Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

newsletter.fraunhofer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 435 posts

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

#191

Post by Const-me »

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #184
Const-me wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> will be released to the community under a GPL license' or similar Both h264 and h265 have these implementations, I think FFMPEG library has both under the terms of GPLv2. The decoders are almost completely useless. The video codec, at least the decoder, needs to be in the hardware, not in software. Mobile devices just don’t have the resources to run the decoders on CPU. The code works on PC but consumes too much el…

> The decoders are almost completely useless. You'd be surprised at how often these are used.

I wonder why?

Even Raspberry Pi has a hardware decoder: https://github.com/Const-me/Vrmac/tree/master/VrmacVideo

Linux Kernel support for HEVC is WIP but I’m pretty sure they’ll integrate eventually.

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

#192

Post by oefrha »

donatj wrote: post #174
oefrha wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FFmpeg isn’t “always software encoding”, that statement doesn’t make much sense since FFmpeg/libavcodec is more of an interface and you can add support for any external encoder/decoder, hardware accelerated or not. However, FFmpeg’s builtin encoders and the most popular external encoders including x264 and x265 are all software encoders. There are hardware accelerated encoders from GPU vendors, e.g. the nvenc encoder…

I'm curious why hardware encoding is generally worse? All my experiments with it (h264/h265) have lead to significantly lower quality output to the point that I've avoided it for any final outputs, but I always assumed I was doing something wrong.

I’ve written various applications on top of FFmpeg but never looked into encoder technicalities, so I don’t know if and why GPU encoding has fundamental limitations. I heard nvenc has vastly improved on RTX cards; I’m still rocking an old GPU so can’t verify that, but presumably that means there’s no fundamental weakness and GPU encoding is just playing catch up?

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

#193

Post by nickik »

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.

Now audio uses open codecs for the part and new video will to.

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

#194

Post by pas »

pault wrote: post #125
realusername wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So if a company in france writes open source software that infringes on a US software patent, and a company in the US bundles that source code in a product, is the US company liable for damages?

Yes. The company distributing the work has to make sure it has licenses for any required parts.

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

#195

Post by shmerl »

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…

Some never learn. Also surprising to see supporters of this approach in this thread. They are still around apparently.

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

#196

Post by m12k »

trentnix wrote: post #150
grishka wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my humble opinion, that license mess set back innovation in the portable audio space by a good 5 years. Seeing all this, I'm convinced that copyright in general and patent system in particular does more harm than good by slowing down the technical progress of the humanity as a whole for the sake of some already rich people becoming a bit richer. The initial idea behind patent system was sensible, but the way it'…

Seeing all this, I'm convinced that copyright in general and patent system in particular does more harm than good by slowing down the technical progress of the humanity as a whole for the sake of some already rich people becoming a bit richer There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. There are certainly abuses…

> There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do.

That's not necessarily so - for example, during the industrial revolution, Germany largely overtook the British in mechanical engineering skill during a period where the British had copyright but before the Germans got it: https://www.wired.com/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/

Also, it's quite possible the causation goes the other way: A society might not succeed at innovation because of IP laws - it's just as possible that because a society has succeeded at innovation, it passes IP legislation, in order to 'kick away the ladder'. But just like regulatory capture shows in general, legislation that helps yesterday's winners seek rent is not necessarily the same (and is often in fact the opposite) of legislation to help tomorrow's winners see the light of day.

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

#197

Post by shmerl »

cagenut wrote: post #5

that sounds great, but this is a press release with no real technical details. can anyone in the know add some context? for instance, whats the tradeoff? I assume more CPU? webrtc based video chats are all still using h264, did they not adopt 265 yet for technical or licensing reasons? what is the likelihood of broad browser support for h266 anytime soon?

WebRTC aims to adopt AV1. H.### codecs are a dead end.

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

#198

Post by charwalker »

grishka wrote: post #136
balls187 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's Fraunhofer for you. In the early days of MP3, all MP3 rippers and players were built off of their implementation. Hardware and software companies had to license in order to play MP3 files. As such there was not native support for MP3's for quite some time. In the late 90's right around the explosion of MP3's on the internet, Fraunhofer was going after companies for doing so. In my humble opinion, that license…

> In my humble opinion, that license mess set back innovation in the portable audio space by a good 5 years. Seeing all this, I'm convinced that copyright in general and patent system in particular does more harm than good by slowing down the technical progress of the humanity as a whole for the sake of some already rich people becoming a bit richer. The initial idea behind patent system was sensible, but the way it'…

A probable reason is the length of time patents and especially copyright law applies, at least in the US. Although we are seeing issues with 70+ year copyright with extensions after the creators death, digital technology just moves way too fast compared to classical technology. By the time a classic patent expired, other firms may have built the infrastructure to create a generic copy or even advanced the science like with light bulbs. Digital tech moves quickly and software that can be distributed across the planet in seconds and make billions in its first few years is ripe for subversion and knock offs. Maybe if digital patents applied to much more specific applications then competition could build their own version using a new code base and compete?

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

#199

Post by WanderPanda »

vmception wrote: post #189
trentnix wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing all this, I'm convinced that copyright in general and patent system in particular does more harm than good by slowing down the technical progress of the humanity as a whole for the sake of some already rich people becoming a bit richer There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. There are certainly abuses…

uh China is doing pretty awesome so thats one big massive outlier distorting the entire supposition

isn’t China still mostly piggybacking on foreign innovation?

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

#200

Post by ksec »

nickik wrote: post #193
otterley wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now audio uses open codecs for the part and new video will to.

That is because Audio Encoding hasn't seen much improvement as compared to video.

Nearly 30 years after MP3, the only audio codec that could rivals mp3 at the standard rate of 128kbps at a significant lower bitrate was Opus at 96Kbps.

And MP3 is still by far the most popular codec due to compatibility reason.

This is similar to JPEG, although things are about to change.

Post reply on HN