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

201–210 of 435 posts

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

#201

Post by craftinator »

p_l wrote: post #115
cyphar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While they are patent-encumbered in the strictest sense of the word, they are not as aggressively licensed as H.266 -- which is what GP was lamenting. Licensing H.266 under the GPL(v3) wouldn't erase the existence of the patents and it would still be "patent-encumbered" in the same sense that VP8/9 and AV1 are. And retaliation clauses are present in basically every free software license that has clauses dealing with…

A big part is in how expensive can you make said retaliation. I'm more and more fond of calling it all a big game of chicken, a MAD without nukes,

Hah I love this analogy! Guess that's societal progress for you; we use currency to replace munitions.

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

#202

Post by ksec »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #16
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.

It's not that the market is happy to pay more, it's that there is essentially no choice.

The market has plenty of choices from VP8 to Theora.

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

#203

Post by cheeze »

jitendrac wrote: post #152
sparkling wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So compressing a 1080p video with H266 will not result in similar file size/quality improvements as a 4k video? How much are we looking at for 1080p, 10%?

yup, from the example I remember(I read it through link on HN but cannot find it in quick search, I wish I could link it), if you film(still film no movement) the macbook pro top to bottom in h264/MP4 at 1024 p resolution and again you take a picture from your camera. the results will be shocking, the video of 5-10 seconds will have lower storage size than the size of single Image. but when you inspect video carefull…

You're thinking of "h264 is magic"

https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/

GREAT article

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

#204

Post by swinglock »

balls187 wrote: post #107
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…

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.

Or did it push it forward? If not for the licensing at the time, would it have been developed? Would it be allowed to be used by anyone just paying for the technology?

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

#205

Post by mekster »

freeone3000 wrote: post #171
zionic wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AV1 beats h.265 by 20-30%, h.266 beats h.265 by 50%. Honestly for that little of an improvement I'll go with AV1.

Really? Because by that metric, H.266 is as far ahead of AV1 as AV1 is ahead of h.265.

If that kills h.26x why not?

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

#206

Post by reaperducer »

balls187 wrote: post #159
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…

> Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground. Changing patent length (pc's suggestion) is hardly seems like burning the whole thing to the ground. In the US, if I understand correctly, there are ways to defend against patent abuse, though it typically involves costly legal fees. Fees many cannot justify in spending. Addressing…

In the US, if I understand correctly, there are ways to defend against patent abuse

That's the key: In the U.S. Good luck stopping someone infringing on your patient in a good number of other countries.

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

#208

Post by AdrianB1 »

speedgoose wrote: post #105
josaka wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Europe does allow software patents of a sort: See https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines... Or you might have a particular definition of the term in mind that excludes these, but I think when most folks here the term, they'd include what the EPO permits.

The European patent office is not an official thing. It's an independent private organization that will gladly take your money to submit patents.

The European Patent Organisation is an intergovernmental organisation (https://www.epo.org/about-us/foundation.html).

Not a private organization.

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

#209

Post by mekster »

detaro wrote: post #92
jiggunjer wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much does Cisco pay (to MPEG?) for that?

If I understand correctly, around 10 million USD per year (according to https://www.mpegla.com/wp-content/uploads/avcweb.pdf that's the cap, and from what I've heard Cisco is selling enough actual products to hit that cap, so providing their software for free to everyone else doesn't cost them any extra in licensing fees, just hosting and such)

Why is Cisco being nice about it? (Besides why not?)

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

#210

Post by pavon »

p_l wrote: post #84
auscompgeek wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are AV1 and VP9 not modern video codecs? Or are you suggesting the patent claims have substance?

They are modern video codecs which are playing chicken with possible submarine patents. Ultimately, it's a question of how much you're gonna risk to get where you want, and how much power/influence/wealth you can bring to squash a possible lawsuit.

But H.265 and H.266 have the same risk - worse actually, as multiple submarine patents claims have risen again H.265, and there are now multiple licensing organizations that all claim they need to be paid if you want to use H.265, and over a decade later their claims still haven't been legally settled.

To completely avoid risk your only choice is to to use old technology where all the patents have expired (20 years in US), like MPEG-2. The next lowest risk is to use H.264 and VP9 which have been out for a while and whose the patent pools have stabilized over the years (and the original parts of the standard will have their patents expire soon - but not some of the newer profiles). After that I would argue that AV1 is less risky that H.265 and H.266, as a lot of work was put into intentionally avoiding patented technology that was not part of the pool, and no one outside the pool has yet made patent claims against it.

Post reply on HN