Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AV1 Beats x264 and Libvpx-Vp9 in Practical Use Case (facebook.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

An anonymous reader shares a blog post by Facebook engineer: We tested AV1 (a new open-source, royalty-free media codec) under conditions that closely match the most common real-world use cases for Facebook video. Our test examined AV1's performance vs. practical open source video encoders that can be deployed to a practical production system, rather than merely testing efficiency vs. standard reference software encoders (i.e., H.264/AVC Joint Model or JM). By structuring the test this way, we were able to show how the codec will perform in a true production environment compared with current widely used alternatives, such as x264 and libvpx-vp9.

Our testing shows AV1 surpasses its stated goal of 30% better compression than VP9, and achieves gains of 50.3%, 46.2% and 34.0%, compared to x264 main profile, x264 high profile and libvpx-vp9, respectively. The new codec requires longer encoding times vs. current alternatives, however, due to increased complexity. Our tests were conducted primarily with Standard Definition (SD) and High Definition (HD) video files, because those are currently the most popular video formats on Facebook. But because AV1's performance increased as video resolution increased, we conclude the new compression codec will likely deliver even higher efficiency gains with UHD/4K and 8K content.

96 comments

  1. How about by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    AV1 compared to x265?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re: How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. x265 comparison is the most important one...

    2. Re:How about by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also: What's the decoder efficiency? Does it have hardware decoding on mainstream CPUs/GPUs?

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:How about by afidel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Royalty free and supported by all the major players goes a lot farther than a few percentage points so if it's even close AV1 wins. It also helps that they got the input of the hardware guys and that the algorithm is optimized for hardware implementations, combine that with the royalty free status and you can expect rapid uptake in the mobile space, something x265 has failed to achieve.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the x264 comparison is taken as a reference, the x265 is around the same efficiency which is highly dependent of the material of course, and individual settings and tweaks. The real test begins when AV1 is integrated into other software, exposed to the world of video containing moving water and documented as well as x265 is.

    5. Re:How about by crow · · Score: 1

      I'm under the impression that AV1 is designed to be decoded using existing GPU shaders, so it's probably just a matter of software updates.

      As to doing it on a CPU, I'm curious as to how it compares with x265, as I have a system that can't quite keep up with x265 in software for 1080p (older CPU and GPU). Would AV1 be better or worse?

    6. Re:How about by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Time has shown that that for the most part "royalty free" doesn't mean a whole lot (ie, while Ogg and Matroska are perfectly functional, they never became the dominant forms used in their sectors).

      x265 is catching on slowly because a lot of things don't have hardware decoding for it yet and it's pretty intensive to do using CPU alone. If AV1 isn't any better in that regard, then it won't gain any ground compared to x265 there.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    7. Re:How about by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      What about quality? They measure compression performance, but not if the resulting video files are of equivalent quality.

      Then again it's Facebook, shitty quality video doesn't matter.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:How about by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      May go further than a few but let the numbers speak. Hardware H265 encoders are common. The algorithm is not the reason that encoders aren't in the mobile space.

    9. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I'm under the impression that AV1 is designed to be decoded using existing GPU shaders, so it's probably just a matter of software updates.

      As to doing it on a CPU, I'm curious as to how it compares with x265, as I have a system that can't quite keep up with x265 in software for 1080p (older CPU and GPU). Would AV1 be better or worse?

      I'm under the impression that your favorite finish is to slowly, lovingly delicately lick every particle of shit off your gay lover's cock. Yes you are definitely a "bottom".

    10. Re:How about by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 0

      I haven't seen any benchmarks yet for AV1, but the impact of software decoding 720p on a mobile device with XVC (a more proprietary codec with similar compression claims) is reported to be limited (~15% reduction in battery life with continuous 720p viewing).

      It might take a while for decent implementations of AV1 software decoders to come around.

    11. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care about it being open source, I care about quality and efficiency. HEVC is already supported everywhere, so that is what I am going to use.

    12. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      grow a sack.

    13. Re:How about by trabby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ogg and Matroska are contrainers not codecs. AV1 is a codec.

    14. Re:How about by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Spotify uses Vorbis, although we're all trying to get them to switch to Opus.

      Similarly, I want the FDR Museum to switch its sound archives to Opus. I might buy their lossless original digital files, de-noise them with Audacity, Opus them, and republish them so the library can have the cleaned-up versions. Problem is they're $12.75 each and there are like 314 of them and they'd cost $4,000. Likewise, some of these aren't public domain and can't be rebroadcast.

      Opus contains a CELP algorithm component that performs like Speex on speech data, and a general psychoacoustic algorithm like Vorbis on the remaining data. It's prone to vastly-superior compression rates at high quality. It's also better-suited for hardware decoding than Vorbis (uses a lot less RAM).

      400 hours of speech would likely encode to little over a gigabyte at decent quality. 400 hours of music is more like 15 gigabytes.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    15. Re: How about by Type44Q · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They say "don't knock it 'till you try it..."

      ... sounds like you tried it.

    16. Re:How about by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      Time has shown that that for the most part "royalty free" doesn't mean a whole lot (ie, while Ogg and Matroska are perfectly functional, they never became the dominant forms used in their sectors).

      Well Ogg and Matroska are container formats, if you mean Vorbis (2000) it was extremely late to the party compared to MP3 (1993) and missed the whole revolution. You can use Matroska with H.264/HEVC, if you mean Theora, the VPx codecs, Dirac and the other alternative codecs I'll agree they lost badly to H.264 and I think it's mostly because they never moved out of the software research stage and into accelerated hardware. After Google bought On2 then VP9 became something of a trial balloon for that through Android, now it looks like a broad alliance is ready to kick MPEG to the curb. I wouldn't bet on history repeating itself this time.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re:How about by jellomizer · · Score: 0

      Free doesn't mean it doesn't have a cost to it.
      The free software movement has a tenancy of playing me too, with their non-free competitors. This is more of a marketing game then a technical game.
      Linux was the Unix clone.
      KDE/Gnome was to make Linux easy to use like Windows.
      Star/Open/LibreOffice is just like Microsoft office.

      While if you looked at Apple's historic advertising it was less comparing themselves with their competitors, and more separating themselves with their competitors.

      These technical comparisons only reinforce the fans. But if someone is using the other product, they are going to need something big for them to switch. AV1 may have something big for them to switch, but they are too focused on showing that they are just like everyone else.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    18. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Says the basement dwelling, virgin loser.

    19. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Matroska is very much alive and popular today. It's used by YouTube for example. Granted, it's just a subset of it called webm, but webms are still Matroska files.

    20. Re:How about by Dwedit · · Score: 3, Informative

      H.265 is only usable by Big Media Companies and Pirates. Media companies are vertically integrated and can deal with the horrible licensing fee situation, and Pirates simply don't care.

    21. Re:How about by TigerTime · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think you understand the support behind AV1 vs x265. Only Apple is going to implement x265 in browser. The others, no. They ALL will implement AV1 in the browser. Netflix will be AV1. YouTube will be AV1. Facebook will be AV1. Amazon Video will be AV1.

      The licensing around x265 is a complete disaster. Just about every major media company is going to steer clear away from them where possible. This is a completely different scenario than x264 vs the lesser known media formats.

      Bottom line is the difference is support/backing. And it's vastly in favor of AV1.

    22. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ogg and Matroska are contrainers not codecs. AV1 is a codec.

      Vorbis is a codec, and Ogg and Vorbis pretty much go hand in hand (almost always used together, or at least they were 15 years ago when I cared enough about it to pay attention...maybe things have changed), so I'm pretty sure you know what he meant.

    23. Re:How about by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Does it have hardware decoding on mainstream CPUs/GPUs?

      How many CPUs and GPUs went through a complete design / test / ship to market phase in the past 9 days? AV1 literally just got it's specification out.

    24. Re:How about by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Ogg and Matroska are contrainers not codecs. AV1 is a codec.

      Thanks Mr pedant. "ogg" is also the typically shortened form of saying "Ogg Vorbis" the latter part of which IS a codec, and the comment still stands.

    25. Re:How about by darkain · · Score: 4, Informative

      And to add, this isn't conjecture either. Every major player you can name pretty much is a member of the alliance that is building AV1 (not just supporting, but the actual developers of the codec). Just right off the bat, you have nVidia, AMD, ARM, Intel (hardware), Cisco, Broadcom, Realtak (networking), Microsoft, Apple, Google, Mozilla, Adobe, VLC (software), Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu (content publishers). And this isn't even a complete list by far.

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

    26. Re:How about by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      if you mean Vorbis (2000) it was extremely late to the party compared to MP3 (1993)

      AV1 is late to the party compared to x264. Both produced similar gains over the other. Both had similar level of importance for bandwidth at their times (god I don't miss my internet speeds from back then)

    27. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Vorbis is used in .webm video it seems. Opus may replace it. E.g. VP8 + Ogg Vorbis, or VP9 + Opus may be common.

    28. Re:How about by strstr · · Score: 0

      FLAC is where it's at. you say they already offer lossless, why replace crap (mp3) with crap (opus)?

      the only upgrade from lossy is lossless not an alternative lossy codec.

      mp3 is fine format because it diversifies their product as they wish making a low quality but compatible version for cheaper, maintaining the original master lossless for those willing to pay more.

    29. Re:How about by mentil · · Score: 1

      Samsung is notably absent from their list of members, and given they're the #1 Android phone seller, that could matter. They also make their own Exynos SoCs for their own phones (used in their European models), which would have to support AV1.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    30. Re:How about by darkain · · Score: 1

      Exynos is just a branded name of an ARM CPU. The thing with ARM that is different than Intel/AMD is that ARM doesn't actually manufacturer CPUs, instead they just create the architecture and reference designs that are highly modular. All it would take from Samsung is to click the checkbox to include the AV1 module when working with their next ARM (Exynos) CPU reference design.

      There are other major "notable absences" from the list too, but are included by default without name simply because of their association with other companies. For instance, Twitch is a growing powerhouse in streaming media, however they're not listed. BUT, Twitch is owned by Amazon, and would most likely fall under that name.

    31. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love people that don't understand the difference between containers and codecs. "My friend sent me this AVI file. What do I need to play it?"

      Its the same as you assuming that Ogg and Vorbis go hand in hand when in fact Vorbis (previously Squish) is typically outnumbered by FLAC and Opus encodings nowadays.

      Ogg's weakness as a container format was because it didn't include any standardised mechanism for including metadata when it came out. Existing metadata for Ogg files are largely aftermarket hacks and don't always play well together.

    32. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Says the overworked,cuckolded 42yo with the fat wife and 6 figure mortgage.

    33. Re:How about by grub · · Score: 2

      I hope he finds his virgin.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    34. Re:How about by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Huh... Of all the things I posted today, I really didn't expect this one to trigger someone.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:How about by Kjella · · Score: 1

      AV1 is late to the party compared to x264. Both produced similar gains over the other. Both had similar level of importance for bandwidth at their times (god I don't miss my internet speeds from back then)

      There's a few billion people who still have bandwidth issues streaming a single 4K Netflix video. And then there's mobile that has both bandwidth limitations and traffic caps. There's absolutely still a market for a better video codec and the lack of royalty fees is just the icing on the cake. But yeah, there's plenty markets where H.264/x264 is "good enough" and already established.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    36. Re:How about by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely the point of it. The point is to be as good or better than pretty much any codec out there, but entirely royalty free.

      This is a generally good thing. Wish the internet / companies / people did more of this stuff for the betterment of everyone.

      Hopefully, it works out, without dumb issues holding it back, as is always often the case, in too-good-to-be-true scenarios with hardware or software.

    37. Re:How about by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Everything I've read so far, indicates it's currently, insanely slow.
      If you thought 265 encoding was bad, this is significantly worse, by like a factor of 10.

      Hopefully this is fixed over time.

    38. Re:How about by Artemis3 · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. Vorbis was surpassed by Opus, there is simply no better lossy audio compression at this point, so everything went Opus instead of Vorbis, and for lossless Flac is still preferred.

      Also the parent is correct, you can't mix containers with codecs, Matroska (.mkv) is very widely used with all sort of proprietary codecs, such as h265 and aac. You can do that with ogg as well, but people tend to prefer mkv for a variety of reasons.

      --
      Artix
      Your Linux, your init.
    39. Re: How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but webm is used by apeoximately 0% of videos compared to h264/mp4

    40. Re:How about by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There's a few billion people who still have bandwidth issues streaming a single 4K Netflix video.

      There were a few billion people who had bandwidth issues with high quality music back then too. My only point is, that this needs more than open and better to get ahead.

      For the record they have this. An industry backed by a couple of major players that is slowly fed up with MPEG-LA's shit is what will push this through, but that's it. Royalty Free codecs are dime a dozend. VP9 also is royalty free and offers gains over H.264, also is pretty much a non-player outside of Youtube.

    41. Re:How about by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Also the parent is correct, you can't mix containers with codecs

      That is pedantically true, but no one hears "ogg" during a discussion on open source codecs and thinks the person is talking about anything other than Vorbis. By the way I take issue with your:

      there is simply no better lossy audio compression at this point

      For two reasons: a) the best form of compression is one that is usable. Support for Opus is borderline non-existant, and FLAC is also relegated to special purpose areas. b) you're playing right into the OP's point. Both these codecs effectively failed to get any kind of reasonable traction.

      Matroska (.mkv) is very widely used with all sort of proprietary codecs

      Widly used sounds like the only thing you download is fan-subs of Japanese anime. MKV is like FLAC in adoption. It has carved a specific niche and is rare outside of it. Even H.265 is rarely seen in the mkv container. The mp4 container is far more common both in use and in software support. So again as the OP said: Royalty free means shit.

    42. Re:How about by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      while Ogg and Matroska are perfectly functional, they never became the dominant forms used in their sectors

      Overlooking your terminology abuse... Ogg Vorbis is the standard for game audio now.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    43. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one hears "ogg" during a discussion on open source codecs and thinks the person is talking about anything other than Vorbis

      Well that's flat-out wrong. Aside from the obvious fact that a non-zero number of people who engage in discussions on open source codecs know that Ogg and Vorbis are two different things, the fact that you're using the term "Ogg" instead of the more typical "Ogg Vorbis" is a giveaway that you're NOT talking about Vorbis at all.

    44. Re: How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because YouTube is such a small percentage of Internet traffic...

    45. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's h265 not x265... x265 is the name of the just one of many encoders out there..

    46. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Samsung is a big supporter of h265 (as they have many patents and is in the 2 biggest patent pools) but I don't think they can afford to not support AV1 sooner or later.

  2. Any patent troll? by aglider · · Score: 2

    I am looking forward...

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:Any patent troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our new I.T. closet cleaner patent overlord.

    2. Re:Any patent troll? by afidel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The legal teams of 40 tech giants have gone over the spec for a few years, the chances of there being an unknown patent is unlikely. If there's going to be a troll attack it's likely to be an unrelated overbroad patent that's unlikely to stand up to re-review.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Any patent troll? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 0

      That's only marginally relevant, the true measure of patent validity is the opinion of 12 people from Delaware too stupid or lazy to get out of jury duty.

    4. Re:Any patent troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the thing is, AV1 isn't patent free, it's royalty free. If you try to sue someone for using AV1, and you're a patent troll (not using AV1), then you can expect the defendant will be getting a lot of support from the parties in the AV1 patent pool. If you're trying to compete with AV1, then expect to get counter sued by everyone involved. I imagine that will happen once.

    5. Re:Any patent troll? by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      It's a shame how you feel about jury duty. You'd rather have professional jurors? Or just binding arbitration?

    6. Re:Any patent troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Patent trolls opted for Texas rather than Delaware ?

    7. Re:Any patent troll? by afidel · · Score: 2

      Not since TC Heartland, now they have to go after the company where they are incorporated, and that's Delaware in the majority of cases.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:Any patent troll? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      In patent cases, sure. It's a fundamentally broken system, not wasting the time of innocent people in maintaining that system would be an improvement.

      It's not going to get worse for it, in fact it would almost certainly get better ... because juries of lay people just make patent cases more of a crapshoot (an intended effect by the people bringing the lawsuit) and while the value of patents might be negative, the value of gamblers is worse still.

    9. Re:Any patent troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jury trials for patents make little sense. They should be adjudicated by professional judges.

    10. Re: Any patent troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spam, mod down.

    11. Re:Any patent troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      How does one legally get out of jury duty?

      answer:walk in wearing a MAGA hat to trigger the yale graduate lawyers.

    12. Re:Any patent troll? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The legal teams of 40 tech giants have gone over the spec for a few years, the chances of there being an unknown patent is unlikely. If there's going to be a troll attack it's likely to be an unrelated overbroad patent that's unlikely to stand up to re-review.

      Even if there are no third parties with relevant patents, how is this different than JEDEC and RAMBUS?

      I wonder if someone with an interest in H265/HEVC could take advantage of the situation by at least sewing uncertainty.

    13. Re: Any patent troll? by SpammersAreScum · · Score: 1

      The video appears to be an April Fool's joke. The post is certainly off-topic. But have you seen it in a lot of other story discussions? If not, it's not spam.

  3. How about OpenCL encoder/decoders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That way it is primarily GPU agnostic as long as the code works in OCL 1.1,1.2, or 2.0 contexts.

  4. Both the same 50% vs x264 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I guess the difference will be in CPU time and licensing, AV1 should beat H265 hands down on the second but no idea about the first.

  5. Practical Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know how encoding 10 second clips of 30 fps SD/HD content 5000x slower than h.264 can be considered 'practical'.

    It's an exciting format but it's way to early to start evangelizing it.

    1. Re:Practical Use by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      People that do this for a living can probably afford the relevant royalties for using the bog standard stuff. The rest of us likely have no reason to stop what we have already been doing.

      For a long time I had enough trouble dealing with my current encoder setup (especially with Apple products). Now hardware has finally caught up to that. Tossing all of that aside doesn't really make much sense.

      This stuff requires baked in specialty silicon to be useful in most cases. It can take a long time for the necessary stuff to become widely used to the point where you can just take it for granted.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Practical Use by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The royalties to the end user are minimal if non-existent. The fact that it takes 5000x longer just means that you can't do live encoding on current hardware. That is a show stopper right there.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:Practical Use by TigerTime · · Score: 2

      Right now? It's not practical. But they haven't optimized the encoders, and there isn't any silicon developed for it yet.

      It's like trying to play some intense video game without a dedicated video card and using software to generate the scenes using un-optimized code. You're going to have a bad time.

      Give it a couple years until the hardware is out there, and we'll see where we're at.

    4. Re:Practical Use by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      For a long time I had enough trouble dealing with my current encoder setup (especially with Apple products).

      Hmmm, I've been encoding video on Apple and standard hardware for many years. H.264 isn't a problem with any remotely modern higher level CPU, even if it does not have baked in hardware support. H.265 is considerably slower without hardware support and doesn't really offer enough of an advantage to be worth the extra encoding time given the cost of storage. Maybe I'll change my tune on 4K HDR when I get there.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  6. What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    AV1 was created by stupid evil command line Linux users who can't even watch videos because they use stupid evil command lines.

    Real computer users run Windows, and H.264 is the gold standard for video. Stupid evil command line Linux users can't match it.

    1. Re:What's the point? by segin · · Score: 1

      H.265 is the gold standard for video. H.264 is a deprecated last-gen codec.

  7. Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Fuck Zuck. Twice. Up the ass. With a broom handle. With a few rusty bent nails in it.

  8. Longer encoding times than VP9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No shit, Sherlock. I am using x264 most of the time because VP9 takes orders of magnitude longer already.

  9. Dangerous to use open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I am american and many people are asking the hard questions about the risks of using open source today when it has proven to be so insecure and prone to massive bugs. I adviseing my very powerful clients that avoiding colluding with open source is the best way forward.

    1. Re:Dangerous to use open source by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

      It is no worse than Windows or MacOS. Better in most cases.

      --
      The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    2. Re:Dangerous to use open source by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 2

      Ever look at the problems with Flash, IE, Edge, Windows, etc etc? Open Source has a better record. I don't think any large C/C++ program has never had a bug. Propreitary software has a history of being much worse.

    3. Re:Dangerous to use open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats a fake claim often made on slashdot that has never been proved.

    4. Re:Dangerous to use open source by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      Why would you even respond to such an obvious troll?

    5. Re:Dangerous to use open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Are you even American? I've "looked" at all of those and they are usually faster, easier to use, more secure and the most importantly MADE IN THE USA. I am American and I agree with many people who are saying that open sorce is often made overseas by foreigners and you have no idea what they are really doing and who they are colluding with. Some will then say to "look at the source" but who knows how to look at a billion lines of code to know what it is actually doing. Shameful.

    6. Re:Dangerous to use open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am american and many people are asking the hard questions about the risks of using open source today when it has proven to be so insecure and prone to massive bugs. I adviseing my very powerful clients that avoiding colluding with open source is the best way forward.

      Bullshit.
      Here is the actual letter sent by Congress to Jim Zemlin of the Linux Foundation. I doubt that you would understand it because English is obviously not your first language, but I provide it for any others that may be interested. The upshot of the letter is that Congress clearly supports OSS and is seeking to learn how to improve it.
      https://energycommerce.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/040218-Linux-Evaluation-of-OSS-Ecosystem.pdf

    7. Re:Dangerous to use open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Did you work for shillary campagn or Soros by any chance, because you are very good at distorting truth. Many people are saying that open source software is very weak and easily bugged and your bizarre and angry rant does nothing to disprove them.

    8. Re:Dangerous to use open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Slashdot.Org mind police: anything that doesnt agree with liberal SJW political correctness point of view is a "troll".

    9. Re:Dangerous to use open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your military seems to be perfectly fine in using open source software from around the world. It's open source, that's why.

  10. Troll? by higuita · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is just me, or this thread is being attacked by one (or several) trolls ... i never saw soo many useless/insults/troll posts vs real posts in slashdot

    what, patent trolls are crying because they will lose money with this format?!

    --
    Higuita
    1. Re:Troll? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for the Trump for prison troll post.

      All these threads are just filled with trash. We notice it more on articles that we are interested in.

      There is still a lot of good comments and it helps pass the time

  11. 5000 times longer encode time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or is this percent longer, in which case that would be 50x longer to encode. That seems like a show-stopper to me.

  12. Donâ(TM)t by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    Basically I want a royalty-free format that everyone of importance (Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Edge) gets behind. Performance is a secondary concern.
    Its still up in the air whether Apple will support this. Its true they joined as a founding member but they havent saif anything. They could just be spying for all we know.

    1. Re:Donâ(TM)t by swilver · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find hardware support for decoding HD video is quite essential. Doing real time software decoding of full HD (let alone 4k video) is very intensive, and only viable on some of the most powerful CPU's.

  13. Not something to brag about by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it didnt beat 264, that would be a problem and quite a shock, since 264 is old technology. So, thats not an accomplishment at all, beating a 10 year old format. They are really after beating 265, I would hope.

    1. Re:Not something to brag about by DigitAl56K · · Score: 4, Informative

      Beating x264 (the encoder) is a very big accomplishment, because:
        - It is very well recognized as the leading H264 encoder
        - An incredible amount of time has been spent optimizing it
        - It has been done while avoiding patent encumbered, which takes many well established algorithms/techniques off the table

      Claiming that it's "not an accomplishment at all" tells me that you're extremely ignorant of the level of work involved here.

    2. Re:Not something to brag about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, x264 was already beaten by VP9 and AV1 is based on VP9 so if it would be worse than x264 it would also be worse than VP9 and that would be bad.

  14. h265/hevc by DrYak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Current benchmarks (mostly synthetic tests) already show promising advantages in favour of AV-1 (the previous /. on AV-1's official announcement has links. Here 's yet another)
    i.e.: per bits, it managed to pack more information than H265/HEVC

    Now the psycho-visual optimization needs to be tuned a bit (the compressor need to learn better *which* of the information to pack or drop for a given amount of bits, but in general AV1 allows for more). And Netflix and Google should release more of the quality oriented tests (subjective tests from actual humans, and from AIs trained to have a somewhat similar response to human's visual system).
    (As AV1 was just released, it's compressor isn't finely tuned yet and might wasting bit on packing information that an actual human viewer wouldn't give a shit)
    (just like back when it was release x265 compressor didn't perform as visually pleasing as the older and better tested x264 compressor)

    Over all that isn't much as a surprise.

    H265/HEVC is an already released codec with a history.
    AV1 is the new comer released now and supposed to be the next generation.

    H265/HEVC isn't AV1's main competitor
    AV1 supposed competitor is the next gen codec that will come out of MPEG (JVET), but that one isn't any close to release (but is expected to perform similarily good as AV1 compared to H265/HEVC)
    Also the licensing shitstorm of JVET will also need to get solved once it is released, whereas the whole purpose that sparked AV1 was to make it royalty free.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  15. Are you kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is a trash website that still cannot even support UTF-8.

    All of the intelligent people have gone elsewhere; I'm stupid enough to swing by now and then to remind myself to go elsewhere again.

  16. creimer amazon/youtube spam! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1


    MODDOWN! ; creimer youtube spam post again!

    creimer wants you to click on his youtube channel, then click on his stupid amazon affiliate link spam on Youtube. There is nothing of value on creimer youtube channel. Only creimer's click-bot goes there.

    CREIMER' SUBMISSIONS UPDATE:
    Note also that creimer is trying to regain karma by getting his submissions published as articles on /. so make sure to go to:
    https://slashdot.org/~__aaclcg...
    https://slashdot.org/~IDrinkFa...
    https://slashdot.org/~_sharp'r...
    https://slashdot.org/~crreimer
    https://slashdot.org/~cdreimer
    https://slashdot.org/~criss69
    https://slashdot.org/~Anonymou...
    https://slashdot.org/~FatCashe...
    https://slashdot.org/~ILoveFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~IHateFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~IAteFatC...
    https://slashdot.org/~ITapeFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~IApeFatC...
    https://slashdot.org/~IPrayFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~FatCashe...
    and mod down his submissions as well. The great thing is that you don't even need mod points to mod down a submission, just click on the "minus" icon!

    Yes, believe it or not, creimer owns all the above sock puppet accounts. It is a mystery why Slashdot management tolerates it!

    creimer wrote:

    I don't bother with mod points. I'm doing something much more sinister. It took ten story submissions ? I'll have to double check the number ? to move cdreimer's karma from neutral to excellent without ever being exposed to the capricious mods. Mmmmmwwwwahahahahahahaha!

    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! Creimy is posting more than 2 posts a day. Hurry! mod down otherwise /. will go to hell again!

    Note: you can mod down even if already at -1 to lower karma and to prevent lost /. users to accidentally mod up.

    creimer wrote:

    All you need to do is find a website with a permissive TOS, say, Slashdot, create a Python script to scrape your own comments, sprinkle Amazon affiliate links in various posts, and then re-post past links whenever possible. Won't be long before you start making "coffee money" each month.

    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    C.D. Reimer is a renowned Slashdot collaborator, as he puts it himself; "Because of the quality of my posts and my article submissions, I'm a highly rated commentator and moderator."

    But does anybody ever wondered what "C.D." stands for? Well, it stands for Creimy Dumpty of course!

    Creimy Dumpty sat on the wall,
    Creimy Dumpty had a great fall.
    All the king's horses
    And all the king's men
    Couldn't put Creimy Dumpty
    Together again.

    Creimy's siblings video and theme song, very realistic, especially the pants, just like Creimy's:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    With "Vice President Pence Vowing US Astronauts Will Return To the Moon", we are sure they will need miracle workers up there, here is what it would look like. Note that Creimy takes

  17. I keep seeing AVI not AV1... by gosand · · Score: 2

    They couldn't come up with a better name for it this codec? I know AVI is a container, while this is a codec, but AVI and AV1 just look so similar and could be nearly identical depending on the font. Might as well make it AllI1 (that's A el el EYE one)

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:I keep seeing AVI not AV1... by grub · · Score: 2

      Me too. They should call it something like D1VX or Xv1d.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:I keep seeing AVI not AV1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      call it by its full name then AOMedia Video 1