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

H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

newsletter.fraunhofer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 435 posts

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#151

Post by RBURBURXEIVG3KO »

sparkling wrote: post #80
dahfizz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a hint: > Because H.266/VVC was developed with ultra-high-resolution video content in mind, the new standard is particularly beneficial when streaming 4K or 8K videos on a flat screen TV. Compressing video is very different from gzipping a file. It's more about human perception than algorithms, really. The question is "what data can we delete without people noticing?", and it makes sense that answer is differ…

So compressing a 1080p video with H266 will not result in similar file size/quality improvements as a 4k video? How much are we looking at for 1080p, 10%?

I think that for 1080p there wasn't much of an improvement between h.264 and h.265. This will likely also be true between h.265 and h.266.

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#152

Post by jitendrac »

sparkling wrote: post #80
dahfizz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a hint: > Because H.266/VVC was developed with ultra-high-resolution video content in mind, the new standard is particularly beneficial when streaming 4K or 8K videos on a flat screen TV. Compressing video is very different from gzipping a file. It's more about human perception than algorithms, really. The question is "what data can we delete without people noticing?", and it makes sense that answer is differ…

So compressing a 1080p video with H266 will not result in similar file size/quality improvements as a 4k video? How much are we looking at for 1080p, 10%?

yup, from the example I remember(I read it through link on HN but cannot find it in quick search, I wish I could link it),

if you film(still film no movement) the macbook pro top to bottom in h264/MP4 at 1024 p resolution and again you take a picture from your camera.

the results will be shocking,

the video of 5-10 seconds will have lower storage size than the size of single Image. but when you inspect video carefully you will see the tiny details are missing, like the edges are not as sharp for metal body, the gloss of metal is bit different, the tiny speaker holes on top of keyboard are clear in Images and can be individually examined while in video they are fuzzy pixelated and so on.

so, The end results: A 5 second video with 10s of frames per second is smaller in size than single Image taken from same camera.

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#153

Post by cyphar »

RBURBURXEIVG3KO wrote: post #148
cyphar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While they are patent-encumbered in the strictest sense of the word, they are not as aggressively licensed as H.266 -- which is what GP was lamenting. Licensing H.266 under the GPL(v3) wouldn't erase the existence of the patents and it would still be "patent-encumbered" in the same sense that VP8/9 and AV1 are. And retaliation clauses are present in basically every free software license that has clauses dealing with…

Wouldn't Apache 2 be a better license for this since it is explicit on patents?

GPL is the example GP used, which is why I referenced it. It's not really important what free software license it would be (though GPLv3 does have an entire section (s11) which is all about patents -- that's why it's compatible with Apache-2.0).

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#154

Post by Cu3PO42 »

DrBazza wrote: post #9

Naively hoped I'd read 'this will be released to the community under a GPL license' or similar. Instead found the words 'patent' and 'transparent licensing model'. I appreciate that it costs money and time to develop these algorithms, but when you're backed by multi-billion dollar "partners from industry including Apple, Ericsson, Intel, Huawei, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and Sony" perhaps they could swallow the costs? It…

Disclaimer: I work at a Fraunhofer institute, though not Fraunhofer HHI, which developed this codec, and I have no intimate knowledge on the financing of that institute or this project in particular. But some basic principles apply to all institutes the same.

Fraunhofer gets roughly 30% of its funding from public sources, the remainder is raised on a per-project basis. It's a fair assumption that those industry partners provided some funds towards the development here. Maybe they even covered all the payroll costs for the involved scientists for the duration of the project.

And yet more income means more money for other research projects. Maybe ones that are not as commercially interesting, or for which a partner decides to terminate a contract rather unexpectedly. While I am also a fan of OSS and would love for work like this to either have no patents or a liberal patent grant, I can also appreciate the desire to fund your research institute.

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#155

Post by jononor »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #81
jononor wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A measure that has consistently high agreement when evaluated by humans, repeatable across laboratories. Image quality tests can (and are) be conducted in a structured fashion.

No such measure exists, at least not one that can’t be gamed.

No if you allow / don't control for attempts to game it then no such metric can be made. One attempt to counter this is to use multiple independent labs.

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#156

Post by Cu3PO42 »

geodel wrote: post #55
DrBazza wrote: post #9

Naively hoped I'd read 'this will be released to the community under a GPL license' or similar. Instead found the words 'patent' and 'transparent licensing model'. I appreciate that it costs money and time to develop these algorithms, but when you're backed by multi-billion dollar "partners from industry including Apple, Ericsson, Intel, Huawei, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and Sony" perhaps they could swallow the costs? It…

> perhaps they could swallow the costs? It is 2020 after all. They should swallow so people again come back and say they are doing it to kill competition? Just received bill from doctor's visit for hundreds of dollar, I guess things are not gonna be free in 2020 after all.

Ironically in Germany, where Fraunhofer is located, you would have received no such bill.

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#157

Post by DavidVoid »

pedrovhb wrote: post #126
sp332 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know much about H.266, but some of the advances in H.265 depended on players having enough RAM to hold a bunch of previous decoded frames, so they could be referred to by later compressed data. Newer codecs tend to have a lot more options for the encoder to tune, so they need a combination of faster CPUs and smarter heuristics to explore the space of possible encodings quickly.

I wonder if instead of heuristics, machine learning could be used to figure out the best parameters.

That seems likely at least.

You could actually use ML for all of the video decoding, but that research is still in it's early stages. It has been done rather well with still images [1], so I'm sure it'll eventually be done with video too.

Those ML techniques are still a little slow and require large networks (the one in [1] decodes to PNG at 0.7 megapixels/s and its network is 726MB) so more optimizations will be needed before they can see any real-world use.

[1] https://hific.github.io/ HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23652753

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#158

Post by vertex-four »

anticensor wrote: post #131
vertex-four wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, unlike copyright, you don't even have to know that someone else patented something in order to infringe on a patent and have them come out of the woodwork later. It's just even more expensive if you do know. The patent system was not designed to have every tiny little technique patented, and this is its failure mode.

> It's just even more expensive if you do know. In the USA. Wilful and unwilful infringement of the patent costs the same in Europe.

Luckily, software patents are unenforceable in the EU, so for many of us on this site that's irrelevant.

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#159

Post by balls187 »

trentnix wrote: post #150
grishka wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my humble opinion, that license mess set back innovation in the portable audio space by a good 5 years. Seeing all this, I'm convinced that copyright in general and patent system in particular does more harm than good by slowing down the technical progress of the humanity as a whole for the sake of some already rich people becoming a bit richer. The initial idea behind patent system was sensible, but the way it'…

Seeing all this, I'm convinced that copyright in general and patent system in particular does more harm than good by slowing down the technical progress of the humanity as a whole for the sake of some already rich people becoming a bit richer There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. There are certainly abuses…

> Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground.

Changing patent length (pc's suggestion) is hardly seems like burning the whole thing to the ground.

In the US, if I understand correctly, there are ways to defend against patent abuse, though it typically involves costly legal fees. Fees many cannot justify in spending.

Addressing patent challenges may be a way to protect innovators, both those who should gain reward for their innovations, and those who seek to grain reward by building upon innovations.

Re: H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

#160

Post by mtgx »

cyphar wrote: post #45
p_l wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dirty secret of video codecs is that you can't make a modern video codec that isn't patent encumbered, which in turn makes it so that even if they wanted to be open, they go for defensive patents, which in turn perpetuate the situation. At least the patent licenses usually used with MPEG mean that private use of open source implementations is free.

> The dirty secret of video codecs is that you can't make a modern video codec that isn't patent encumbered The existence of Theora, VP8, VP9, and now AV1 seems to contradict that theory. You could argue that they infringe on some unknown patents, but that is also arguably true of patent cabals like MPEG (you just hope that the cabal is big enough that there aren't any patentholders lurking outside). The only differe…

> but that is also arguably true of patent cabals like MPEG (you just hope that the cabal is big enough that there aren't any patentholders lurking outside)

Apparently, they aren't. There are at least 2 other patent pools that claim patents for HEVC, and I think I saw 3 in some other article before:

https://streaminglearningcenter.com/codecs/hevc-ip-mess-wors...

Post reply on HN