H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC) • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by blattimwind » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

milansuk wrote: post #59

0-_-0 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way if saying it is that compression is understanding.

End-credits are just text. So it should be possible to put it through OCR and save only text, positions, and fonts. And the text is also possible to compress with a dictionary.

x264 is kinda absurdly good at compressing screencasts, even a nearly lossless 1440p screencast will only have about 1 Mbit/s on average. The only artifacts I can see are due to 4:2:0 chroma subsampling (i.e. color bleed on single-pixel borders and such), but that has nothing to do with the encoder, and would almost certainly not happen in 4:4:4, which is supported by essentially nothing as far as distribution goes.

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

#242

Post by mroche » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

ptsneves wrote: post #218

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The decoders are almost completely useless. You'd be surprised at how often these are used.

Indeed. From an article here on HN there is a lack of vaapi support on Firefox and I think Chrome in linux. Furthermore there are special profiles(looking at you H264) that only work reliably in software decoders.

Mozilla added VA-API support under Wayland sessions in FireFox 76, and it'll be coming to Xorg sessions in FireFox 80.

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

#243

Post by restalis » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 5:24 PM UTC

pkulak wrote: post #181

otterley wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the market is more than happy to pay a few cents or dollars per device to get better compression and lower transmission bandwidth. This observation has held true consistently in the 3 decades since compressed digital media was invented.

Why are we assuming H.266 is better than AV1? Or at least better enough to warrant all the trouble and cost of licensing?

I am not a fan of patent encumbered technologies, but here the assumption of being better has merit. There isn't much sense from a business prospective for a research team to publish a commercial solution that would exhibit inferior or even comparable performance to an existing free solution. As for the problem of convincing people to swallow the cost, just organize a show off campaign and leave the rest to sellers. That's how (at least) Apple does it.

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

#244

Post by centimeter » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

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…

You've flipped the causal relationship - societies capable of rapid invention are also going to be more likely to be legalistic.

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

#245

Post by eggsnbacon1 » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #63

corty wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market is rather unhappy. E.g. Win10 doesn't ship an H265 codec because it's too expensive.

At 99 cents for the add on, the decision to charge users smells more like a political decision than an economic one. The cost to Microsoft is undoubtedly far less than that. 99 cents is basically the bare minimum you can charge when you accept credit cards as a method of payment.

That's 1% of the cost of windows, for a video codec when there's already dozens of free alternatives

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

#246

Post by znpy » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

I'm not 100% sure about this. Just look at how hard China laughs at intellectual property and copyright in general and tell me if you still think the same.

Not being burdened by expensive license fees is a competitive advantage.

But then again, also not having to care about workers right is...

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

#247

Post by znpy » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 5:37 PM UTC

I wonder how small would one of those 700mb divx/xvid movies would be if compressed with this new encoding method.

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

#248

Post by the_pwner224 » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #173

jitendrac wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 carefull…

Let's also be clear, the still image will be the full resolution of the sensor. The video taken on the same camera is usually a cropped section of the sensor. You're also comparing a spatial compression (still image) vs a temporal compression (video), and at what compression levels are each image taken?

Additionally the images are not very compressed (edit: you mentioned that in your comment, sorry). While the RAW files can be a couple dozen megabytes and the losslessly compressed PNGs are still 5-15 mb, good cameras normally set the JPEG quality factor to a high amount and so even with a JPEG you're getting pretty close to a lossless image. Whereas in video you can often plainly notice the compression artifacts & softness. A more fair comparison would be the video file to a JPEG with equivalent visual quality.

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

#249

Post by prvc » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

It is mildly amusing that the very simple vector art "VVC" logo on their webpage is displayed by sending the viewer a 711 KB .jpg file.

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

#250

Post by prvc » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

TekMol wrote: post #82

At some point the compressed version of "Joker" will be 45 chars: "Sequel to Dark Night starring Joaquin Phoenix" Of course we will not have to film movies in the first place then. We will just put a description into a compressor start watching.

8 MiB Shrek is kind of an AV1 meme at this point.