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

Google added HEVC support in Chrome

bitmovin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–225 of 225 posts

Re: Google added HEVC support in Chrome

#221

Post by RealStickman_ »

jjeaff wrote: post #123
NelsonMinar wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's remarkable that the pirate scene has barely touched VP9 or AV1. We discussed this 2.5 years ago, nothing really has changed except there's more H.265 than before. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19362098

Probably all comes down to ffmpeg not supporting av1 well. Pretty much everyone uses ffmpeg or a wrapper around ffmpeg like handbrake to encode. And my understanding is that ffmpeg implements an old and very slow and partially broken version of av1.

ffmpeg supports libaom, svt-av1 and rav1e. It's simply a matter of compiling it in. (Arch for example does by default)

Re: Google added HEVC support in Chrome

#222

Post by [deleted] »

mustache_kimono wrote: post #214
alwayslikethis wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, it seems like more and more devices are supporting Opus for general use cases. It seems to be the audio codec end game - at 16kbps it sounds as good to me as 64kbps mp3

> For the record, it seems like more and more devices are supporting Opus for general use cases Yes, exactly and AFAIK it's because Chrome/Google/YouTube has recently supported Opus to the exclusion of these proprietary formats for higher quality (read HEVC level) video.

[deleted]

Re: Google added HEVC support in Chrome

#223

Post by int_19h »

chrisseaton wrote: post #40
bubblethink wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?"

> The mystery is who is paying whom ? 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.

> Hardware IP people are paying licenser people, with consumers eventually paying hardware IP people.

On Windows, at least, the end users have to purchase individual HEVC licenses.

Re: Google added HEVC support in Chrome

#224

Post by int_19h »

bubblethink wrote: post #124
fomine3 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if creator said it's royalty free!, it's not guaranteed that there are no patent violation.

Hence, we would hear if people are being 1) sued, or 2) or are paying. We haven't seen any evidence of either.

A submarine patent approach implies waiting for it to become popular enough that you can extort companies into paying, rather than just dropping the codec in lieu of something else.

Re: Google added HEVC support in Chrome

#225

Post by fomine3 »

int_19h wrote: post #223
chrisseaton wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The mystery is who is paying whom ? 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.

> Hardware IP people are paying licenser people, with consumers eventually paying hardware IP people. On Windows, at least, the end users have to purchase individual HEVC licenses.

"HEVC Video Extensions from Device Manufacturer" is also available for free. It should be already paid by device manufacturer.
Post reply on HN