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

Dav2d

jbkempf.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 212 posts

Re: Dav2d

#141

Post by kaka314 »

BetterThanSober wrote: post #80
kaka314 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too much traffic from HN? ``` Too Many Requests The page you have tried to access is not available because the owner of the file you are trying to access has exceeded our short term bandwidth limits. Please try again shortly. Details: Actioning this file would cause "jbkempf.com//blog/2026/dav2d/" to exceed the per-day file actions limit of 160000 actions, try again later ```

I don't know if I'm underestimating HN's reach but I doubt we did that, probably traffic from a much bigger aggregator/forum

Yeah, it's hard to tell thb, just a guess. But potentially the site also misconfigured their server, causing too much cache misses and hitting the server direclty.

Re: Dav2d

#142

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

xp84 wrote: post #82
LoganDark wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The safety can be worth it in certain cases. Like when handling untrusted input. And it's not just Rust: look at WUFFS for example. WUFFS can actually rival handwritten implementations in certain cases.

Are video codecs in the present day able to be sandboxed? In my fantasies at least I’d like the worst a malicious video file can do is cause garbage output or cause the codec to crash. Forgive the ignorance, I have worked entirely in the abstracted layers of the stack, and mostly web.

not really. they're mostly pure assembly and sandboxing assembly isn't really a things

Re: Dav2d

#143

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

IshKebab wrote: post #94
throawayonthe wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but not these cases

I don't see why not. What makes you think this is unique?

WUFFS like approaches work better for algorithms like lz77 that are substantially bandwidth constrained. for something like a video codec, the computational intensity is much higher so you need better codegen to reach max speed

Re: Dav2d

#144

Post by tverbeure »

phkahler wrote: post #90
thrownthatway wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a compelling reason encoding needs to be done locally? The point of encoding is to reduce downstream bandwidth for the viewer, and upstream bandwidth for the distribution network. The content creator only needs to upload it once.

If you don't encode locally as the video is created, you either need to store RAW frames which takes enormous amount of storage, or you use a different format and suffer quality loss by transcending.

> you use a different format and suffer quality loss by transcending.

Compressing to AV1/h264/265 etc is really only done for the final version, but that doesn't mean that videos are stored in RAW format during editing, where it is very common to store frames locally in Apple ProRes, Avid DNxHD, or some other compressed format that's targeted towards professional editing.

Contrary to AV1 or whatever similar format which offer compression ratios of 1000x and more, these formats have a compression ratio of around 10x. They are very simple, and the quality loss is low enough that it doesn't matter. They also tend to store images with 30 bits per pixel instead of the 24 bpp that's normally used for streaming.

Re: Dav2d

#146

Post by SonOfLilit »

NorwegianDude wrote: post #109
BetterThanSober wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I'm underestimating HN's reach but I doubt we did that, probably traffic from a much bigger aggregator/forum

Hacker news doesn't generate much traffic, despite what people are saying. The host here has a limit of 160000 files served each day. That is extremely low. If the site has an icon, css, a js file and a few images it's 10 files each visit. That's will limit it to 16k visits/day. If there are more files loaded it might just handle a few thousand visits, and they have received more than that from HN now.

A decade ago I was on the front page and saw ~16k uniques/hour I think?

Re: Dav2d

#148

Post by toast0 »

pantalaimon wrote: post #113

I'm not quite convinced a 25% reduction in size is worth effectively obsoleting all devices that have hardware decoders for AV1 but will struggle to decode AV2

A new codec doesn't obsolete old devices. At least, not right away.

Studios still release new dvds with mpeg2 video. Online videos tend to be available in many codecs. Video conferencing tends to negotiate to best available or has settled on ancient codecs and won't change quickly.

Re: Dav2d

#150

Post by avaer »

If decode is becoming so complicated and expensive the hardware can't handle it, why not just go full neural, send latents, and run decode on tensor cores?

The answer is probably the same as for why not AV2 everything; a lot of hardware couldn't support it today. But in 10 years?

It seems we're running up against fundamental limits of human-engineered video codecs at this point. There might be a lesson in there.

Post reply on HN