It's implemented in hardware (VCE). If your hardware doesn't support it then vaapi will never support av1 on your hardware. Also current amd gpus have bugs with av1 that can't be fixed. If you record at certain resolutions you will get black padding in the video. At 1080p it will encode to 1082 instead, which isn't too bad but at certain other resolutions it adds 16/32 pixels of black bars.
This will only be fixed in the next generation of amd gpus.
That's not how hardware acceleration works, dumbass.
why do we need more codecs?
I am not being obtuse, i actually have no real knowledge on codecs and why there needs to be so many. Is this more efficient or?
You literally don't need anything but Xvid
Dude it takes hours to encode a single video even on desktop what kind of crack are you smoking. Furthermore there is no point, it costs more in cpu time than it would take in ssd or cd space.
THERE IT IS, THE moronic homosexual LYING ON THE INTERNET!
svt-av1 is literally faster than 264, while being a frick ton more efficient you lying cuck.
BUT to be fair this only applies to computers that have CPUs with AVX 512. Intel just recently got unfriended by the government. Apparently they're not huge fans of the whole estrogen cores even though they fully support turning little boys into trannies IRL. Bizzare if you ask me.
This is one of the MOST special snowflake open sores video codecs because it's being heavily optimized for AVX 512. In other words even a fricking laptop will be able to compress video to ridiculous degrees in real time SOON (tm) without having to resort to low quality hw/gpu encoders.
This is serious business because laptops are the laughing stock of the computing world and are considered universally "weak" at pretty much anything CPU intensive.
just pretty much waiting for SVT AV1 benchmarks of AMD's 16-core laptop CPU to come out. Depending on how much better the AVX 512 optimizations get we might see that motherfricker software encode high quality low bitrate 4K AV1 video in real time.
I hope israelitegle takes note because their AV1 encodes suck ass right now.
It's all about data compression to quality ratio, really.
Imagine a blue ray compressed to 350MB where your eye can't tell the difference between a 30GB movie file and a 350MB movie file
Perfect for streaming high quality media amongst other things.
ah I see, efficiency it is then. the combination of data storage being cheaper and this means we'll be able to have large libraries of media in our local storage at greater scales over time.
Man, if all videos are from codecs... what is the raw form? before the codec? new stuff I have to learn now.
>lossless codecs
Yea, they are being used on movie sets with enormous storage requirements
1. FFV1 (FFmpeg Video Codec 1): A lossless video codec developed by FFmpeg.
2. Huffyuv: A lossless video codec that is popular for its speed and compression efficiency.
3. Lagarith: Another lossless video codec known for its high compression ratios.
4. Ut Video Codec: A high-performance lossless video codec that supports alpha channel.
2 months ago
Anonymous
lmao no one uses these meme open sores codecs, they just use prores
2 months ago
Anonymous
Prores is not lossless and I doubt anyone on a set or in post would use it professionally.
They even use a camera which captures raw bitmap images instead of a video and records the audio and separate device. So yeah, your hypothesis there doesn't cut it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I doubt anyone on a set or in post would use it professionally.
imagine being moronic
https://shotonwhat.com/capture-codecs-formats/apple-prores-codec
2 months ago
Anonymous
As i thought, only low-budget shit.
2 months ago
Anonymous
ah, yes, the EXTREMELY low budget indie shit you probably haven't heard of known as Game of Thrones.
https://shotonwhat.com/game-of-thrones-2011
2 months ago
Anonymous
As i thought, only low-budget shit.
These are what the originals were stored as, so that's rarer.
Generally you have sony/canon/red raws which is just the default format of the camera.
It is extra work to store in anything else. Which is why it's "rarer" to see that. In order to do it you have to re-encode the video from a camera into whatever format. So that's why prores isn't seen as much on the list.
However when you import it into davinci resolve, NUKE, after effects etc and export it, at that point it's a lot more popular to have a prores version there.
But that is the editing process and those are "intermediate" formats, not the "original storage"
And then there's the "delivery" format which 99% of the time will be h.264, h.265 etc these days
2 months ago
Anonymous
I've read that people preserving lossless videos do it in FFV1 (not data hoarders), makes sense to use an open source codec because you won't need to pay anyone anything right now or years later
2 months ago
Anonymous
>1. FFV1 (FFmpeg Video Codec 1): A lossless video codec developed by FFmpeg. >2. Huffyuv: A lossless video codec that is popular for its speed and compression efficiency. >3. Lagarith: Another lossless video codec known for its high compression ratios. >4. Ut Video Codec: A high-performance lossless video codec that supports alpha channel.
Nobody uses this fricking shit, larping troony. The most common digital codecs used in mega budget digital films are ARRI Raw, RED Raw, and Prores since those are the only PROPREITARY codecs those PROPREITARY cams capture in.
https://shotonwhat.com/browse-index/capture-codecs-formats
2 months ago
Anonymous
apple prores is what is used...
as it is compressed and can be smaller (like ffv1)
other raw formats suck ass
>ah I see, efficiency it is then. the combination of data storage being cheaper and this means we'll be able to have large libraries of media in our local storage at greater scales over time.
Correct, but these days it’s more about the bandwidth efficiency for streaming services. Imagine if you can halve your file sizes at the same visual quality, but then stream it 10 million times. The bandwidth savings are huge.
Yep for personal archives for sure.
but like how email has increased in price over the years for the same amount of storage 20 years ago. We'll somehow see companies claim stuff costs more money when in reality it doesn't.
>30 GB compressed to 350 MB
AV1 will never achieve this level of compression. Also AV1 bloats when it sees even a hint of noise/grain and functions no different than H264 if the source isn't first denoised. You are better off with untouched blurays.
AV1's use case is for streaming sites to save a buck on bandwidth, that's it.
There's an optional fully configurable denoiser complemented by a digital noise generator at the decoding stage.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Cringe.
There is no reason to use anything like this at this point in time when storage is cheaper than it's ever been and just getting cheaper.
Again, AV1 much like VP9 was developed to help streaming sites save a buck.
2 months ago
Anonymous
high quality
low bitrate
You honestly sound like a hoarder tbh.
2 months ago
Anonymous
That and the lack of royalty bearing. Shit sent shock waves back in the day.
NTA, but I think the anon was just trying to express the general idea of compression algorithms.
Did you know it is a typical thing of below 90 IQ people that metaphors fly over their head?
i do denoise my videos before encoding them, and av1 still destroys my previous x264 encodes
i got movies down to ~4.5GiB at 720p before, now i'm getting them down to 2.5GiB at 1080p, while still being nearly indistinguishable from the denoised intermediates
2 months ago
Anonymous
>AV1 doesn't show any significant reduction in bitrate until video is scrubbed of noise/grain which removes detail
I know anon, that was my point
2 months ago
Anonymous
>which removes detail
no, it removes noise
2 months ago
Anonymous
noise is detail
2 months ago
Anonymous
no, noise is noise
and to be clear, i'm not using svt-av1's built-in denoiser
2 months ago
Anonymous
oh the futility. Imagine wasting the time encoding all that. Just get another ssd.
2 months ago
Anonymous
my 45TiB nas is getting full and don't need to keep remuxes of everything
it honestly doesn't take very long to encode av1 on my 24 thread cpu, i just run it in the background while i work
2 months ago
Anonymous
you'd waste more money in electricity cost trying to re-encode 45 tb worth of video by an order of magnitude compared to just buying another 16 tb hd for your nas.
2 months ago
Anonymous
not when i do it during the day when the solar panels are generating excess
and i'm not transcoding all of it, just stuff i don't care about as much but still want to keep so i can share them with others
2 months ago
Anonymous
>nah bruh i do my encoooding when the solar panels "generate excess"
most interesting larp yet
2 months ago
Anonymous
cope
2 months ago
Anonymous
How can one anon be such a massive homosexual? >NNOOOO!!!1 DON'T USE THAT ENCODER! >YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT I WOULD DO! >KEEP BUYING MORE SPINNING DISKS! >don't even THINK about re-encoding you library. I WILL post another meme, then everyone will know how foolish you are
Meanwhile, my mini pc can encode av1 faster than real-time, never drawing more than 20w. Let's be conservative and say it takes 3 hours to encode a 4k movie; that 60wh of total power consumption per movie. This equates to roughly 16 movies per kilowatt-hour ($0.15), less than 1 cent per title.
4k mkvs on average are 50gb, which allows roughly 20 titles per TB. 45TB of 4k mkvs would then cost me $9 to encode.
kek, you're wrong about one thing anon, if you don't first denoise/degrain, AV1 will still reduce bitrate by just macro-blocking and smearing all the grain detail
No fricking shit AV1 shits the bed at grain. Every compression scheme on earth craps itself at any bit of randomness. That's why there's film grain synthesis built into the codec, even if it's not "true" to the source video's grain.
>Imagine a blue ray compressed to 350MB where your eye can't tell the difference between a 30GB movie file and a 350MB movie file
fricking transitioninIQfy homosexuals will opt for a 350GB over over a 30MB file if they see JUST ONE PIXEL of difference >y-y-you don't understand, i need my quaaalityslop
This is one of the MOST special snowflake open sores video codecs because it's being heavily optimized for AVX 512. In other words even a fricking laptop will be able to compress video to ridiculous degrees in real time SOON (tm) without having to resort to low quality hw/gpu encoders.
This is serious business because laptops are the laughing stock of the computing world and are considered universally "weak" at pretty much anything CPU intensive.
Who cares? If you need more space just use one of those new petabyte cds. If you need to stream you will use a hardware encoder anyway.
Even if you are hosting video it will always be cheaper to just use hardware encoding to a cache and serve the video from that.
Hardware encoding = low quality at low bitrates. high quality AV1 video at low bitrates is now possible on a laptop now. A desktop is no longer a requirement for both high quality and low bitrate.
The only requirement is your laptop needs to have AVX 512. That's it. This is one of the very rare moments where you can have your cake and eat it too, per se.
Dude it takes hours to encode a single video even on desktop what kind of crack are you smoking. Furthermore there is no point, it costs more in cpu time than it would take in ssd or cd space.
This is probably the most accurate descriptioin possible specifically regarding the SVT AV1 encoder. It's not that other inferior video encoders like x265 don't have AVX 512 optimizations but they pale in comparison to the ones you find in SVT AV1.
ANYWAY my point is laptop computers roided up with AVX 512 can encode high quality but low bitrate AV1 video in REAL TIME. 10 years ago you would have been called mentally handicapped for even suggesting that something like this is possible but it really is.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Not necessarily, even without AVX 512 it's already faster and more efficient than x265. Currently I see no reason to use any other codec than SVT-AV1.
Unless you need hardware decoding on older devices of course.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Unless you need hardware decoding on older devices of course.
Not even older, we just had to buy new dvbs, as in spain the low definition tv emission stopped emiting recently, and only the expensive premium ones support av1
at equivalent quality/compression, AV1 is now faster than x264
2 months ago
Anonymous
That's the news from 2021.
2 months ago
Anonymous
i didn't intend to mean "since 2.0"
2 months ago
Anonymous
useless chart
needs to show vmaf score
and anything under 97 vmaf is garbage for private encodings
2 months ago
Anonymous
Depends on the screen PPI. You're mentally hadicapped for hitting 97 on a fricking tablet for example. I personally wouldn't use anything lower than 90 but I'm not going to waste precious space for 0 gain in perceived quality.
(cont) The only usecase (and i'm using that VERY generously here) is sending high quality video over constrained pipelines like tor. Which makes this a very thinly veiled pedo thread. Clean it up.
Also this "speedup" is a nothing burger as sv1 isn't even the fastest cpu based av1 encoder (aom)
AV1 is not optimized to retain as much information as possible at a given size. It is optimized for low bitrates to seem high quality to someone who has never seen the uncompressed original.
I will never trust such a codec. It is deceptive by design.
>It is optimized for low bitrates to seem high quality to someone who has never seen the uncompressed original.
this is true for all lossy codecs, anon
>this is true for all lossy codecs
No, it isn't. The job of a good lossy codec is to preserve information. Artifacts appear when you can only preserve a fraction of the desired information.
AV1's goal is instead to remove artifacts. The best way to do that is to find a way to preserve information, but where that can't be done, it prefers to erase information entirely, rather than partially preserve it.
when i first played with it i ran into that, it would smooth out fine/low contrast detail no matter the CRF, now i disable its' denoiser and it's fine
dark scenes are preserved much better using svt-av1-psy's variance boost option
2 months ago
Anonymous
2.0 also explicitly fixes the "denoiser on by default", btw. Just thought I'd mention that although I don't know if it yet applies to the downstream psy fork.
even digital cameras are subject to sensor noise, it's just different in appearance to film grain
it will never truly go away, because it's a physical phenomenon, you're only capturing so much light per frame, and with fewer samples (less photons hitting the sensor) you get a less accurate (noisy) reading, so lower light situations and/or faster shutter speed results in more noise, larger optics and sensors can reduce this, but never completely eliminate it
that all said, sometimes artificial noise/grain is added in post if the editors want to make it look a certain way that may otherwise be unsuitable to do in-camera (or just allows for more control by shooting clean footage to begin with, since it's easier to add noise than remove it)
which encoder has the best compression efficiency at visually transparent bitrates? i remember AOM being better at high bitrates and SVT at lower, has SVT caught up?
AOM has more psychovisual optimizations for low bitrates but SVT is faster.
The best part about this thing is you no longer have to fiddle with 2 pass like you have to with VP9. Despite it being considered primarily a "streaming" codec the CRF mode is incredibly well built.
Anything under CRF 30 pretty much requires you to zoom in 400% and play video at 0.25x playback speed to really notice any difference.
What amuses me is that even CRF60 is still usable, especially when using preset 6 or slower. >REEE NO IT LOOKS LIKE SHIT
I never said it looks amazing, just that it's VERY watchable, for how very compressed it is.
You can crush a demanding minute of 1440p120FPS footage under 50mb that way.
Sure, you can do the same in 264, but it will obviously pixel to frick and back.
crf 63 is also more than usable for simple animation or stuff with very little motion
too bad there's no crf setting past that, would make mini meme encodes much easier
crf 70 is what the maximum should've been
aparently next month android may deploy in google play services or whatever is called now efficient software decoders, so if all android devices receive support, we are probably way closer now to get av1 and maybe avif in 4chins
>next month
any source for that or did you just pull it out of your ass?
I'm betting it's the latter because "dav1d is coming to android" has been rumored for like 3 years already, the fact that the indian Black person called "mishaal rahman" reposted the same shit once again recently doesn't necessarily mean it's coming next month or at all
Both Chrome and Firefox on Android already have dav1d integrated, his claim doesn't make sense.
My old chink phone without AV1 HW decoding can play 1080p AV1 webms just fine.
Phone SOC: SD845
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Both Chrome and Firefox on Android already have dav1d integrated
...so? that has nothing to do with dav1d being embedded as part of android's native decoders >My old chink phone without AV1 HW decoding can play 1080p AV1 webms just fine.
nobody asked
there were some news linked in a thread made by some anon here, some days ago
didnt save his links, but i think is this one https://www.androidauthority.com/android-update-av1-videos-3420418/
[...]
that is the apps, this was meant to be system wide, read the link
read the comment you are replying to again
then check who wrote the article you just linked
2 months ago
Anonymous
>read the comment you are replying to again
kek, i read about it in my language, i didnt doublecheck who was the writer when i looked for the english article i linked.
there were some news linked in a thread made by some anon here, some days ago
didnt save his links, but i think is this one https://www.androidauthority.com/android-update-av1-videos-3420418/
Both Chrome and Firefox on Android already have dav1d integrated, his claim doesn't make sense.
My old chink phone without AV1 HW decoding can play 1080p AV1 webms just fine.
Phone SOC: SD845
that is the apps, this was meant to be system wide, read the link
>morons using AV1 for offline videos
AV1 is a web codec, it is perfect for saving bandwidth, if you want quality use H264 or H265, a 16TB HDD is like 150 bucks.
AV1 would be perfect for the 4MB webm limit on here, but development on this site is dead.
Around the same time as AV1. No one really supports it. Wikipedia states that broadcast TV is supposed to be updated to use H.266 but haven't found much more than that.
These streaming-focused codec improvements are so silly.
Putting all the effort and/or money towards updating network hardware infrastructure to support multicast would do so much more.
Impressive
I hope there will be an VA-API implementation for older GPUs some day soon ...
It's implemented in hardware (VCE). If your hardware doesn't support it then vaapi will never support av1 on your hardware. Also current amd gpus have bugs with av1 that can't be fixed. If you record at certain resolutions you will get black padding in the video. At 1080p it will encode to 1082 instead, which isn't too bad but at certain other resolutions it adds 16/32 pixels of black bars.
This will only be fixed in the next generation of amd gpus.
That's not how hardware acceleration works, dumbass.
You literally don't need anything but Xvid
THERE IT IS, THE moronic homosexual LYING ON THE INTERNET!
svt-av1 is literally faster than 264, while being a frick ton more efficient you lying cuck.
BUT to be fair this only applies to computers that have CPUs with AVX 512. Intel just recently got unfriended by the government. Apparently they're not huge fans of the whole estrogen cores even though they fully support turning little boys into trannies IRL. Bizzare if you ask me.
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/manufacturing/pentagon-pulls-out-of-intels-dollar25-billion-chips-act-grant-expects-commerce-department-to-foot-the-bill
pixDAIZ is this u
Who? I'm
just pretty much waiting for SVT AV1 benchmarks of AMD's 16-core laptop CPU to come out. Depending on how much better the AVX 512 optimizations get we might see that motherfricker software encode high quality low bitrate 4K AV1 video in real time.
I hope israelitegle takes note because their AV1 encodes suck ass right now.
why do we need more codecs?
I am not being obtuse, i actually have no real knowledge on codecs and why there needs to be so many. Is this more efficient or?
It's all about data compression to quality ratio, really.
Imagine a blue ray compressed to 350MB where your eye can't tell the difference between a 30GB movie file and a 350MB movie file
Perfect for streaming high quality media amongst other things.
ah I see, efficiency it is then. the combination of data storage being cheaper and this means we'll be able to have large libraries of media in our local storage at greater scales over time.
Man, if all videos are from codecs... what is the raw form? before the codec? new stuff I have to learn now.
>lossless codecs
Yea, they are being used on movie sets with enormous storage requirements
1. FFV1 (FFmpeg Video Codec 1): A lossless video codec developed by FFmpeg.
2. Huffyuv: A lossless video codec that is popular for its speed and compression efficiency.
3. Lagarith: Another lossless video codec known for its high compression ratios.
4. Ut Video Codec: A high-performance lossless video codec that supports alpha channel.
lmao no one uses these meme open sores codecs, they just use prores
Prores is not lossless and I doubt anyone on a set or in post would use it professionally.
They even use a camera which captures raw bitmap images instead of a video and records the audio and separate device. So yeah, your hypothesis there doesn't cut it.
>I doubt anyone on a set or in post would use it professionally.
imagine being moronic
https://shotonwhat.com/capture-codecs-formats/apple-prores-codec
As i thought, only low-budget shit.
ah, yes, the EXTREMELY low budget indie shit you probably haven't heard of known as Game of Thrones.
https://shotonwhat.com/game-of-thrones-2011
These are what the originals were stored as, so that's rarer.
Generally you have sony/canon/red raws which is just the default format of the camera.
It is extra work to store in anything else. Which is why it's "rarer" to see that. In order to do it you have to re-encode the video from a camera into whatever format. So that's why prores isn't seen as much on the list.
However when you import it into davinci resolve, NUKE, after effects etc and export it, at that point it's a lot more popular to have a prores version there.
But that is the editing process and those are "intermediate" formats, not the "original storage"
And then there's the "delivery" format which 99% of the time will be h.264, h.265 etc these days
I've read that people preserving lossless videos do it in FFV1 (not data hoarders), makes sense to use an open source codec because you won't need to pay anyone anything right now or years later
>1. FFV1 (FFmpeg Video Codec 1): A lossless video codec developed by FFmpeg.
>2. Huffyuv: A lossless video codec that is popular for its speed and compression efficiency.
>3. Lagarith: Another lossless video codec known for its high compression ratios.
>4. Ut Video Codec: A high-performance lossless video codec that supports alpha channel.
Nobody uses this fricking shit, larping troony. The most common digital codecs used in mega budget digital films are ARRI Raw, RED Raw, and Prores since those are the only PROPREITARY codecs those PROPREITARY cams capture in.
https://shotonwhat.com/browse-index/capture-codecs-formats
apple prores is what is used...
as it is compressed and can be smaller (like ffv1)
other raw formats suck ass
>ah I see, efficiency it is then. the combination of data storage being cheaper and this means we'll be able to have large libraries of media in our local storage at greater scales over time.
Correct, but these days it’s more about the bandwidth efficiency for streaming services. Imagine if you can halve your file sizes at the same visual quality, but then stream it 10 million times. The bandwidth savings are huge.
Yep for personal archives for sure.
but like how email has increased in price over the years for the same amount of storage 20 years ago. We'll somehow see companies claim stuff costs more money when in reality it doesn't.
>30 GB compressed to 350 MB
AV1 will never achieve this level of compression. Also AV1 bloats when it sees even a hint of noise/grain and functions no different than H264 if the source isn't first denoised. You are better off with untouched blurays.
AV1's use case is for streaming sites to save a buck on bandwidth, that's it.
There's an optional fully configurable denoiser complemented by a digital noise generator at the decoding stage.
Cringe.
There is no reason to use anything like this at this point in time when storage is cheaper than it's ever been and just getting cheaper.
Again, AV1 much like VP9 was developed to help streaming sites save a buck.
high quality
low bitrate
You honestly sound like a hoarder tbh.
That and the lack of royalty bearing. Shit sent shock waves back in the day.
NTA, but I think the anon was just trying to express the general idea of compression algorithms.
Did you know it is a typical thing of below 90 IQ people that metaphors fly over their head?
i do denoise my videos before encoding them, and av1 still destroys my previous x264 encodes
i got movies down to ~4.5GiB at 720p before, now i'm getting them down to 2.5GiB at 1080p, while still being nearly indistinguishable from the denoised intermediates
>AV1 doesn't show any significant reduction in bitrate until video is scrubbed of noise/grain which removes detail
I know anon, that was my point
>which removes detail
no, it removes noise
noise is detail
no, noise is noise
and to be clear, i'm not using svt-av1's built-in denoiser
oh the futility. Imagine wasting the time encoding all that. Just get another ssd.
my 45TiB nas is getting full and don't need to keep remuxes of everything
it honestly doesn't take very long to encode av1 on my 24 thread cpu, i just run it in the background while i work
you'd waste more money in electricity cost trying to re-encode 45 tb worth of video by an order of magnitude compared to just buying another 16 tb hd for your nas.
not when i do it during the day when the solar panels are generating excess
and i'm not transcoding all of it, just stuff i don't care about as much but still want to keep so i can share them with others
>nah bruh i do my encoooding when the solar panels "generate excess"
most interesting larp yet
cope
How can one anon be such a massive homosexual?
>NNOOOO!!!1 DON'T USE THAT ENCODER!
>YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT I WOULD DO!
>KEEP BUYING MORE SPINNING DISKS!
>don't even THINK about re-encoding you library. I WILL post another meme, then everyone will know how foolish you are
Meanwhile, my mini pc can encode av1 faster than real-time, never drawing more than 20w. Let's be conservative and say it takes 3 hours to encode a 4k movie; that 60wh of total power consumption per movie. This equates to roughly 16 movies per kilowatt-hour ($0.15), less than 1 cent per title.
4k mkvs on average are 50gb, which allows roughly 20 titles per TB. 45TB of 4k mkvs would then cost me $9 to encode.
Please STFU, you cross-dressing pedophile.
how much does your mini pc cost?
just YIFY my shit up
soul removed
kek, you're wrong about one thing anon, if you don't first denoise/degrain, AV1 will still reduce bitrate by just macro-blocking and smearing all the grain detail
It's called an example, dumb dumb
No fricking shit AV1 shits the bed at grain. Every compression scheme on earth craps itself at any bit of randomness. That's why there's film grain synthesis built into the codec, even if it's not "true" to the source video's grain.
>Imagine a blue ray compressed to 350MB where your eye can't tell the difference between a 30GB movie file and a 350MB movie file
fricking transitioninIQfy homosexuals will opt for a 350GB over over a 30MB file if they see JUST ONE PIXEL of difference
>y-y-you don't understand, i need my quaaalityslop
This is one of the MOST special snowflake open sores video codecs because it's being heavily optimized for AVX 512. In other words even a fricking laptop will be able to compress video to ridiculous degrees in real time SOON (tm) without having to resort to low quality hw/gpu encoders.
This is serious business because laptops are the laughing stock of the computing world and are considered universally "weak" at pretty much anything CPU intensive.
New codecs make videos smaller while also looking better than old codecs.
Who cares? If you need more space just use one of those new petabyte cds. If you need to stream you will use a hardware encoder anyway.
Even if you are hosting video it will always be cheaper to just use hardware encoding to a cache and serve the video from that.
Hardware encoding = low quality at low bitrates. high quality AV1 video at low bitrates is now possible on a laptop now. A desktop is no longer a requirement for both high quality and low bitrate.
The only requirement is your laptop needs to have AVX 512. That's it. This is one of the very rare moments where you can have your cake and eat it too, per se.
Dude it takes hours to encode a single video even on desktop what kind of crack are you smoking. Furthermore there is no point, it costs more in cpu time than it would take in ssd or cd space.
I think the best way to think of AV1 is:
AVX 512 video codec
This is probably the most accurate descriptioin possible specifically regarding the SVT AV1 encoder. It's not that other inferior video encoders like x265 don't have AVX 512 optimizations but they pale in comparison to the ones you find in SVT AV1.
ANYWAY my point is laptop computers roided up with AVX 512 can encode high quality but low bitrate AV1 video in REAL TIME. 10 years ago you would have been called mentally handicapped for even suggesting that something like this is possible but it really is.
Not necessarily, even without AVX 512 it's already faster and more efficient than x265. Currently I see no reason to use any other codec than SVT-AV1.
Unless you need hardware decoding on older devices of course.
>Unless you need hardware decoding on older devices of course.
Not even older, we just had to buy new dvbs, as in spain the low definition tv emission stopped emiting recently, and only the expensive premium ones support av1
at equivalent quality/compression, AV1 is now faster than x264
That's the news from 2021.
i didn't intend to mean "since 2.0"
useless chart
needs to show vmaf score
and anything under 97 vmaf is garbage for private encodings
Depends on the screen PPI. You're mentally hadicapped for hitting 97 on a fricking tablet for example. I personally wouldn't use anything lower than 90 but I'm not going to waste precious space for 0 gain in perceived quality.
>Depends on the screen PPI
true
>Dude it takes hours to encode a single video
I am sure youtube is encoding all uploaded videos for shits and giggles.
use a gpu then
which gets you <x264 level of efficiency... genius
(cont) The only usecase (and i'm using that VERY generously here) is sending high quality video over constrained pipelines like tor. Which makes this a very thinly veiled pedo thread. Clean it up.
Also this "speedup" is a nothing burger as sv1 isn't even the fastest cpu based av1 encoder (aom)
rolling for total pixDAIZ ass beating
The update is not that big
>another thirdieware for jeets with cgnats and datacaps
Windows users, do you have the problem https://gitlab.com/AOMediaCodec/SVT-AV1/-/issues/2160 using libsvtav1 in FFmpeg?
Don't care, still use HEVC. Because all my devices doesn't support it
AV1 is not optimized to retain as much information as possible at a given size. It is optimized for low bitrates to seem high quality to someone who has never seen the uncompressed original.
I will never trust such a codec. It is deceptive by design.
>It is optimized for low bitrates to seem high quality to someone who has never seen the uncompressed original.
this is true for all lossy codecs, anon
>this is true for all lossy codecs
No, it isn't. The job of a good lossy codec is to preserve information. Artifacts appear when you can only preserve a fraction of the desired information.
AV1's goal is instead to remove artifacts. The best way to do that is to find a way to preserve information, but where that can't be done, it prefers to erase information entirely, rather than partially preserve it.
when i first played with it i ran into that, it would smooth out fine/low contrast detail no matter the CRF, now i disable its' denoiser and it's fine
dark scenes are preserved much better using svt-av1-psy's variance boost option
2.0 also explicitly fixes the "denoiser on by default", btw. Just thought I'd mention that although I don't know if it yet applies to the downstream psy fork.
don't care still using h264
i kept using x264 over x265, but now svt-av1 is literally faster than x264 so i didn't have any excuse anymore
x264 also speeds up considerably when you crush detail
unfortunately i'm not doing that
Do modern cameras even have MUH NOISE! anymore. I've heard rumors this stupid shit gets added on later in the movies.
even digital cameras are subject to sensor noise, it's just different in appearance to film grain
it will never truly go away, because it's a physical phenomenon, you're only capturing so much light per frame, and with fewer samples (less photons hitting the sensor) you get a less accurate (noisy) reading, so lower light situations and/or faster shutter speed results in more noise, larger optics and sensors can reduce this, but never completely eliminate it
that all said, sometimes artificial noise/grain is added in post if the editors want to make it look a certain way that may otherwise be unsuitable to do in-camera (or just allows for more control by shooting clean footage to begin with, since it's easier to add noise than remove it)
which encoder has the best compression efficiency at visually transparent bitrates? i remember AOM being better at high bitrates and SVT at lower, has SVT caught up?
AOM has more psychovisual optimizations for low bitrates but SVT is faster.
The best part about this thing is you no longer have to fiddle with 2 pass like you have to with VP9. Despite it being considered primarily a "streaming" codec the CRF mode is incredibly well built.
Anything under CRF 30 pretty much requires you to zoom in 400% and play video at 0.25x playback speed to really notice any difference.
What amuses me is that even CRF60 is still usable, especially when using preset 6 or slower.
>REEE NO IT LOOKS LIKE SHIT
I never said it looks amazing, just that it's VERY watchable, for how very compressed it is.
You can crush a demanding minute of 1440p120FPS footage under 50mb that way.
Sure, you can do the same in 264, but it will obviously pixel to frick and back.
crf 63 is also more than usable for simple animation or stuff with very little motion
too bad there's no crf setting past that, would make mini meme encodes much easier
crf 70 is what the maximum should've been
um you can't post that
IQfy support when?
aparently next month android may deploy in google play services or whatever is called now efficient software decoders, so if all android devices receive support, we are probably way closer now to get av1 and maybe avif in 4chins
Cool. I guess that old gif->webm meme video will need to be updated.
vp8? so oldschool
lmao
soon™
>next month
any source for that or did you just pull it out of your ass?
I'm betting it's the latter because "dav1d is coming to android" has been rumored for like 3 years already, the fact that the indian Black person called "mishaal rahman" reposted the same shit once again recently doesn't necessarily mean it's coming next month or at all
Both Chrome and Firefox on Android already have dav1d integrated, his claim doesn't make sense.
My old chink phone without AV1 HW decoding can play 1080p AV1 webms just fine.
Phone SOC: SD845
>Both Chrome and Firefox on Android already have dav1d integrated
...so? that has nothing to do with dav1d being embedded as part of android's native decoders
>My old chink phone without AV1 HW decoding can play 1080p AV1 webms just fine.
nobody asked
read the comment you are replying to again
then check who wrote the article you just linked
>read the comment you are replying to again
kek, i read about it in my language, i didnt doublecheck who was the writer when i looked for the english article i linked.
there were some news linked in a thread made by some anon here, some days ago
didnt save his links, but i think is this one https://www.androidauthority.com/android-update-av1-videos-3420418/
that is the apps, this was meant to be system wide, read the link
>morons using AV1 for offline videos
AV1 is a web codec, it is perfect for saving bandwidth, if you want quality use H264 or H265, a 16TB HDD is like 150 bucks.
AV1 would be perfect for the 4MB webm limit on here, but development on this site is dead.
Frick you, not all of us want to deal with spinning rust that randomly dies.
Not a single HDD has "randomly" died on me , they give you a bunch of signals and warmings weeks before dying.
The pieces of shit they're punking out today use SMR. I'll stick with my drawer full of samsung flash drives that have never let me down, thanks.
Also never put your eggs in one basket. I love my sammy sticks to death but I always make backups of backups.
All decent Seagate and WD HDDs are CMR.
If you buy a low end 4TB HDD then yes, it will be SMR.
They've literally been sued because they're replacing them with SMR. Frick that, sammy sticks till the day I die.
How long until it's added to Handbrake?
just drop it in
How?
you just take the executable, and push it over the old one
I don't see an executable in OP's link.
the executable built by your compiler, silly
Where is the IQfy support, Hiromoot?
he don't know how to do it
https://gitlab.com/AOMediaCodec/SVT-AV1/-/merge_requests/2179
Does a negative or a positive value indicate an improvement?
Okay, where's ffmpeg built with SVT-AV1 2.0?
can i use this out of the box with mpv yet?
if not do not bother me until i can
What do you mean by that?
so the answer is no? got it, closing tab
What do you mean by using it with mpv?
Do you mean playing AV1 videos with mpv?
Do you mean encoding AV1 videos with mpv?
has preset 1-0 gotten faster???
Yes
When did H255 come about? I was aware of H265 and HEVC x265.
Around the same time as AV1. No one really supports it. Wikipedia states that broadcast TV is supposed to be updated to use H.266 but haven't found much more than that.
So how long until it's in ffmpeg so I can actually use it?
These streaming-focused codec improvements are so silly.
Putting all the effort and/or money towards updating network hardware infrastructure to support multicast would do so much more.
don't care still using h263