Versatile Video Coding (VVC) / H.266: HEVC successor

[modus-ms325c]

Originally Posted by benwaggoner

That seems to be an idiosyncratic take! How does good design not matter? As long as network bandwidth and storage are not infinite, getting better compression efficiency gains with less increase in SoC mm^2 is always going to matter.

VVC licensing situation is being talked about all the time at just about every opportunity, no one's gonna focus on the actual technological features that it has right now.
more like how the codec itself is being held hostage by its insane ecosystem. i mean, just by talking about its insane features alone already makes me bored to fucking tears already.

Originally Posted by benwaggoner

Given we only have in-development reference encoders for AV2, and not any commercial-grade psychovisually tuned one, I think it's challenging to say much about how good AV2 will look once we have those things in a few years. HEVC was kind of a unique case in getting practical encoders so early in its lifespan, as it was really the only practical option to get 4K HDR, which the content and consumer electronics companies were aligned with as a big way to make a lot more money. None of the codecs since then, or that I see looking forward, really have any new content types they unlock; they mainly are to do what we already can at lower bitrates.

i mean, ok, but "AV2 is in development so we don't really know" is one thing.

Originally Posted by benwaggoner

4K Blu-ray was the last optical disc format and HEVC the last codec to be adopted in one. The core technology simply doesn't make sense anymore. Consumer broadband can easily exceed Blu-ray read speeds and with much better latency, and flash memory is approching the cost of manufacturing a Blu-ray disc. Bear in mind that even a triple-layer 4K is only 100 GB max, and I can get a 128 GB flash drive for about $8/each in bulk, and under $4 for one equivalent to a dual layer disc.

It was an eye opener for me a few years ago when I discovered I could install a game about 3x faster as a download than off a disc. UHD Blu-ray spec is only 144 Mbps, and the current game consoles go up to maybe 400 Mbps maximum in ideal circumstances, and often less in practice. Glacial compared to gigabit internet.

you do know for a fact that UHD Blu-ray playback is heavily reliant on your internet connection, right? you do know that for a fact, right?
(legal) digital download services can also reach service termination at just about any time now, and existing UHD-BD discs may become a massive useless paperweight in leau to DIVX DVDs, just in case UHD-BD DRM stops working and/or ends service sooner than expected.

Originally Posted by benwaggoner

Yeah, this is a good take. And HEVC decode was a free built-in feature until very late in Windows 10 development! Whichever NPE holdouts unwilling to give Microsoft an acceptable license for Windows really shot themselves in the foot. HEVC made enough money in consumer electronics that the lesson was apparently not signaled clearly enough for VVC, leaving some companies fighting brutally hard for a bigger slice of a very tiny pie. Perhaps that will discourage some of the more patent-trollish companies from investing in getting much H.267 IP. The companies that own the bulk of the patents are being appropriately cooperative, but all it takes is a single essential patent out of thousands held by the wrong entity to shit in the pool so everyone gets kicked out.

oh my god lol

[kurkosdr]

Originally Posted by modus-ms325c

you do know for a fact that UHD Blu-ray playback is heavily reliant on your internet connection, right? you do know that for a fact, right?
(legal) digital download services can also reach service termination at just about any time now, and existing UHD-BD discs may become a massive useless paperweight in leau to DIVX DVDs, just in case UHD-BD DRM stops working and/or ends service sooner than expected.

Huh? When it comes to on-disc content, UHD Blu-rays can be copied 1:1 with the help of a tool like DVD Fab (the paid version obv) and a "friendly" drive (that is, a drive that implements BDXL but doesn't implement UHD Blu-ray's DRM that locks "unauthorised" software out of the drive). So, that's your guaranteed "insurance" against the discs becoming a paperweight.

Also, UHD Blu-ray DRM is 100% local, it doesn't need to "phone home" to decrypt a disc. In plain English, you can do it in a submarine with a new disc that has never been in the drive before, as long as your player has been updated beforehand. So as long as you have a legit disc and an updated player, you own the content.

[modus-ms325c]

Originally Posted by kurkosdr

Huh? When it comes to on-disc content, UHD Blu-rays can be copied 1:1 with the help of a tool like DVD Fab (the paid version obv) and a "friendly" drive (that is, a drive that implements BDXL but doesn't implement UHD Blu-ray's DRM that locks "unauthorised" software out of the drive). So, that's your guaranteed "insurance" against the discs becoming a paperweight.

Also, UHD Blu-ray DRM is 100% local, it doesn't need to "phone home" to decrypt a disc. In plain English, you can do it in a submarine with a new disc that has never been in the drive before, as long as your player has been updated beforehand. So as long as you have a legit disc and an updated player, you own the content.

OK, let's see how reliable these methods are in ~4-20 years, assuming internet access hasn't gone out the way of the wazoo and/or isn't just out-and-out dead anymore.

[kurkosdr]

Originally Posted by modus-ms325c

OK, let's see how reliable these methods are in ~4-20 years, assuming internet access hasn't gone out the way of the wazoo and/or isn't just out-and-out dead anymore.

Tools like DVDFab require online activation, so if DVDFab's online activation service goes down, yeah, the tool won't work anymore on new computers.

But as long as DVDFab's activation service is online, there is nothing Hollywood can do to prevent UHD Blu-rays from being copied 1:1 (with the right "friendly" drive), because again, the content is on the frickin' disc and is encrypted using a long-compromised encryption system, it's not dependent on a Hollywood-provided service or server.

And let's not forget that tools such as XReveal exist that don't require online activation. While it misses some features (such as removal of Screen Pass/BD-J menu countermeasures), you can still use it to copy just the main movie (again, with the right "friendly" drive).

And let's not also forget that you can buy a UHD Blu-ray player, update it so that it plays all your existing discs, and never update it/connect it to the internet ever again, since UHD Blu-ray playback requires no internet connection/updates/phoning home for discs pressed before the currently installed update was released.

What's even the debate here? That theoretically, the entire internet can go down, and anyone not already having a copy of Xreveal won't be able to download it? Or that they won't be able to buy a UHD Blu-ray player? Under this scenario, the same applies for tools like VLC, so... even VCDs are theoretically "internet dependent" since they are not playable if you don't already have a copy of a tool to play them or a standalone player.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by modus-ms325c

i mean, ok, but "AV2 is in development so we don't really know" is one thing.

The AV2 bitstream hasn't been quite locked down, but it has been feature complete in terms of content types for a long time now. More might get added later; MVC-HEVC wasn't part of the HEVC 1.0 spec. But what AV2 is and can do with what profiles at launch is well define.

you do know for a fact that UHD Blu-ray playback is heavily reliant on your internet connection, right? you do know that for a fact, right?

No, A Blu-ray player can still play a movie without any internet connection. Are you thinking of BD-Live content or something? That's orthogonal to actually playing back the video and audio content on disc. A blu-ray player may require an internet connection for setup, but I don't know of any mainstream discs or players that won't playback the content without internet connectivity. Bear in mind Blu-ray was designed a couple of decades ago when the idea of having always-on internet in every car or vacation cabin was years from happening. The first Blu-ray players and discs were launched a year before the first 2G-only iPhone.

[modus-ms325c]

i was exclusively talking about Ultra HD Blu-Ray, but yeah BD-Live definitely checks out.

[kurkosdr]

Originally Posted by modus-ms325c

i was exclusively talking about Ultra HD Blu-Ray, but yeah BD-Live definitely checks out.

And I was also exclusively talking about Ultra HD Blu-Ray, and I am telling you again that the content is on-disc and encrypted with a long-compromised encryption system, with commercially available software to crack said encryption system. Also, authorized players require no phoning home to view the disc, as long as the player has been updated with a firmware update released after the disc was pressed.

BD-Live is used for extra content (when it's used), or more appropriately extra extra content, since Ultra HD Blu-rays have a good amount of extra content on-disc in addition to the main movie. UHD Blu-rays (not just plain Blu-rays) were designed so that the on-disc content is viewable without an internet connections.

So yes, when you buy a UHD Blu-ray disc, you aren't reliant on a remote server or even an internet connection for the on-disc content, not anymore than a regular Blu-ray anyway.

/end off-topic

[modus-ms325c]

yeah, i get it. UHD BDs not reliant on internet connection, yadda yadda yadda.
i just don't want to keep talking here for longer than i oughta. i've exhausted all the words i could pull out of my brain with this shit, and again i just don't want to keep talking.

so let's leave it at that, okay? let me leave it at that. least i can do.

[Z2697]

We know that preservation of media we like is all important.
But your starting point is straightly incorrect.
This does not make you look like a tired hero at the end of a movie or whatever it is that you thought of.

[modus-ms325c]

Originally Posted by Z2697

We know that preservation of media we like is all important.
But your starting point is straightly incorrect.
This does not make you look like a tired hero at the end of a movie or whatever it is that you thought of.

brooooooooooooooooooooooooo don't do this 2 me like that

[oibaf]

VVC Patent Challenges on the Horizon

The team at Unified IP Services is using Pearl to examine the quality of patents alleged to be essential to the Versatile Video Coding (VVC) standard. Patents owned by Ideahub, Intellectual Discovery, IP Bridge, and others are being reviewed.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by oibaf

VVC Patent Challenges on the Horizon

Good news if it can happen. Unified Patents has been doing the work of heroes for years now.

[FranceBB]

I don't know exactly what they mean by this, but while going through the release notes of Android 17 there's a very interesting entry in the Audio & Video section:

VVC Support: Added platform support for Versatile Video Coding (H.266).

Unfortunately I have a Pixel 6 Pro which means that I'm still on Android 16 and I can't install the latest Beta of Android 17 as they haven't made it available for it (yet), so only people with newer Pixel phones can install it.
According to David Ronca (who used to work at both Netflix and Meta before retiring) this doesn't mean that there's a software decoder in there:

Originally Posted by David Ronca

This means that the Android Media layer will detect VVC video input and if the app registers a VVC decoder, then VVC playback will be possible. It does not mean Android will include a VVC decoder.

Reading more online about this, Joao Sierra (who works on Embedded Systems for NOS SGPS) said

Originally Posted by Joao Sierra

Google basically enabled the infrastructure for an OEM to add VVC support on its own (basic stuff like MIME types and other stuff into android MediaCodec framework). Previously, if an OEM wanted to add VVC support, it would need to add a custom OEM specific API extension for it.

If the latest MediaTek and Qualcomm chipsets had VVC support, MTK/QC would need to implement a custom API to access the decoder. Android until version 16 doesnt have any vendor neutral api to acess vvc decoders. Apps on the playstore to use that VVC decoder had to explicity call those proprietary vendor specific APIs. The apps would be complex because now they would need to have explicit code paths for each of the chipsets.

So, in other words, it looks like they basically added the ability to interact with the hardware decoders by calling a standardized API within the Android Media Framework, just like what happens for all the other codecs, so that the individual applications won't have to integrate separately with those potentially spanning several different manufacturers. Nonetheless, it will still be up to the various Smartphone manufacturers (like Samsung etc) to pay the royalties and implement the hardware decoders 'cause there won't be a software decoder built in by default.

Still, does it mean that hardware decoders in smartphones are finally coming?

[birdie]

Originally Posted by FranceBB

Still, does it mean that hardware decoders in smartphones are finally coming?

The codec IP has been around for years and, from what I've heard, it's much cheaper than including AV1 support, which requires a far bigger transistor budget. Therefore, it must be about royalties. Even Apple, a VVC licensor (!!), refuses to support the codec, which suggests that the licensing situation is beyond repair.

I wonder if we'll see Lunar Lake/Panther Lake based Android tablets with VVC support.

[FranceBB]

Today I installed Android 17 Beta 1 on my Google Pixel 6 Pro which doesn't obviously have an hardware decoder and sure enough I can confirm there's no software decoder included, so David and Joao were right, it's just the API in the Media Framework to talk to hardware decoders.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by birdie

The codec IP has been around for years and, from what I've heard, it's much cheaper than including AV1 support, which requires a far bigger transistor budget. Therefore, it must be about royalties. Even Apple, a VVC licensor (!!), refuses to support the codec, which suggests that the licensing situation is beyond repair.

I wonder if we'll see Lunar Lake/Panther Lake based Android tablets with VVC support.

It's not just royalties in principle. It's that the actual cost for licensing cannot be known in advance and so many entities are claiming essential patents without being part of any patent pool. And with predatory patent holders waiting until a codec is in wide use before asserting claims and demanding outrageously high licensing costs the cost of licensing VVC at this point is unbound. And you can't calculate a ROI with a ??? for cost.

All the legal battles happening now over HEVC is very much patent trolls eating their own seed corn for future MPEG codecs.