AV1

Chase Butler
Chase Butler

When it will come out? Will hardware support it? Will it kill HEVC/H.265?
The Jew is strong with this one, but there doesn't seem to be any apparent problem in the surface. Well, they indeed hate paying royalties, maybe this is a genuine good thing?
Actually, will it even be good? Some reports say that it's shit.
If you want it enough, you can even see (((their))) star of david in the logo

Jordan Carter
Jordan Carter

They fell for the "microsoft in charge of standards" meme again.

I just wanted Daala now, not this shit in 2021. I don't care how much better it is on paper, if it's not in base ffmpeg it doesn't exist.

Liam Sanders
Liam Sanders

Daala fucking when.

Benjamin Cooper
Benjamin Cooper

Never. Xiph said themselves that they now focus on AV1.

Jeremiah Edwards
Jeremiah Edwards

Could any good come from that?

Xavier Gray
Xavier Gray

Yes, since you'll be using a common codec that's not only made by Google for WebM.

Gabriel Bennett
Gabriel Bennett

Daala
El Goog
This is news to me

Luis Brown
Luis Brown

The Webm spec currently calls for VP8 and VP9 codecs. VP8 and VP9 are led by Xiph. What Google does is sponsor the development of the reference implementation of Webm libraries and promote the Webm format to the Internet.

Landon James
Landon James

Nobody even "killed" x264 yet.
HEVC is a meme, it starts offering advantages only at completely unpractical speeds.

Christian Powell
Christian Powell

But that's wrong. VP8/9 are made by One, bought by Google; Xiph only did Daala (and Theora) which is being merged with VP10 and Cisco's Thor to produce AV1.

Jonathan Nelson
Jonathan Nelson

Not true, h.265 cuts bitrates by 1/3 to 3/4, even at SD sizes .

It's a shame nobody's doing anything with fractal codecs, or even wavelets. Still, I guess H.264/VP9 isn't so bad, compared to audio being stuck with '90s-era MP3 or images with '80s-era JPEG.

Jayden Williams
Jayden Williams

Not true, h.265 cuts bitrates by 1/3 to 3/4, even at SD sizes .

It's a shame nobody's doing anything with fractal codecs, or even wavelets. Still, I guess H.264/VP9 isn't so bad, compared to audio being stuck with '90s-era MP3 or images with '80s-era JPEG.

Nicholas Lee
Nicholas Lee

It also cuts gain/detail. If you want transparency without UHD, x264 is still the same or equal.

Julian Carter
Julian Carter

With a clusterfuck of big media companies behind it, they're probably too busy quarrelling about how to encumber the standard with DRM to actually finish the it.

Tyler Ramirez
Tyler Ramirez

We heard you the first time

Wyatt Morgan
Wyatt Morgan

Nobody even "killed" x264 yet.
x265 > VP9 > x264 > VP8

Josiah Robinson
Josiah Robinson

But that's only for relatively low bitrates. And both VP9 and x265 have a shit compression:complexity ratio compared to x264.

Jacob Jenkins
Jacob Jenkins

encoder > format > encoder > format
x264 > x265 > everything else

Oliver Hughes
Oliver Hughes

.t retard

Adam Rivera
Adam Rivera

Not true, h.265 cuts bitrates by 1/3 to 3/4, even at SD sizes .
So does 10bit x264.

Andrew Bennett
Andrew Bennett

if you use x264 properly ("veryslow" preset + appropriate "tune" option + crf mode + 10 bit), then it's different:
x264 and x265 > VP9 > poop > VP8

VP8 wastes bitrate even on completely stationary picture, what a shame

Lucas Wood
Lucas Wood

audio being stuck with '90s-era MP3
Musepack and Opus (for super low bitrates) are the evidence that you just said some horseshit.

Nathan Myers
Nathan Myers

t. larper

Xavier Perez
Xavier Perez

very slow
tune
10-bit
Dude, if you want to fuck with all the small options that a codec offers, then VP9 will give you far better results than that patented H.265. The only difference is that VP9 doesn't have user-friendly presets. Besides, good luck finding shit to play 10-bit videos at all.

Go try for yourself if you have time to waste:

ffmpeg -hide_banner -y \
-i lossless_input.ext \
-c:v libvpx-vp9 -pass 1 -speed 0 -threads '''(<REAL CPU CORES> - 1)''' -aq-mode 0 -auto-alt-ref 1 -frame-parallel 0 -g 9999 -lag-in-frames 25 -pix_fmt yuv420p -tile-columns 0 \
-maxrate '''N'''k -minrate 0 -b:v '''N'''k \
-map_metadata -1 -f webm /dev/null
&&
ffmpeg -hide_banner -y \
-i lossless_input.ext \
-c:v libvpx-vp9 -pass 2 -speed 0 -threads '''(<REAL CPU CORES> - 1)''' -aq-mode 0 -auto-alt-ref 1 -frame-parallel 0 -g 9999 -lag-in-frames 25 -pix_fmt yuv420p -tile-columns 0 \
-maxrate '''N'''k -minrate 0 -b:v '''N'''k \
-map_metadata -1 -f webm output.webm

Owen Cook
Owen Cook

Besides, good luck finding shit to play 10-bit videos at all
All the computers I tested, play them fine.

very slow
tune
10-bit
Dude, if you want to fuck with all the small options that a codec offers
Except these are not small, and they have obvious and stable meaning.
OTOH, VP9 options are complete nonsense.

-g 9999
Good bye, seeking.
Also, VP9 encoding is so slow it's not even funny.

Cooper Miller
Cooper Miller

then VP9 will give you far better results than that patented H.265

to clarify, I was speaking about x264.
Comparing VP9 to H.265 is kind of pointless until it beats the most potent H.264 encoder, x264. I didn't see it happen yet.

Dominic Rogers
Dominic Rogers

A

Aiden Robinson
Aiden Robinson

wavelets
Because wavelets are fucking garbage.

fractal
Meme. Most of video frames are <1% of regular self-similiarity to warrant fractals, why bother?

Isaiah King
Isaiah King

Since some people here don't seem to get why a bunch of Jews would team up to make something legitimately good, let me explain why it's in their interests to make something and release it for anyone to use.

If they all worked on their codecs separately, they wouldn't be as good, cause they can prevent the others from using their compression techniques. We only need one good one. Sending less data saves a lot of money for sites that deal with videos. They're releasing it for free so it will be adopted by everything and become the new standard. They're trying to keep legal Jewry out of it, since it happens to be profitable for them this time.

I believe that they started out by putting themselves in a legal trap where anyone who broke the rules of free use would get their own rights to the codec revoked. They know they're all Jews, but it's just profitable for all of them to work together on this.

Ryder Collins
Ryder Collins

The answers to all you questions comes down to "will warezfags support it". Nothing gets adopted as a standard unless it's supported by the warez scene. h.264 is still dominate there and will remain so until the next codec proves to be widely supported and easy to work with. h.265 is looking like the next logical choice at the moment but that can all change in time assuming the newer stuff is any good. Don't expect widespread hardware support until that time.

Jacob Adams
Jacob Adams

Warez fags don't care about free codecs at all. Quality means no re-encode if possible, only strip the drm and don't touch any codecs. Blu-Ray, Netflix and cam recorders use h.264, so the scene groups use h.264 too.

What about xvid? Xvid become the main codec of warez because it was free and it was compatible with the proprietary codec (divx players also played xvid if encoded with the right settings).
Also, a normie and pro-friendly frame-perfect free and stable video editor (VirtualDub) helped a lot, as xvid was its default and recommended codec when saving.
VP9 doesn't have either of these.

Colton Howard
Colton Howard

Is that supposed to be an argument of some sort?

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page