Live data from Hacker News

AV1 video codec gains broader hardware support

fullystacked.net

111–120 of 210 posts

Re: AV1 video codec gains broader hardware support

#111
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How much silicon does it take to add an AV1 decoder to a chip? The die area is very modest, but the hard part is building it in the first place. Encoding is more area, but should still be peanuts for Apple SoCs.

Dumb question, is this not a readily available IP block that you can buy? Better yet, why haven't industry partners licensed royalty-free IP for this?

I'm sure the usual suspects (Synopsys, Broadcom, ARM, Xilinx, etc.) would be happy to license something. But from what I can see all the big players make their own. I guess they're easy enough to implement yourself (as a big player) and important enough to not want to leave it in the hands of a third party.

There are also likely opportunities for additional efficiencies when you make a custom {en,de}coder for your system. I suspect (but haven't confirmed) that the typical Intel/AMD/Nvidia/Apple multi-function media engine isn't just a collection of completely independent encoder/decoder blocks for each codec but a kind of simplified specialized microcoded CPU with a collection of fixed-function blocks which can be shared between different codecs. So it could have blocks that do RGB->YUV conversion, Discrete Cosine Transforms, etc. and you can use the same DCT block for AV1, HEVC, and AVC. Maybe you can also create specialized efficient ways to transfer frames back and forth with the GPU, for sharing cache with the GPU, etc.

Re: AV1 video codec gains broader hardware support

#112

Microsoft Edge does support AV1, but weirdly only through a Microsoft Store extension [1], even though Chrome has support built-in. This actually really sucks because in practice hardly any normal consumers would bother to install a strangely named extension, and so web developers have to assume it's largely unsupported in Edge. Safari ties support to a hardware decoder, which I suppose is understandable to avoid acc…

Although this thread is about AVIF (the image format based on AV1) it claims that Edge is not supported due to licensing issues: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75459594/why-doesnt-edge... I bet the same licensing issues are also holding back AV1 on edge.

Yet no information on what the licensing issue is... This is ridiculous.

Re: AV1 video codec gains broader hardware support

#113
post #35

What’s so special about AV1?

H.264's most likely successor was HEVC. While Google and Mozilla strongly prefer VP8/VP9, most video content distributors are okay with paying the license fee for H.264. One patent pool, one license fee. HEVC's patent pool fragmented. So even after you pay one fee there might be another one or even worse patent trolling litigation. So non-broadcast companies are adopting av1 to avoid using HEVC when possible.

Re: AV1 video codec gains broader hardware support

#114

Microsoft Edge does support AV1, but weirdly only through a Microsoft Store extension [1], even though Chrome has support built-in. This actually really sucks because in practice hardly any normal consumers would bother to install a strangely named extension, and so web developers have to assume it's largely unsupported in Edge. Safari ties support to a hardware decoder, which I suppose is understandable to avoid acc…

Microsoft Edge USED to support AV1 through the extension, but decided to disable the support altogether since v116. The "Can I use" website [1] has the up-to-date information on this. [1] https://caniuse.com/av1

Is there no explanation as to why they removed support and added it as a MS Store bundle? Seems really strange.

Re: AV1 video codec gains broader hardware support

#115
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, I didn't know that, good point! Even weirder though. Hopefully it's a prelude to built-in support.

This can be treated as a rumor but I heard a Microsoft developer on Mastodon hint that they had been having trouble with a patent troll, so maybe that's the reason behind the kind of obnoxious workaround too. But that they were dealing with it.

AV1 was supposed to be the patent and royalty free contender?

Re: AV1 video codec gains broader hardware support

#116
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This can be treated as a rumor but I heard a Microsoft developer on Mastodon hint that they had been having trouble with a patent troll, so maybe that's the reason behind the kind of obnoxious workaround too. But that they were dealing with it.

AV1 was supposed to be the patent and royalty free contender?

It's supposed to be royalty free, but there are patents for the techniques used in it which are used defensively. If someone has a patent to a technique used in AV1, then they could still demand royalties and some patent trolls have been trying. Wikipedia has a section on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Patent_Claims

Re: AV1 video codec gains broader hardware support

#117

I love AV1 for compressing my movies to 720p. I also convert any audio to Opus. I get to archive a ton of content on peanuts. The videos look great on my PC monitor or my phone and they come in at around 452MB (1hr 24m video). Here's my script if you're interested in trying it out on your content. param ( [Parameter(Mandatory=$true)] [string]$sourceDir, [string]$destDir = $sourceDir ) $ffmpegPath = 'C:\Users\sergi\Do…

As someone who also has a 2019 Shield TV Pro and is waiting for the "next best thing", one resource I've been keeping my eye on is androidtv-guide.com:

https://www.androidtv-guide.com/streaming-gaming/av1-android...

Re: AV1 video codec gains broader hardware support

#118
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Safari ties support to a hardware decoder, which I suppose is understandable to avoid accidental battery drain from using a software codec I still have a pretty deep dislike for Google for turning on AV1 for everyone in Chromium. It’s the ultimate “fuck you, I care more about my bottom line than your user experience”. Edit: and clown HN rears its head again. I guess cutting users their battery life to a third is wo…

Doesn't the Media Capabilities API [1] provide a way to determine if a codec is "power efficient" (presumably meaning hardware supported)? So then you can switch to another codec if AV1 isn't hardware-supported. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Media_Capab...

That might be, but on (most?) Chromium browsers you have to install h264ify to force-disable AV1/VP9 on devices that have no AV1 hardware decode.

What is even more annoying is that you can only do a full disable. You can’t disable AC1/VP9 video decode but leave image decode intact.

Re: AV1 video codec gains broader hardware support

#119

Is it really _that_ hard to create a generic video decoding DSP whose firmware could be updated? Most codecs are very similar to each other. IIRC Texas Instruments used multicore DSP to decode MPEG back in the 90s. Or maybe we should have written codecs to be amenable towards GPU shader implementation...

The problem with a generic codec DSP is how fast do you make it? Newer codecs often require twice as much computation as older ones, so do you make the DSP twice as fast as you need today and hope that's enough to run future codecs? Meanwhile you're wasting transistors on a DSP that won't be fully used until years later.

To some extent the PS3 did this; the Cell SPEs were fast enough to implement Blu-ray and streaming video playback in software and they made several updates over the life of the PS3.

Re: AV1 video codec gains broader hardware support

#120
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the Media Capabilities API [1] provide a way to determine if a codec is "power efficient" (presumably meaning hardware supported)? So then you can switch to another codec if AV1 isn't hardware-supported. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Media_Capab...

That might be, but on (most?) Chromium browsers you have to install h264ify to force-disable AV1/VP9 on devices that have no AV1 hardware decode. What is even more annoying is that you can only do a full disable. You can’t disable AC1/VP9 video decode but leave image decode intact.

What I'm saying is in an ideal world web content should be able to detect whether some codecs are not hardware-accelerated, and so such workarounds should not be necessary. Of course, lots of naive web content might just check if it's supported and use it anyway... but surely the big sites like YouTube get this right?

Software decode has its uses - if you just want a small GIF-style looping clip, hardware support doesn't matter much, and it's nice to have one codec that can be relied upon to work everywhere.

Post reply on HN