Live data from Hacker News

AV2 video codec delivers 30% lower bitrate than AV1, final spec due in late 2025

videocardz.com

111–120 of 227 posts

Re: AV2 video codec delivers 30% lower bitrate than AV1, final spec due in late 2025

#111

It’s pretty amazing people are still finding ways to make video smaller. Is this just people being clever or is it also more processing power being thrown at the problem when decoding / encoding?

New video codecs typically offer more options for how to represent the current frame in terms of other frames. That typically means more processing for the encoder, because it can check for all the similarities to see what works best; there's also harder math for arithmetic coding of the picture data. It will be more work for the encoder if it needs to keep more reference images and especially if it needs to do harder transformations, or if arithemetic decoding gets harder.

Clever matters a lot more for encoding. If you can determine good ways to figure out the motion information without trying them all, that gets you faster encoding speed. Decoding doesn't tend to have as much room for cleverness; the stream says to calculate the output from specific data, so you need to do that.

Re: AV2 video codec delivers 30% lower bitrate than AV1, final spec due in late 2025

#112
post #50

Will streaming services ever stop over-compressing their content? I have a top-of-the-line 4K TV and gigabit internet, yet the compression artifacts make everything look like putty. Honestly, the best picture quality I’ve ever seen was over 20 years ago using simple digital rabbit ears. You especially notice the compression on gradients and in dark movie scenes. And yes — my TV is fully calibrated, and I’m paying for…

> Honestly, the best picture quality I’ve ever seen was over 20 years ago using simple digital rabbit ears.

That I find super hard to believe!

Re: AV2 video codec delivers 30% lower bitrate than AV1, final spec due in late 2025

#113
post #110
post #50

Will streaming services ever stop over-compressing their content? I have a top-of-the-line 4K TV and gigabit internet, yet the compression artifacts make everything look like putty. Honestly, the best picture quality I’ve ever seen was over 20 years ago using simple digital rabbit ears. You especially notice the compression on gradients and in dark movie scenes. And yes — my TV is fully calibrated, and I’m paying for…

>Will streaming services ever stop over-compressing their content? Before COVID Netflix were at least using 8Mbps for 1080P content. With x264 / beamr it is pretty good, and even better on HEVC. Then COVID hit, every streaming service not just Netflix have excuses to lower their quality due to increased demand with limited bandwidth. Everything went down hill since then. Customer got used to lower quality I dont beli…

Most 1080p WEB-DLs are in the 6-8 Mbps range still, based on a quick glance.

Re: AV2 video codec delivers 30% lower bitrate than AV1, final spec due in late 2025

#114
post #50

Will streaming services ever stop over-compressing their content? I have a top-of-the-line 4K TV and gigabit internet, yet the compression artifacts make everything look like putty. Honestly, the best picture quality I’ve ever seen was over 20 years ago using simple digital rabbit ears. You especially notice the compression on gradients and in dark movie scenes. And yes — my TV is fully calibrated, and I’m paying for…

Content delivery costs a lot for streaming services. After content is produced, this is basically the only remaining cost. It’s not surprising that they would go to extreme measures in reducing bitrate. That’s why, presumably, Netflix came up with the algorithm for removing camera grain and adding synthetically generated noise on the client[0], and why YouTube shorts were recently in the news for using extreme denois…

So:

1. camera manufacturers and film crews both do their best to produce a noise-free image 2. in post-production, they add fake noise to the image so it looks more "cinematic" 3. to compress better, streaming services try to remove the noise 4. to hide the insane compression and make it look even slightly natural, the decoder/player adds the noise back

Anyone else finding this a bit...insane?

Re: AV2 video codec delivers 30% lower bitrate than AV1, final spec due in late 2025

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for the super affluent, https://www.kaleidescape.com/compare/

This has been more or less proven to be a complete scam, the quality isn’t any better than Blu-ray and in many cases worse. The “best” quality of streaming you have is Sony Core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Core but it has a rather limited library.

"Not any better than Blu-ray" is the same as saying "much better than streaming."

Re: AV2 video codec delivers 30% lower bitrate than AV1, final spec due in late 2025

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content delivery costs a lot for streaming services. After content is produced, this is basically the only remaining cost. It’s not surprising that they would go to extreme measures in reducing bitrate. That’s why, presumably, Netflix came up with the algorithm for removing camera grain and adding synthetically generated noise on the client[0], and why YouTube shorts were recently in the news for using extreme denois…

So: 1. camera manufacturers and film crews both do their best to produce a noise-free image 2. in post-production, they add fake noise to the image so it looks more "cinematic" 3. to compress better, streaming services try to remove the noise 4. to hide the insane compression and make it look even slightly natural, the decoder/player adds the noise back Anyone else finding this a bit...insane?

Yes, just stop doing step 2 the way they're doing and instead if they _must_ do noise modify parameters for step 4 directly.

Re: AV2 video codec delivers 30% lower bitrate than AV1, final spec due in late 2025

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content delivery costs a lot for streaming services. After content is produced, this is basically the only remaining cost. It’s not surprising that they would go to extreme measures in reducing bitrate. That’s why, presumably, Netflix came up with the algorithm for removing camera grain and adding synthetically generated noise on the client[0], and why YouTube shorts were recently in the news for using extreme denois…

So: 1. camera manufacturers and film crews both do their best to produce a noise-free image 2. in post-production, they add fake noise to the image so it looks more "cinematic" 3. to compress better, streaming services try to remove the noise 4. to hide the insane compression and make it look even slightly natural, the decoder/player adds the noise back Anyone else finding this a bit...insane?

> camera manufacturers and film crews both do their best to produce a noise-free image

This is not correct, camera manufacturers and filmakers engineer _aesthetically pleasing_ noise (randomized grains appear smoother to the human eye than clean uniform pixels). The rest is still as silly as it sounds.

Re: AV2 video codec delivers 30% lower bitrate than AV1, final spec due in late 2025

#118
post #104
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you mean the file extension should only reflect the file format and not the codecs it has inside ? That's pretty much always been the case. File extensions are just not expressive enough to capture all the nuances of audio and video codecs. MIME types are a bit better. Audio is a bit of an exception with the popularity of MP3 (which is both a codec and a relatively minimal container format for it).

If only people would actually bother to write the codecs in the MIME type in the first place ...

Easier said than done, when there's no commonly accepted standard to store a file's MIME type as metadata, and you don't want to load all of ffmpeg into every webserver or file browser just so it can expose the proper granular one.

Re: AV2 video codec delivers 30% lower bitrate than AV1, final spec due in late 2025

#119
post #64

It’s pretty amazing people are still finding ways to make video smaller. Is this just people being clever or is it also more processing power being thrown at the problem when decoding / encoding?

Soon we will just have local AI processors which will just make stuff up between scenes but adhere to a “close enough” guideline where all narratively critical elements are maintained but other things (eg landscapes or trees) will be generated locally. Movies will practically be long cutscenes with photorealistic graphics.

I'm sure models which replace characters in realtime will also become popular. I would imagine some company thinking it would be cool if the main character looked slightly more like whatever main audience it's being shown to and it's done on their playback devices (so, of course, it can be customized or turned off).

I find the idea fun, kinda like using snapchat filters on characters, but in practice I'm sure it'll be used to cut corners and prevent the actual creative vision from being shown which saddens me.

Post reply on HN