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

Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 170 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#61

Post by pornel »

tomputer wrote: post #21
theandrewbailey wrote: post #3

H.265 requires getting a license from at least 2 patent pools[0], and who knows how many other patents are out there waiting to get sued over. If you want a new cross platform video codec, check out AV1.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#P... [1] https://aomedia.org/av1/

FFmpeg and VLC seem to use (lib)x265 for H.265 content. Is a license also required if the x265 codec is used? Or does that depend on whether the software is for commercial use?

ffmpeg/x265 don't own the patents, so their license has no right to grant you them.

Beware that using ffmpeg/x265 may be illegal if you're in a country that recognizes software patents. You need to pay patent fees even if you wrote the software 100% yourself. You need to pay even if you independently invented the same algorithms later than the patent was filed.

To quote Carmack:

> "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#62

Post by m3galinux »

formerly_proven wrote: post #51
dopa42365 wrote: post #14

New Edge supports it, if you have the h265 extension from the microsoft store (cmd "start ms-windows-store://pdp/?ProductId=9n4wgh0z6vhq"). It's also the only (?) browser that supports AC-3 audio. Thanks for nothing, Dolby. There's barely any content though (possibly premium VODs on Netflix etc). Bilibili (kinda like Chinese youtube) offers HEVC (and AV1) playback, if your browser supports it. Example: https://www.bi…

> In general it's kind of a moot point by now, just go with AV1. You don't always get to decide. E.g. IP cameras will generally support both h.264 and h.265 these days, with HEVC doing vastly better than AVC, yet if that output has to go near a browser, instead of through dedicated software... SOL. Can't do anything with it. The hardware can, the software can't. And AV1 is decode-only anyway, and only supported in th…

It's not just browsers. One popular Windows-based video surveillance platform has hardware decode support for H264, but it's software only for H265; that's on both Windows clients and Android mobile. That means your H264 cameras show up instantly but H265 takes a few seconds per stream, and too many of them on one screen means you're skipping frames. At least two companies I installed these for decided to double their storage instead of taking the perceived UI performance hit.

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#63

Post by nceqs3 »

akersten wrote: post #40

Because the US endorses the concept of "essential patents," meaning you need to pay a licensing fee to be lawfully allowed to perform the math that transforms data into A/V content. Never to mention the two blatant issues with this, being: 1) video codecs are the exemplary "we'll patent math and there's nothing you can do about it" scam, since that's literally all a video codec is 2) a process being "essential" to a…

Every country in the world "endorses" the concept of "essential" patents. It's called a patent.

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#64

Post by philg_jr »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #30
PaulHoule wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the DVD era there was a conscious attempt to converge between the PC industry and consumer electronics. Since then (when they decided that Blu-Ray drives weren't going to be standard in PC) there has been a decoupling. HEVC is a consumer electronics standard, the PC industry is going towards VP9, AV1 and other royalty free codecs. Up until HEVC most codecs had one patent pool you could pay a royalty to and be…

It also occurred with 4K Blu Ray, which was a real pain in the neck on PC requiring Intel SGX, Intel Secure Media Path, and a billion other DRM things. Then Intel removed SGX in 11th generation onward, and the Blu Ray developers have basically decided that being unable to play 4K Blu Ray on modern PCs is apparently just fine and haven't done anything to fix that. To this day, the only official way to play 4K Blu Ray…

So grateful for the developer of MakeMKV.

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#65

Post by windowsrookie »

silicon2401 wrote: post #24

Can someone help me understand why my windows 10 laptop with the latest VLC can't run x265 video files, but my windows 10 desktop with the latest VLC can? My desktop definitely runs circles around my laptop, but I'm not very well versed on video tech, so I haven't been able to figure out what the issue is on my laptop.

Because the GPU in your laptop does not support x265 hardware acceleration. You need and intel 7th gen or newer for 10bit h.265. 6th gen only supports 8bit.

AMD APU's started getting h.265 support around the same time.

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#66

Post by nceqs3 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #42
akersten wrote: post #40

Because the US endorses the concept of "essential patents," meaning you need to pay a licensing fee to be lawfully allowed to perform the math that transforms data into A/V content. Never to mention the two blatant issues with this, being: 1) video codecs are the exemplary "we'll patent math and there's nothing you can do about it" scam, since that's literally all a video codec is 2) a process being "essential" to a…

I mean, is a video codec really just "math"? There's a binary payload description and algorithms involved for applying said math as well. I'm no expert in the field, so I'm actually asking in good faith here...

Here is a list of the essential patents from the main pool: https://www.mpegla.com/wp-content/uploads/hevc-att1.pdf

Find a single US patent that "claims" maths as GP argued. It doesn't exist.

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#67

Post by devwastaken »

msbarnett wrote: post #9
theandrewbailey wrote: post #3

H.265 requires getting a license from at least 2 patent pools[0], and who knows how many other patents are out there waiting to get sued over. If you want a new cross platform video codec, check out AV1.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#P... [1] https://aomedia.org/av1/

The licenses have already been paid for the hardware implementation, that doesn't explain, eg, Chrome's refusal to leverage hardware decoding (and stop burning so much power on laptops).

I don't buy the patent argument. AV1 is not unique, it would not be hard to find some similarities in the math and argue infringement of one of tens of thousands of patents these companies sit on. The companies simply don't want to upset the largest tech companies, though apple already buys from them.

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#68

Post by blibble »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #30
PaulHoule wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the DVD era there was a conscious attempt to converge between the PC industry and consumer electronics. Since then (when they decided that Blu-Ray drives weren't going to be standard in PC) there has been a decoupling. HEVC is a consumer electronics standard, the PC industry is going towards VP9, AV1 and other royalty free codecs. Up until HEVC most codecs had one patent pool you could pay a royalty to and be…

It also occurred with 4K Blu Ray, which was a real pain in the neck on PC requiring Intel SGX, Intel Secure Media Path, and a billion other DRM things. Then Intel removed SGX in 11th generation onward, and the Blu Ray developers have basically decided that being unable to play 4K Blu Ray on modern PCs is apparently just fine and haven't done anything to fix that. To this day, the only official way to play 4K Blu Ray…

we've had DRM'ed media for 20 years and people are still surprised that there's a reasonable chance of being shafted if they invest in the ecosystem?

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#69

Post by anaisbetts »

dopa42365 wrote: post #14

New Edge supports it, if you have the h265 extension from the microsoft store (cmd "start ms-windows-store://pdp/?ProductId=9n4wgh0z6vhq"). It's also the only (?) browser that supports AC-3 audio. Thanks for nothing, Dolby. There's barely any content though (possibly premium VODs on Netflix etc). Bilibili (kinda like Chinese youtube) offers HEVC (and AV1) playback, if your browser supports it. Example: https://www.bi…

I'm not sure if this is the case. Current Edge Dev (102.0.1245.3) reports "No" for HEVC, even with the extension installed. Old Edge based on EdgeHTML/Spartan would indeed play HEVC content

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#70

Post by creshal »

babypuncher wrote: post #41
theandrewbailey wrote: post #3

H.265 requires getting a license from at least 2 patent pools[0], and who knows how many other patents are out there waiting to get sued over. If you want a new cross platform video codec, check out AV1.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#P... [1] https://aomedia.org/av1/

This explains why browsers do not include their own software decoder, but they should not need a license to use the decoders provided by the host platform.

- Neither Linux nor Windows provide one, due to licensing costs

- Most browsers do not deem it worth the risk of relying on host software decoders, as the plug&play infrastructure behind them usually translates into "nobody feels responsible for patching anything" which translates into incalculable vulnerabilities

That leaves MacOS (why bother when Safari exists), iOS (dito), and Android (why bother when Android users don't spend money), and trying to use hardware codecs without stepping on patents enough to make lawyers smell blood (why bother).

Post reply on HN