Re:AV1 beats x264 and libvpx-vp9 in practical use case
by lern_too_spel on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @11:59PM
(#16807918)
VP9 had more browser support than H.265, the codec it competed against. It was Apple's hamfisted attempt to hinder royalty free codecs for the web (among other web standards) that gave some users a bad battery experience. https://ngcodec.com/news/2017/10/21/why-we-are-supporting-vp...
That Google didn't force VP8 over H.264 is what led to the unfortunate situation with Firefox needing to ship a binary blob. I'm happy that Google stuck to its guns in the next round.
Re:AV1 beats x264 and libvpx-vp9 in practical use case
by TheForumTroll on Wednesday April 11, 2018 @05:36AM
(#16809438)
How is serving better quality with less bandwidth "ham fisted"? Both Netflix and Google says the codec is better. If anyone was ham fisted it was Apple who fought to stop free codecs'.
Re:AV1 beats x264 and libvpx-vp9 in practical use case
by acdha on Wednesday April 11, 2018 @08:34AM
(#16810430)
He explained that in the same sentence. An imperceptible quality improvement is not worth an order of magnitude increase in CPU usage, and the network savings aren’t enough to make up for dropped frames on hardware which is more than a year old.
Re:AV1 beats x264 and libvpx-vp9 in practical use case
by abritinthebay on Wednesday April 11, 2018 @11:27AM
(#16812096)
Netflix says VP9 is 20% worse than 265... so what are you referring to?
But I'd argue that the MPEG codecs roughly slot in between each tier of VP8, VP9, and AV1, because the MPEG codecs are tremendously flexible (as can be seen in Netflix's tests [2]), have dozens of competing encoders of different qualities, and dozens of profiles that constrain or unlock advanced features. So in a way, it can be simultaneously true that AV1's competition is both H.265 and whatever comes after H.265.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13230676 [2] https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/more-efficient-mobile-en...