VP9 for everything

x264 and x265 is free as in FOSS as well. Patent law means jack shit for end users.

Because they compress better and are more widely supported by sites and companies that create videos that people actually care about.

>>59526589
VP9 is basically dead. It's okay to use in the meantime but AV1 a FOSS codec with actual industry backing is coming soon.

I use x265 for my personal use. I don't pay any because source is available freely.

Lack of HW encoders.

>>59526589
>It's free as in FOSS
Just like x265 and x264
AV1 will be the future, does anyone know if it will support lossless compression however?

Also, I once tried vpxenc before and it was really slow and buggy.

>>59526860
Man i hope AV1 is gonna be good, both for low res and high res content.

but i bet were still gonna be stuck on 264 and 265 forever regardless..

Can dream of one format to rule them all, one which is free too.

IIRC it uses OPUS for sound

>>59526975
>IIRC it uses OPUS for sound
I thought that video codecs did not care which sound codec you used. Shouldn't you be able to easily use FLAC with it?

>>59527006
Could be wrong, im just pretty sure i read that, since opus is free too, and is great.

>>59527036
>>59526975
AV1 can be used together with the audio format Opus in a future version of the WebM format for HTML5 web video and WebRTC

Eh, i remembered wrong, but there.

(((They))) will find MPEG patents from AV1 unless it is completely different from traditional MC + DCT design.

Because VP9 takes significantly longer to encode and there aren't many HW decoders.

Also popular encoders like staxrip and megui don't support them.

>>59526589
Awful hardware support. I just build a Kodibox with an Odroid C2 and it cannot into VP9 like most others.

Just use xVid for video + MP3 for audio

>>59526589
Slow as hell with bad rate control.

>>59526589
>Why aren't all new rips encoded in VP9
It's shit.
>It's a viable alternative to h265.
Wrong.
>there is no reason why people shouldn't use it
I guess you never tried encoding, did you.

>>59526916
>Surely Google can write a good encoder for VP8 now, with all its money!
-- me, in 2010
>Okay, VP8 doesn't matter anyway, surely Google can write a good encoder for VP9 now, with all its money!
-- me, in 2013
>Well, they better spend the effort on AV1 now, VP9 is dead. Surely it won't end up as every On2 codec so far, this time!
-- me, in 2019

>>59527468
i remember being excited for VP7
i'm not going to get too hopeful about AV1

>>59526589

i hate 265 poluting my sources too. 264 is as universal as mp3, and i like it that way. ill only shift once av1 is ready

>>59526589
Inferior technology. Why do you care? It's not our problem when your trisqueer or gnonsense install can't play state of the art formats, you know.

>>59527511
>i hate 265 poluting my sources too. 264 is as universal as mp3, and i like it that way. ill only shift once av1 is ready
You're in for a long long wait.

>>59527487
Haha, right. Arguably the pre-acquisition On2 was even worse stuff (not that it meant libvpx is very good). Closed vfw encoder with slow speeds and no updates IIRC.

Meanwhile x264 came with frequent updates (and improvements) and rest is history.

VP9 had awful hardware support. A Google codec and even my Chromebook Pixel LS would take off like a jet when playing a YouTube video over 720p.

>>59526767
>h265
>compress better
No.

>>59527640
I did a few 2-pass 1 and 4 mbps vbr encodes with VP9 and HEVC about a year ago and the HEVC video looked significantly better than the VP9 video and took significantly less time to encode.

Not sure if VP9 has improved since then though.