yes, thats the entire meme.
if your going to tell me to use vlc, you have a point but think of the average user, they are paying for it unironically π. just what have we come to...
this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
293 points (100.0% liked)
196
16504 readers
12 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Google Pixel also record in HEVC. The problem with AV1 is that unlike HEVC it wasn't made to be easily encoded in hardware. Which is probably also the fault of patents, but still...
Yeah mostly just blame MPEG. They make great tech and then make sure to suck every drop of blood/money out of those who want to use it
Seems like it kinda improved with H.266, but since it's still not completely royalty-free, fuck that codec lol
Yeah Iβm hoping the tech consortium that built AV1 continues to push through with new releases, though theyβll be fighting mpeg every step of the way on patents and shit
Honestly webm is perfectly fine and free. Whenever I'm making something I always use webm and opus and it's never let me down. Opus is also fucking awesome, unequivocally the best lossy audio codec for any use. Speech and music. Low bitrate and high bitrate (which for Opus is ~160kbps).
Transcoder here, if you're looking to leverage quality/file size benefits of your codec, you don't encode with hardware.
As a rule of fist hardware encoding is better served for streaming purposes where you need to crush a raw 1080p or 1440p stream into something that's actually a sensible bandwith as fast as possible, especially if you're streaming 60fps because your algorithm has a time limit of 16ms per frame.
If file size with preservation of quality is something you care about, you encode as slowly and thouroughly as you can, which is why x264 on your CPU will outperform encoders like NVENC any time.
When it comes to HEVC, software encoding is only really worth it if you have the time to spare, because x265 takes between 3x and 5x as long as encoding the same footage through x264, with a 15-20% smaller file size at best. It is also more intensive to decode, which is why you still see many files with a H.264 codec.
Wouldn't it be the chipset vendors who would implement AV1 (or any other codec) in hardware?
Yes, AV1 is supported in 11th gen intel. They were also part of the consortium that pushed for it, along with Apple and Microsoft, among others. Itβs almost a response to HEVC, and is far newer (2013 vs 2018). But yeah, tech companies were tired of paying for MPEG licensing so they tried to create an open format. Apple, like any business will try to milk their HEVC contracts because they were so expensive, but their chips are supporting it now too.
https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-confirms-meteor-lake-has-av1-video-encoding-and-decoding-support
https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1694598394
Yes, and there are some implementations now, but it's more complicated than for HEVC and also less efficient (I think)
AV1 was designed with hardware decoding in mind. The reason it isnβt as widely supported on hardware is because it was released 5 years after HEVC. It takes a while for new codecs to get hardware support, and even longer for that support to become ubiquitous.
Also, AV1 has the uphill battle of not being able to use any of the patented technology in HEVC.
We're talking about encoding here
I remember when Google was the good guy.
VP9 (Google's codec) is also royalty free (and supports transparency, unlike AV1)
~~Don't~~ be evil