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

341–350 of 435 posts

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

#341

Post by bscphil »

linuxftw wrote: post #323
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 720p or 1080p is fantastic video resolution, especially on a mobile phone. 720p is far from fantastic. It's noticeably blurry, even on mobile. 1080p is minimally acceptable, and is now over 10 years old. > Less than 1% of the population cares or wants higher resolution. That's a very bold claim. Have any studies or polls to back that up?

> That's a very bold claim. Have any studies or polls to back that up? From 1: > In Japan, only 14 percent of households will own a 4K TV in 2019 because most households already have relatively new TVs, IHS said. Let's dissect the reasoning. Most households already have a relatively new TV, thus a low adoption rate. Implying that needing a new TV generally, not the desire to upgrade resolution, is the primary motivat…

I agree with most of what you're saying, but this is actually wrong.

> Streaming 4K+ video is a waste of resources with no tangible benefit to anyone other than marketing purposes. Netflix streams '4K' because everyone has a '4K' TV now and they demand it.

It's not inherently wrong, just practically so. The difference is that Netflix (and often other streaming services) max out at a much higher bitrate for their 4k streaming, and are using a better codec (H.265) as well. By comparison, Netflix's bitrate for 1080p is severely limited and so if you compare the two, even watching at the 1080p level of detail, streaming in 4k will often be a vastly superior experience.

So it's not inherent (not a result of the resolution), but still, streaming 4k is not pointless at present.

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

#342

Post by bscphil »

ksec wrote: post #200
nickik wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

AAC and Vorbis were doing this for years before Opus was on the scene. Opus is a further improvement on audio codecs, but not an unprecedented one.

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

#343

Post by beervirus »

pcl wrote: post #316
AareyBaba wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there codecs that require high compute (Threadripper) for encode but can be easily decoded on a Snapdragon ?

Yes — many codecs can be optimized for decoding at the expense of encoding. This is appropriate for any sort of broadcast (YouTube, television, etc). Also, in many applications, it’s suitable to exchange time for memory / compute. You can spend an hour of compute time optimally encoding a 20-minute YouTube video, with no real downside. Neither of these approaches are suitable for things like video conferencing, where…

Surely videoconferencing doesn’t actually use 60 FPS...

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

#344

Post by otterley »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #258
otterley wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a captive market. If someone were to invent a free codec that performed similarly and had both software and hardware reference implementations, the market would adopt it very quickly. This is a market that is voluntarily paying for perceived value.

Please show me where I can pick between similar consumer devices where there supported codecs are easy to find, or, better yet, I can pay extra for non free codecs.

The few HNers who actually care about these things do not make a market that vendors think is worth serving, most likely because it would be unprofitable. There’s not going to be a market if sellers don’t find it profitable.

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

#345

Post by MayeulC »

KitDuncan wrote: post #2

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

I wonder what would happen if ffmpeg made the choice to not implement a decoder for it. Or maybe just not a encoder?

Can we agree not to work on such projects? I feel that the lack of a good open-source encoder/decoder would spell the death of most codecs nowadays. That would also teach Fraunhoffer about it.

Of course, everyone is free to scratch their itch. And the bigger the void, the more itchy it gets. Luckily, we still have AV1.

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

#346

Post by blacklion »

What I don't understand, why do internationa; standardization organizations allows patent-encumbered technologies to become de-jure standards.

MPEG, WiFi, GSM…

IMHO, intentional standards must be implementable without any patent fees, or they are very bad standards.

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

#347

Post by jimktrains2 »

otterley wrote: post #344
jimktrains2 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please show me where I can pick between similar consumer devices where there supported codecs are easy to find, or, better yet, I can pay extra for non free codecs.

The few HNers who actually care about these things do not make a market that vendors think is worth serving, most likely because it would be unprofitable. There’s not going to be a market if sellers don’t find it profitable.

That's exactly my point: those options don't exist so there is no hard data on what people prefer. It's silly to say the market decided when it's only speculated on the most profitable path, but that doesn't make it the only profitable one.

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

#348

Post by Havoc »

The fact that the underground scene is still pumping 264 instead of 265 (I'd estimate 90/10 split optimistically) tells me the real world is not quite ready for 266.

So I guess it comes down to 266 hw support. Or powerful CPUs that can push sw decoding?

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

#349

Post by freeone3000 »

blacklion wrote: post #346

What I don't understand, why do internationa; standardization organizations allows patent-encumbered technologies to become de-jure standards. MPEG, WiFi, GSM… IMHO, intentional standards must be implementable without any patent fees, or they are very bad standards.

There's no law requiring wifi - "de facto". And they're standards because they're quite good! They have hardware support and parallelization and account for all use cases, even the marginal ones, and have reference implementations and support. Standards orgs don't care about patents because they're not relevant. This isn't a case of trolling - this is literally a software patent being used for its intended purpose by its developer, to extract profit by coming up with a new idea, and letting others use it.

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

#350

Post by nicoburns »

uryga wrote: post #331
acdha wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

H.265 was always better from a technical perspective but that's not everything which factors into a video codec decision. H.264 was supported everywhere, including hardware support on most platforms. You could generate one file and have it work with great experience everywhere, whereas switching to anything else likely required adding additional tools to your workflow and trying to balance bandwidth savings against b…

> H.264 was supported everywhere this. our TV (a few years old, "smart") can play videos from a network drive, but doesn't support H.265. reencoding a season's worth of episodes to H.264 takes a while...

H.264 will become the "mp3" of video I think. Universally supported, and the pstents will run out micj sooner than the newer formats.
Post reply on HN