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

The AV2 Video Standard Has Released (Final v1.0 Specification)

av2.aomedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 190 posts

Re: The AV2 Video Standard Has Released (Final v1.0 Specification)

#151

Post by mikae1 »

erwan577 wrote: post #107
ChadNauseam wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AVIF is for sure my favorite image format right now. No other format has the quadfecta of lossless, HDR, transparency, browser support. Plus as you said, for very compressed images it looks amazing. It blows my mind how small AVIF files can be. Also, unlike HEIC and Ultra HDR JPEG, it actually supports HDR natively as part of the file format rather than doing the hacky sidecar gain map trick. I know it doesn't matter…

Do you think advanced users should consider AVIF/AVIF2 along JPEGXL for long term pictures archival ? Which kind of encode settings do you suggest for conversion from high resolution RAWs or JPEGs ?

Depends on if you want lossy or lossless.

Re: The AV2 Video Standard Has Released (Final v1.0 Specification)

#152

Post by ChadNauseam »

erwan577 wrote: post #107
ChadNauseam wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AVIF is for sure my favorite image format right now. No other format has the quadfecta of lossless, HDR, transparency, browser support. Plus as you said, for very compressed images it looks amazing. It blows my mind how small AVIF files can be. Also, unlike HEIC and Ultra HDR JPEG, it actually supports HDR natively as part of the file format rather than doing the hacky sidecar gain map trick. I know it doesn't matter…

Do you think advanced users should consider AVIF/AVIF2 along JPEGXL for long term pictures archival ? Which kind of encode settings do you suggest for conversion from high resolution RAWs or JPEGs ?

For long term archival, JXL is better, the only issue with it is browser and device support

Re: The AV2 Video Standard Has Released (Final v1.0 Specification)

#153

Post by Orphis »

jech wrote: post #112
Orphis wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the interesting usage of AV1 was specifically for low bitrate calls, and software encoding was perfectly fine, even on mobile. With low enough resolution, framerate and bitrate, you can get a quality stream without significant encoding artifacts compared to any other codec. It is in production right now and has been for a while. The tradeoff CPU / bandwidth is quite advantageous in situations like this. And no…

> One of the interesting usage of AV1 was specifically for low bitrate calls, and software encoding was perfectly fine, even on mobile. You really want hardware decoding on mobile, otherwise you end up with 40 minutes battery life. Fortunately, for typical videoconference resolutions, VP8 and H.264 are just fine. AV1 is nice to have, though, due to excellent support for synthetic content (screen sharing), and for sca…

No, you do NOT want hardware anything on mobile if you are targeting smaller bitrate that are not that taxing on the CPU, when the conditions are otherwise so bad that the call would either drop or be unusable. HW encoders produce bad results at low bitrate. HW decoders usually have issues with the temporal encodings used and they may also just not accept those streams (a lot of test scenarios are movies, and the RTC tools are poorly supported).

I worked on shipping it to Chromium, WebRTC and Google Meet many years ago and we had many publications about it: - https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/duo/4-ne... - https://webrtchacks.com/the-hidden-av1-gift-in-google-meet/

The use case is not screensharing or a large conference room, but mainly a simpler talking face for a 1:1 chat, but with good quality as packet loss is then not as impactful on a 30KBps stream with AV1 than a 50KBps VP8 stream.

Re: The AV2 Video Standard Has Released (Final v1.0 Specification)

#154

Post by Orphis »

ksec wrote: post #70
Orphis wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the interesting usage of AV1 was specifically for low bitrate calls, and software encoding was perfectly fine, even on mobile. With low enough resolution, framerate and bitrate, you can get a quality stream without significant encoding artifacts compared to any other codec. It is in production right now and has been for a while. The tradeoff CPU / bandwidth is quite advantageous in situations like this. And no…

Have you said this for Audio Codec I would have agreed. I do not know a single Smartphone Video Conferencing software that uses CPU encoding rather than hardware encoding. Neither WhatsApp or FaceTime, perhaps the largest of the two real time Video Call uses AV1.

Google Meet can do it. You don't want the full conference with AV1, just use it for very low bitrate scenarios with a high packet loss possibly. Phones are a good target system. And I know this is quite opposite to expectations.

It is a lot better to send a stable and visually ok stream with AV1 at 30KBps than fail to send a VP8 50KBps stream that is unusable anyway and is subject to twice as many packet lost than a lower bitrate solution.

It is possible they use AV1 in other scenarios now, but I left the team a while back now and I haven't checked what they are now using under the hood.

Re: The AV2 Video Standard Has Released (Final v1.0 Specification)

#155

Post by Gigachad »

jjcm wrote: post #144
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on AV1's trajectory, hardware encode isn't necessary (though it is nice). The current encoder is a reference encoder. Now that the spec is finalized, expect significant speed improvements from production encoders (realtime likely won't happen until we get it in hardware though)

I strongly disagree with it not being required. I run a small social news site - AV1 is still prohibatively expensive both for the server and clients for software encoding/decoding. Without hardware encoding, the tradeoff for better compression ratios in exchange for massive battery use + very long processing times for encoding simply isn't worth it. In order to get AV1 out, I have to often process a h264 version of…

I went and checked some youtube videos on my front page, A video with 15k views had an AV1 encode, while a video with 160 views was h264 only. So extremely popular videos is not how I would describe it, probably by views, almost everything you watch on youtube is AV1. But they skip the extra encodes for videos relatively no one watches.

Re: The AV2 Video Standard Has Released (Final v1.0 Specification)

#156

Post by Gigachad »

Salgat wrote: post #138
diegocg wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything running on a battery will need hardware acceleration

Even without encoding, as long as decoding is supported for AV2, streaming sites like Youtube can always transcode uploads. The encoder on mobile hardware is more of a nice bonus as long as we have an AV1 encoder available in the meantime.

Youtube is doing this now. Most semi popular videos have an AV1 transcode, something interesting is I've seen youtube chooses to use the AV1 format even on my macbook which doesn't have a hardware decoder, I had a look at the CPU usage and there is a 50% load on one thread on my M1, but aside from extra battery usage, this is basically negligible since I'm likely not doing any other CPU heavy tasks while watching video.

Re: The AV2 Video Standard Has Released (Final v1.0 Specification)

#157

Post by Gigachad »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #152
erwan577 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think advanced users should consider AVIF/AVIF2 along JPEGXL for long term pictures archival ? Which kind of encode settings do you suggest for conversion from high resolution RAWs or JPEGs ?

For long term archival, JXL is better, the only issue with it is browser and device support

I have been using JXL for all my personal photos. My photo server Immich will just transcode a JPEG to display on devices which don't natively support JXL.

Re: The AV2 Video Standard Has Released (Final v1.0 Specification)

#158

Post by shmerl »

ethin wrote: post #19

And how long will it take before someone implements this standard and gets sued because Adobe or Dolby or whoever wanted to get slapped down? My knowledge may be out of date but if this is as "open" as AV1, I'm very skeptical that the individual companies will actually allow that. Greed and all that.

No one can predict patent trolls - they can surface at any time randomly. But there should be a more organized fight against them. I assume AOM should be backing that.

Re: The AV2 Video Standard Has Released (Final v1.0 Specification)

#159

Post by shmerl »

thinkingQueen wrote: post #45

AV1 is being actively claim-charted by a lot of companies right now, and lawsuits are almost certainly coming. The same process is already starting for AV2, but most players are waiting for the AV1 cases to mature first. People keep calling the AV-family codecs “royalty free,” but in practice they increasingly look like a legal and financial gamble.

There should be a stronger push to fight these trolls. AOM has enough resources to bust their garbage patents and make them pay damages for patent racketeering. At least until software patents are banned for good.

Re: The AV2 Video Standard Has Released (Final v1.0 Specification)

#160

Post by Gigachad »

techpression wrote: post #33
londons_explore wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside the apple ecosystem, AV1 is supported nearly everywhere.

They’ve had hardware decoding since M3 and equivalent A cpus. So I’d say it’s pretty well supported.

It works even without hardware decode. I noticed youtube is using AV1 on my M1.
Post reply on HN