31–40 of 225 posts
> Great feature, but where is the necessary hype!?
There is surely no need for any hype for dead end technology.
Why is this being done, when AV1 exists? It's hard to see HEVC as anything else than a legal liability.
> Why is this being done To play HEVC files. > when AV1 exists? In case your files aren't AV1, or in case you don't have the hardware to play AV1. Not a mystery is it?
Why is this being done, when AV1 exists? It's hard to see HEVC as anything else than a legal liability.
On one hand, that's great for anyone watching HEVC content in Chrome. On the other, I'd prefer to not see further adoption of HEVC and instead see increased deployment of VP9 and AV1 wherever possible. Let MPEG-LA and the other HEVC patent pools+holders... well I'll leave the rest to your imagination. Future looking, no one should even touch VVC/H.266. Unfortunately the above rant does not address the gap in hardware…
is it possible to implement generic/unencumbered blocks at the HW level and then string them together at the SW or firmware layer? how much efficiency do you lose? if you can move all the patentable stuff into SW then we can do the same thing we all did with mp3 patents: i.e. ignore them (see: LAME).
On one hand, that's great for anyone watching HEVC content in Chrome. On the other, I'd prefer to not see further adoption of HEVC and instead see increased deployment of VP9 and AV1 wherever possible. Let MPEG-LA and the other HEVC patent pools+holders... well I'll leave the rest to your imagination. Future looking, no one should even touch VVC/H.266. Unfortunately the above rant does not address the gap in hardware…
AV1 reputedly is 30% more efficient than HEVC, important for a number of cases, such as more efficient use of bandwidth over cellular. For FaceTime over cellular Apple today uses the HEVC codecs if available on source and destination phones.
In software AV1 is very resource intensive.
> Does is(sic) also work with DRM? > That’s where the catch is, unfortunately. The biggest drawback is that HEVC with Widevine DRM is not supported at this point, only clear, unprotected content. It’s unclear whether Google has plans to add support for this in the future or not. That was my first question. I hoped against hope that it wasn't a trojan horse for some new DRM. Surely they are going to add Widevine suppo…
> HEVC with Widevine DRM is not supported This isn't true at all. True, HEVC doesn't support Box level encryption like MP4 does, but nothing is stopping anyone from just AES encrypting an entire fragment, as has been used for years with HLSe. The fact that MP4 uses box level encryption is one of the stupidest tech-related things I have ever seen. It forces anyone who wants to decrypt (or encrypt) to write a full MP4…
MP4 is seriously one of the easiest binary formats to parse, and even if you couldn't use an existing parser it would probably be the simplest part of whatever you were actually building.
Every new software and hardware is moving towards the royalty free, agile and efficient AV1 codec. But out of nowhere and 9 years after its release, they add support to the mother of all royalties HEVC codec. Probably had some kind of deal to benefit their android partner Samsung, since they own pretty much most of HEVC patents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#P...
(I noticed this long ago when an older iphone wouldn't show imessage images directly from newer phones that were sending images in heif)
Why is this being done, when AV1 exists? It's hard to see HEVC as anything else than a legal liability.
> It's hard to see HEVC as anything else than a legal liability. I actually think the truth is the exact reverse. HEVC has easy-to-license patent pools. A couple of clicks and done. The patent situation surrounding AV1 is complex. It claims to be a free format but multiple entities claim patents that cover it. A submarine patent lawsuit seems likely.
What's the point? No one is using it on the Web and if anyone will try to use it commercially, they'll be eaten by patent trolls like MPEG-LA. Google might afford shelling out money to those trolls to add it to the browser, but not everyone is Google. So it's basically DOA. Did anything change about that recently? > Great feature, but where is the necessary hype!? There is surely no need for any hype for dead end tec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why is this being done To play HEVC files. > when AV1 exists? In case your files aren't AV1, or in case you don't have the hardware to play AV1. Not a mystery is it?
The mystery is who is paying whom ? Is Microsoft paying for HEVC licences ? Google ? Distributor ? Silicon vendors ? All of them ? The question above is, "Why use HEVC(pay) when AV1 exists ?". Or, "Why care about AV1 if everyone is paying ?"
Hardware IP people are paying licenser people, with consumers eventually paying hardware IP people.
> "Why use HEVC(pay) when AV1 exists ?"
Because HEVC has hardware support, right now, so it's faster.
> "Why care about AV1 if everyone is paying ?"
People don't much.