H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC) • Hacker News Board

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#41

Post by gibolt » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 2:10 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #13

eigenvalue wrote: post #6

Can anyone verify if this is a real number? It’s possible sometimes to make surprising claims (such as 50% lower size) by relying on unusual or unrealistic situations. I would rather if they use a standard set of test videos with different content and resolutions, and some objective measure of fidelity to the original, when quoting these percentages. But if the 50% number is real, then that is truly remarkable. I won…

If one trusted numbers like this, and followed a chain of en vogue codecs back through history, you'd expect that a modern codec would produce files sizes like 3% of MPEG-2 on the same input data. It's all spin. I'm sure it does better, but I'm equally sure it'll turn out to be an incremental benefit in practice. > I wonder how many more CPU instructions are required per second of decoded video compared to HEVC. CPU…

Video sizes are not shrinking. 8K is coming, with even bigger sizes on the way. That matters at scale.

As long as someone sees the benefit, people will keep pursuing it. Compression (as like all tech) is a moving target with the platforms regularly improving on many axes.

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#42

Post by anoncareer0212 » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 2:10 PM UTC

cycrutchfield wrote: post #27

eigenvalue wrote: post #6

Can anyone verify if this is a real number? It’s possible sometimes to make surprising claims (such as 50% lower size) by relying on unusual or unrealistic situations. I would rather if they use a standard set of test videos with different content and resolutions, and some objective measure of fidelity to the original, when quoting these percentages. But if the 50% number is real, then that is truly remarkable. I won…

>some objective measure of fidelity to the original This is part of the problem. What is an "objective" measure of perceptual fidelity to the original?

SSIM

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#43

Post by jacobush » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 2:11 PM UTC

0-_-0 wrote: post #25

aey wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compression is AI. It’s never going to be “all” figured out.

Another way if saying it is that compression is understanding.

Lossy compression is, I feel compelled to add.

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#44

Post by realusername » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 2:11 PM UTC

hirako2000 wrote: post #4

KitDuncan wrote: post #2

Can we all just agree on using AV1 instead of another patent encumbered format?

How does x264 etc get away with it?

Software patents are not valid everywhere, x264 is brought up by VideoLAN in France, where software patents don't apply like in the rest of the EU.

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#45

Post by cyphar » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 2:12 PM UTC

p_l wrote: post #22

DrBazza wrote: post #9

Naively hoped I'd read 'this will be released to the community under a GPL license' or similar. Instead found the words 'patent' and 'transparent licensing model'. I appreciate that it costs money and time to develop these algorithms, but when you're backed by multi-billion dollar "partners from industry including Apple, Ericsson, Intel, Huawei, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and Sony" perhaps they could swallow the costs? It…

The dirty secret of video codecs is that you can't make a modern video codec that isn't patent encumbered, which in turn makes it so that even if they wanted to be open, they go for defensive patents, which in turn perpetuate the situation. At least the patent licenses usually used with MPEG mean that private use of open source implementations is free.

> The dirty secret of video codecs is that you can't make a modern video codec that isn't patent encumbered

The existence of Theora, VP8, VP9, and now AV1 seems to contradict that theory.

You could argue that they infringe on some unknown patents, but that is also arguably true of patent cabals like MPEG (you just hope that the cabal is big enough that there aren't any patentholders lurking outside). The only difference is that with a patent cabal you have the fun of having to obey the restrictions of everyone who showed up with a possibly-related-in-some-way patent and joined the cabal.

Not to mention that it isn't necessary for a patent pool to be a cabal. AOMedia has a similar structure to a patent cabal except it doesn't act like a cabal (its patent pool is royalty-free in the style of the W3C). So even if the argument is that a patent pool is a good idea (and video codecs cannot be developed without them), there isn't a justification behind turning the patent pool into a cabal.

> At least the patent licenses usually used with MPEG mean that private use of open source implementations is free.

You say that, but there's a reason why some distributions (openSUSE for one) still can't ship x264 (even though the code itself is free software). Not to mention the need for Cisco's OpenH264 in Firefox (which you cannot recompile or modify otherwise you lose the patent rights to use it). The existence of the MPEG patent cabal isn't a good thing, and any minor concessions you get from them do not justify their actions.

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#46

Post by 0-_-0 » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 2:12 PM UTC

Question is, how does it compare to AV1?

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#47

Post by corty » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 2:12 PM UTC

donatj wrote: post #3

Huh. I wonder how encoding speeds compare. I rarely chose h265 over h264 because similar levels of visual quality took massively more time.

My guess is, encoding speed will be worse. Video codecs for non-realtime applications are optimized for size and acceptably cheap playback. Encoding performance doesn't really matter since you encode only once but play and store more often.

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#48

Post by selectodude » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 2:13 PM UTC

MikusR wrote: post #38

p_l wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dirty secret of video codecs is that you can't make a modern video codec that isn't patent encumbered, which in turn makes it so that even if they wanted to be open, they go for defensive patents, which in turn perpetuate the situation. At least the patent licenses usually used with MPEG mean that private use of open source implementations is free.

That's what AV1 is.

https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?Art...

Care to try your luck?

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#49

Post by MikusR » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 2:13 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #12

KitDuncan wrote: post #2

Can we all just agree on using AV1 instead of another patent encumbered format?

No, because the market is more than happy to pay a few cents or dollars per device to get better compression and lower transmission bandwidth. This observation has held true consistently in the 3 decades since compressed digital media was invented.

The constantly growing list of H265 patent pool organizations with various licensing plans made even Apple to join AV1 bandwagon.

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#50

Post by jononor » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 2:13 PM UTC

cycrutchfield wrote: post #27

eigenvalue wrote: post #6

Can anyone verify if this is a real number? It’s possible sometimes to make surprising claims (such as 50% lower size) by relying on unusual or unrealistic situations. I would rather if they use a standard set of test videos with different content and resolutions, and some objective measure of fidelity to the original, when quoting these percentages. But if the 50% number is real, then that is truly remarkable. I won…

>some objective measure of fidelity to the original This is part of the problem. What is an "objective" measure of perceptual fidelity to the original?

A measure that has consistently high agreement when evaluated by humans, repeatable across laboratories. Image quality tests can (and are) be conducted in a structured fashion.