding efficiency yet - the coefficient coding in HEVC is optimized for parallelization and hardware implementability, but the other side of the coin is that its compression performance is not so great. As a result, at higher bitrates, you tend to see HEVC suffering. I'm not sure anyone cares about this for internet VoD, though...
Beelzebubu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2017, 17:57   #271  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beelzebubu View Post
If one paper claims 40-50% and another 10-15% BDRATE reduction, then you know - factually - at least one of them is bogus... A bigger issue is that neither of them offers actual parameters used, so it's impossible to reproduce.
I believe that the 10-15% is ballpark for IDR-only and 40-50% is ballpark for interframe encoded content. The problem with this kind of comparison is that it only compares what was specifically tests, and it is hard to generalize. And PSNR<>MOS!

Quote:
That said, in my tests on intra-only cases, I have found that libvpx does indeed under-perform (in my tests by approximately 10%) versus HEVC encoders in any metric. I believe this makes sense, given per-symbol adaptivity in CABAC versus global fw/bw adaptivity in libvpx (which - for intra-only cases - accounts for 5-10%) and less intra prediction angles (which - according to 2nd paper - accounts for approximately 5%). The rectangular block sizes for intra, decomposed ADST/DCT combinations and ADST at larger transform sizes for VP9 gives a few % points back to VP9, but not enough to make up for this. Therefore, I'm willing to give the second paper the benefit of the doubt that it may be sensible (although results are still bigger than what I see in my tests). I think the first paper is bogus. Obviously these are time snapshots and since then, x265/libvpx would both have seen improvements.
I believe the first paper used HM, not x265, with both encoders using fixed QP to calibrate to the same equivalent file size. So, avoiding explicit psychovisual optimization, but including a fair amount of the implicit psychovisual optimization in any codec.

Quote:
Note again that this is intra-only. In inter coding, you will see AMVP (HEVC), filtered predictors (VP9) and entropy retention (VP9) making big differences. I believe entropy retention is by far the biggest one, and is the cause that as the keyframe interval increases, VP9 (libvpx) not only matches, but even overtakes HEVC in efficiency. This is obviously limited to VoD use-cases only, and cannot be used for RTC use-cases, so it also acts as an indication of particular cases where HEVC or VP9 would be more useful.
Not just VOD - Live streaming can use B-frames and still get to competitive broadcast delay.

I haven't seen real-world cases where x265 doesn't have a bigger advantage over libvpx with interframe encoding. That is where psychovisual optimizations really start paying off, and encoder implementation>>bitstream syntax.

Quote:
And I haven't talked about coefficient coding efficiency yet - the coefficient coding in HEVC is optimized for parallelization and hardware implementability, but the other side of the coin is that its compression performance is not so great. As a result, at higher bitrates, you tend to see HEVC suffering. I'm not sure anyone cares about this for internet VoD, though...
Ironically, parallelization is MORE important for internet VOD for VP9, since many more users are going to reply on SW decoders. VP9 is essentially single-threaded, without skipable b-frames and without Wavefront Parallel Processing; just horizontal slices, which are quite inefficient given the dominance of horizontal motion over vertical. VP9 is very much bound to peak single-thread performance when HW isn't available.

AV1 is more parallelizable than VP9 (loop filter can be its own thread, for example), although still less so than HEVC, where you basically get one potential decode thread per 64 pixels of height with WPP. And can parallelize P and B decoding if that isn't enough.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2017, 00:04   #272  |  Link
TD-Linux
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
AV1 is more parallelizable than VP9 (loop filter can be its own thread, for example), although still less so than HEVC, where you basically get one potential decode thread per 64 pixels of height with WPP. And can parallelize P and B decoding if that isn't enough.
There are some other wins - there are now fully parallelizable 2D tiles. In addition, entropy adapts on the fly rather than per frame, which makes parallel encoding and decoding easier. There are no counts to keep track of and the bitstream can be written on the fly. Frames can still start out with the probabilities from a previous one, so you need the encoder to write an appropriate reference structure to decode frames in parallel (alternately, you can decode the symbols ahead of reconstruction, as you could in VP9). There is no WPP.

Last edited by TD-Linux; 3rd August 2017 at 00:15.
TD-Linux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th August 2017, 15:31   #273  |  Link
bstrobl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 55
Any word on whether PVQ will make it into the final codec?
bstrobl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2017, 03:18   #274  |  Link
ls1dreams
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
looking at VP9 hardware decoder which are standard on nvidia cards, on intel iGPUs and at lest TVs have them too for some time now. i have no clue about mobile devices. i can see AV1 hardware decoder in late 2018.
Late 2018 would be awesome but it would be a bit of a stretch, IMO. HEVC took around 3 years to get hardware decoding, and VP9 around 4.5 years.

There's a ton of people behind the AV1 alliance, but assuming that we'll get hardware decoding 1 year after the target code freeze seems optimistic to me.

Maybe we'll luck out though if hardware manufacturers are preparing in advance. The other thing that might help is the large push to low power / mobile chips which would want to get the battery life advantage.

I'm personally trying to hold out for AV1 hardware decoding to upgrade my laptop and tv media player, but it's been a long stretch. (I originally was going to wait for HEVC decoding but then quickly saw the AV1 train happening).

A better optimistic guess is probably mid to late 2019, but lets all cross our fingers that we get it sooner.
ls1dreams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2017, 05:31   #275  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
HEVC is from april 2013 and the 960 is from January 2015
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2017, 13:32   #276  |  Link
sneaker_ger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,565
First TVs had HEVC decoders no later than spring 2014. Maybe even end of 2013.
sneaker_ger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2017, 13:09   #277  |  Link
Clare
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by ls1dreams View Post
Late 2018 would be awesome but it would be a bit of a stretch, IMO. HEVC took around 3 years to get hardware decoding, and VP9 around 4.5 years.

There's a ton of people behind the AV1 alliance, but assuming that we'll get hardware decoding 1 year after the target code freeze seems optimistic to me.

Maybe we'll luck out though if hardware manufacturers are preparing in advance. The other thing that might help is the large push to low power / mobile chips which would want to get the battery life advantage.

I'm personally trying to hold out for AV1 hardware decoding to upgrade my laptop and tv media player, but it's been a long stretch. (I originally was going to wait for HEVC decoding but then quickly saw the AV1 train happening).

A better optimistic guess is probably mid to late 2019, but lets all cross our fingers that we get it sooner.
I'll be waiting for AV1 hardware decoding too, I currently have a Skylake, it does hevc decoding but only 8bit. Same for VP9.
Being under Linux, I think I'll have to wait even longer.

However I haven't seen Qualcomm being a supporter of AOM, I don't know what's it's gonna be like on the Android market.
Clare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2017, 16:14   #278  |  Link
bstrobl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 55
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articl...te-120214.aspx

Hopefully they can squeeze out a bit more than the targeted 20%. 25 would be nice and 30 really great.

Last edited by bstrobl; 30th August 2017 at 16:17.
bstrobl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2017, 18:57   #279  |  Link
easyfab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 332
https://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php...&postcount=259

from the pdf page 4 and 5 : target 40-50% and currently ( july 2017 ) 25-35%

So the 20% should be here but for what complexity ? Last time I try it was < 1fps for 720p
easyfab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st September 2017, 13:34   #280  |  Link
Quikee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 41
20% over HEVC is the wish of NetFlix, others can have different goals in mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by easyfab View Post
So the 20% should be here but for what complexity ? Last time I try it was < 1fps for 720p
That's not complexity - it's just the state of optimizations of the current implementation. Considering that the codec is in pre-bitstream freeze state, speed is not the focus, complexity of a coding tool however is.
Quikee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:16.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.