One more time What is wrong with it?

>>57978655
Slow and big internet sites have to license to use it....

>>57978655
1. why the ever-living FUCK would you use this when webm/vp9 exist
2. Apple tirelessly tries to cuck their users into using it by gimping webm support on Safari

>>57978655
Greedy patent royalties.

AV1 will replace it.

>>57978684
vp9 is inferior to hevc

>have to pay to use it

>90% of devices still don't have dedicated encoding hardware for it so it drains battery like a bitch

again in some years after even the cheapest mediaTek phones can handle it properly, and assuming google/other doesn't come with a new codec to fragment the market even more, I'd say we might begin to see use of it at the end of 2017

>>57978655
Slow as fuck to encode and the requirement to pay royalties.

>>57978696
This is true, but only due to the risk of patent lawsuits.
In any case, AV1 is said to already be superior to HEVC, and we just need to wait a couple more months before every (relevant) platform supports it.

>>57978696
how so, aside from the fact that vp9 is poorly supported?

>>57978655
Too small file sizes compared to the high quality

>>57978722
>and assuming google/other doesn't come with a new codec to fragment the market even more

Have you been living under a rock?

AV1 is coming in 2017 and is backed by fucking everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOMedia_Video_1

>>57978692
>AV1 will replace it.
Sure, wait for another 10 years

>>57978655
High CPU usage.

>>57978722
>and assuming google/other doesn't come with a new codec to fragment the market even more, I'd say we might begin to see use of it at the end of 2017

In only a few months, AV1 is releasing, an open, royalty free alternative. By the end of 2017 HEVC will be dead and buried. Literally every releveant hardware creator and video service is backing it.

Adobe
Allegro DVT
Amazon
AMD
ARM
Ateme
BBC Research & Development
Broadcom
Chips&Media
Cisco
Google
Intel
Ittiam
Microsoft
Mozilla
Netflix
NVIDIA
Polycom
Vidyo
VeriSilicon

MPEG went full retard with their fucking RIDICULOUS licensing and up front cost for HEVC. They're deader than dead by this time next year.

>>57978763
This looks true to me.
I dl most of my tv show in x265 cause it's light as fuck when I don't see any lower quality.
I didn't know x265 wasn't free (x264 was free ?)
So what is THE free CODEC ?
Is there as good at the rest ?
Do you find it on standard torrent website ?

>>57978786
Every big CPU and GPU manufacturer, as well as some huge content distributors are backing it. Adoption will outpace HEVC easily.

http://aomedia.org/about-us/

>>57978786

>The bitstream format is projected to be frozen between the end of 2016 and March 2017. First compatible hardware components are expected to become available within 12 months after that.

A year, at best.

File: xifish.png (6KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 100x100px

>>57978812
Xiph.Org too.

>>57978830

Most notably for video content, Youtube is planning to have all the higher resolution opens on AV1 within 6 months of the release.

>>57978655
Nothing if you have hardware and software capable of decoding it. But there are enough common devices that can't handle it that it normally doesn't make sense to use it for content below 4K.

>>57978830
>>57978812

>Youtube, Amazon, Netflix

Ok so HEVC as an online codec is basically instantly dead then, these 3 are probably 99% video streaming.

>>57978818
Yeah annoying as fuck... Download x265 because of the small file sizes, but the quality is top class

>>57978887
except the quality is ass, theres no fine detail

kinda like a fucking meme rip, cant remember the name but all the normies used it

Last i checked was with black sails, x246 @1.3GB vs x256 @ 700mb, the 700mb looked "ok" if you need glasses, but details were blurry as fucking shit.

also it had 2.0 sound instead of 5.1, which is also shit.

>>57978818
>I didn't know x265 wasn't free
x265 is just a piece of software, which itself is free.
The codec, H.265, HEVC or whatever you're going to call it, is not. It is patent encumbered and requires people to pay royalties to use it.
These costs can actually be pretty substantial, so that's why so many companies are looking to get away from these sorts of codecs.
>x264 was free
No. Its exactly the same problem.

>>57978927

>x246 @1.3GB vs x256 @ 700mb

That's a near 50% bitrate drop, you retard. Of course it's going to lose detail at 50 fucking percent, it's a codec, not a magical spell.

>>57978833
I'm talking about encoding speed nigga.. vp9 encoder still fucking slow till now

>>57978938
that is literally what people are saying should look the FUCKING SAME.

keep in mind that the 264 had 5.1 sound and the shit 265 had 2.0, so its probably closer to 1.1 vs 700

Also, it doesnt even fucking matter since EVERYONE is doing these shit low size x265 encodes.

Sure it might be equal at 900~ mb or something, but everyone is doing fucking 50% off encodes.

>>57978944

ARM, Intel, Nvidia and AMD are all members of AOMedia, the creator of AV1, with the first 3 being founding members of the group. They have all committed to having hardware support within 12 months of the standard releasing.

>>57978938
Sory to interupt but what is bitrate ?
I totaly noob about video encoding.
Is there a nice article or shit to understand all of those ?

>>57978818
>I didn't know x265 wasn't free

x265 is a software, HEVC/H.265 is the codec that x265 encodes into.

It's not free by a long shot, it's actually ridiculously overpriced in some places. The royalties are:

$0.20 per unit of media that uses HEVC, so that's 20 cents for every copy of Adobe Premiere that encodes HEVC, 20 cents per 4K bluray that uses HEVC, etc and this goes all the way up until you reach the cap of $25,000,000 dollars in unit royalties (H.264 capped at $6.5m)

You also have to pay $0.80 for every 4K bluray player you sell, and if it uses more than Main Profile, it's $2.00 per player you sell.

And HERE'S THE KICKER. If you distribute any media using HEVC (Be it online videos,, NEtflix Hollywood films on 4K bluray, etc) you have to pay them 0.5% OF ALL YOUR REVENUE ON THAT PRODUCT.

By contrast, AV1 is open and royalty free. Everyone has free, unlimited access to use it.

Google, Amazon and Netflix are founding members of the AV1 company. That means Youtube, Amazon Video, Twitch and Netflix are all creating this codec. There is no "Will AV1 win", it absolutely will because those 4 sites make up over 90% of online video streaming and will all be using it.

>On November 22, 2016, HEVC Advance announced a major initiative, revising their policy to allow software implementations of HEVC to be distributed directly to consumer mobile devices and personal computers royalty free, without requiring a patent license.

Kek, that's funny. A little late for them to be begging NOW ain't it?

>>57979019
Bitrate is how much data it took to encode every second of video. Higher bitrate=larger file and better quality (generally speaking)
The reason for newer encoders is so that video files can get smaller without losing (perceived) quality.

>>57979019
>what is bitrate
Literally the number of bits per second required for the video stream.
i.e. How much data is required.
>Is there a nice article or shit to understand all of those ?
https://www.xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml

>>57979060
thx dude!

>>57979056
Ok, so AV1 is (will be, it isn't realease yet, if I understand well) free to use but is it free on the licence ? Like GPL or BSD and co ..
Thx for all those answer guies

>>57978655

it lags on my 6 core processor and the quality doesn't seem any better

>>57979166
It's released under a BSD 2-Clause license.
http://aomedia.org/license/software/

>>57979175
Stop lying. I can play it on a piece of shit 10 year old PC.

That said, it's non-free so the sooner it dies the better.

>>57979060
Im not the guy who asked but thanks for the link, interesting video.

>>57978655

destroyer of laptop battery-life, just to save some fucking bytes, which everyone has plenty of anyway

fuck that shit

>>57979467

>some fucking bytes

It's around 30% compression for equal quality, that would save me over 6TB of space if I converted my library. That's not some small amount

>Laptop

Oh, you're just retarded, nevermind.

>>57979561

>saving every shit you watch

how about saving only those things you actually liked, no way you could fill that much space with only favorite movies

manage your files properly you fuck

File: 562ce597c64d0a757e9f82d6779d2581.jpg (41KB, 444x600px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 444x600px

>>57978655
>One more time
>What is wrong with it?
No widespread 10-bit HEVC HW decoding support on phones yet. That's really it. As long as you have a desktop i3 or A8 APU then you will get around 16 FPS encoding 10-bit HEVC on the fast preset which while still slow is at least better than the 1-2 FPS you would get with the first few versions of the x265 HEVC encoding library.

Here is the link for the latest 10-bit HEVC encoder btw:

https://builds.x265.eu

>AV1
>yet another codec based on Fourier transform
>not using Wavelet transform

>>57979885
>As long as you have a desktop i3 or A8 APU then you will get around 16 FPS encoding 10-bit HEVC on the fast preset

Holy shit what? I have an i7 4790k and I encode 10 bit 1080p HEVC at around 7 fps.

>>57978655
Speaking of HEVC, there's also the subject of "new image formats based on video keyframes."
WebP (based on VP8) pretty much flopped, but BPG (based on HEVC) apparently has huge gains over every other format.

Of course, HEVC is patent encumbered, so I wonder how an AV1 based image format will work out?

>>57980197
>so I wonder how an AV1 based image format will work out?

It won't. We'll be using jpegs and PNGs until the heat death of the universe. The image format war is over and for some reason never really reignites like video

>>57980222
How strange. Everyone keeps making new image formats that seem to get better and better, but at most one or two vendors adopt them, and everyone else ignores it.

Surely with AV1 being developed by Microsoft, Mozilla AND Google, they could adopt a single image format if it gives significant improvements?

>>57980306
>Surely with AV1 being developed by Microsoft, Mozilla AND Google, they could adopt a single image format if it gives significant improvements?

That is a good point.

With Microsoft, Google and Mozilla on board, you basically just captured 99% of the web browser market either directly, or indirectly through forks and reused browser engines. They could potentially attempt to strong arm change into the market, much like Google and Mozilla are murdering flash by dropping it entirely since everyone is sick of it and its security problems.

The problem would be external, things like phones and cameras that are used to take most of the images you see online, not have any reason to change when they know their jpegs will still open online any time. Google has a bit of power there with Android but it's still not as clear cut, and Apple entirely avoided even becoming a member of the AV1 consortium so they clearly have no interest in better formats.

>>57980350
>Apple entirely avoided even becoming a member of the AV1 consortium
Probably because Apple owns some of the patents related to HEVC. (Then again, so do Cisco, Polcom and Vidyo, and they've joined the Alliance)

But yeah, I see your point.
I guess digital image formats will always be slow to adopt.

>>57980487
>Probably because Apple owns some of the patents related to HEVC.

Well that solves the mystery right quick.

>>57979467
How's DivX treating you?

>>57978655
I sure hope nothing. I am midway trans-coding all my porn.

>>57980100
>Holy shit what? I have an i7 4790k and I encode 10 bit 1080p HEVC at around 7 fps.
Try the newest x265 encoder, use a CRF instead of an arbitrary bit rate, and use the fast preset.

File: a.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

it does an amazing job at low as fuck bitrates

for things like tv shows i've already watched, it does a great job minimizing how much space they take up

pic related, 375M file

>>57979060
>>57979360
truly an excellent video imo
i watched it almost 2 years ago and it was the inspiration of a major school project

>>57981076
niga that looks like fuckin garbage

>>57981234
it's not as good as the ~4G source it was encoded from, but you'd be lying through your teeth if you said that was unwatchable
i can't afford infinite space, so it was either that or deleting them
you can't watch or share a deleted file

>>57978722
Decoding

>>57978812
MPEG's terms are no more differen than with x264. The problem is there are other organizations asking for payments on top.

>>57978960
Then the problem is all about the people who don't know how to properly encode something, not the codec itself.
It all depends on settings and sample.

>>57978655
(((patent pools)))

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/08/reject-hevc-advance-licensing-terms.html

Daily reminder to reject HEVC

>>57984000
We don't give a shit and neither do pirates (our heroes).

>>57979056
>$0.20 per unit of media that uses HEVC, so that's 20 cents for every copy of Adobe Premiere that encodes HEVC
How do they include it in ffmpeg if it's not free?

>licensing.

Which means there's absolutely nothing wrong with HEVC.

The movie industry cartels should have to pay zillions anyway, so if the licensing for HEVC is expensive it just makes it even better.

If you are paying anything or reading licenses to use HEVC encoded files, be it playing them or encoding them, you're doing it wrong.

>>57978655
x264 exists and it's fine.

>>57979056
So I guess its safe to assume BDA will launch another UHD-BD spec, since all the big boys are backing it. Which would force people to upgrade their hardware again. This is BD vs 3D BD all over again.

Im just curious if they will finally include 4k 3D in their spec, since its one of the most requested/missed features on UHD BD.

>>57980487
Apple's Le Edge TM will bleed them dry. Even hardcore macfags are getting sick of their bullshit. Apple slowed down bluray adoption, killed flash, but I doubt they can get away with not supporting AV1 when everyone else will be pushing for it and there are no disadvantages to argue about.

>>57978655
1. Not Free
2. Not enough technical improvement over 264 to compensate loss of universal hardware accel. Even a phone from 2008 will run your 264 rip unprocessed.

AV1 is what we're all waiting for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOMedia_Video_1

Why have you not joined the AV1 master race, /g/?

>>57978812
does it do drm?

File: Berie_goes_to_e621.jpg (127KB, 800x756px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x756px

>>57984604
BBC and Netflix are involved.
Very likely.

>>57978684
>why the ever-living FUCK would you use this when webm/vp9 exist
It is usable encoder worth something, libvpx is literally "stick with x264". I mean, you want compression from next gen coded, don't you.

>>57978812
Optimistic.
>By the end of 2017 HEVC will be dead and buried

by teh end of 2017, AV1 might be finished as format. Then we wait 3 years to get usable encoder instead of libvpx. Which BTW has still not happened for VP8 and VP9.

Inb4 just the ffmpeg guy with Eve writes something passable, but it won't ever be released to the masses.

>>57984770
Pretty much this.
If/when something better comes along, then we switch to that.
Right now, in the present, nothing beats HEVC.

By the way, will this AV1 meme really use webm instead of based matroska?

>>57984845
For internet streaming yes

WebM is based on MKV after all

>>57978655
Patent royalities, hardware decoding not widespread, still slow to encode and it looks like it's not ever going to get adopted on the web.

>>57978684
>1. why the ever-living FUCK would you use this when webm/vp9 exist
Because HEVC offers better quality at the same data rates, especially at extremely low data rates.

>>57984179
No clue, though I assume FFmpeg might pay some kind of royalty. Because HEVC has two patent pools, and MPEG LA charges "US $0.20
per hardware or software implementation", though HEVC Advance makes an exception for software-only implementations.

Maybe FFmpeg is actually paying that 20 cents per download through donations or something?

>>57984845
WebM is just a simplified Matroska container meant for streaming. So yes.

>>57986903
FFmpeg doesn't pay anything.
It only distributes code and you don't have to pay for code - just for compiled binaries being downloaded/sold. x265 uses the same thing to their advantage, that's why you will only find builds on videolan's page.

>>57978655
I prefer h.264. it looks better, it seeks better and I don't have CPU spikes.

h.265 sucks right now.

ps: and those meme google codecs that nothing supports suck even more. vp9 etc are utter garbage.

>>57987840
>>57986903
Exactly. FFmpeg doesn't pay a thing. There's no reason to, and there's not even a way to. If FFmpeg would have to pay to distribute source code, then h265 would stand so little of a chance on the desktop market. Who doesn't use VLC? Imagine there suddenly being a price for h264, h265, mp3, whatever of the bazillion of codecs it supports?