What are the current best audio codecs and video codecs? Is AV1 better than h265? Is Opus better than AAC?

What are the current best audio codecs and video codecs?

Is AV1 better than h265?
Is Opus better than AAC?

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Is AV1 better than h265?
    Yes
    >Is Opus better than AAC
    Yes

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What are the current best audio codecs and video codecs?
    h264
    AAC (opus if freetard)

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      a post so good it deserves to be framed

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      a post so good it deserves to be framed

      AAC-LC, HE-AAC v1, HE-AAC v2 or xHE-AAC?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Whatever is still patented.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          LC patents will expire sooner than the newer profiles though

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        he-aac v1 and v2 get mogged hard by opus, and they only outperform lc at low bitrate, where, again, opus mogs them hard
        xhe-aac only beats opus when it comes to very low bitrate music, which is a use case nobody has, also compatibility is way worse than opus which now pretty much just werks on anything

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        (x)HE(v2) are not really relevant for music, they're intended for <128kbps. At higher bitrates they should be pretty much identical to LC.
        You should not listen to that anon however, AAC is a dumb choice today.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >are not really relevant for music
          yes they are
          32 kbps he-aacv2 will still outperform 32 kbps lc when it comes to music, ignoring the fact that it will still sound like ass and definitely not transparent obviously
          >At higher bitrates they should be pretty much identical to LC
          actually, at higher bitrates they are worse than LC from what i've read
          this is also the reason most he-aac encoders don't even have >128 as an option
          >AAC is a dumb choice today
          why would it be? if you need 128 kbps and have access to a good quality encoder, it's the exact same as opus (minus the handy 48 khz resample) but with more compatibility

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I've never seen anyone use AAC at 128kbps.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ???
            it's pretty much the most common bitrate for aac, and the most sensible one to use
            also... you've never seen youtube?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            All I have is stuff from iTunes (which is VBR up to 384kbps I think) and YTM/Spotify Premium (256kbps CVBR).
            I assume there's a good reason they go that high, though in fairness I've never tried to ABX 128/256 for AAC.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >which is VBR up to 384kbps
            no, it's 256k, if you are seeing spikes up to 384 that's just the nature of vbr.
            >I assume there's a good reason they go that high
            there isn't one, it's just to appeal to audiophools, or morons that still use mp3 as reference and have no idea what aac means, cbr mp3 is literally already transparent for 99% of people at 192 kbps, 256 kbps aac vbr or cvbr is beyond moronation and overkill, spotify even provides 320k vbr vorbis, when the free tier 160k vbr one is already abx-able by pretty much no one

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Fair enough, I can't personally pass the digitalfeed test for 128kbps. Other people can though.
            There's also an issue with recommending AAC in that the best encoder is Mac-only, whereas libopus is cross-platform.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Other people can though
            for those people, 160 would already be enough, 256 is way beyond that
            >There's also an issue with recommending AAC in that the best encoder is Mac-only
            it's not mac only, you can install itunes on windows and then use https://github.com/AnimMouse/QTFiles
            also fdk-aac and I think nero's aac aren't that much worse than apple's encoder

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >best video codecs
      >h264
      maybe you meant worst?

      >video codecs
      AV1, but it's not worth the immense time it takes for encoding. Even x265 takes numerous times longer than x264 and the quality isn't magnitudes better at a reasonably high bitrate.
      >audio codecs
      Just use FLAC

      >x265 takes numerous times longer than x264
      that's only true if you compare medium/fast preset for both of them, and h264 is already so inefficient that using slower presets is pretty much mandatory
      also
      >AV1, but it's not worth the immense time it takes for encoding
      ever heard of svt-av1 moron? shit's literally faster than x265 now

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >ever heard of svt-av1 moron? shit's literally faster than x265 now

        I want to make a test. Please give me conversion command for 1080p video. 6k bitrate

        Please, I want to test.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          why 6k bitrate and not crf? are you fricking moronic?
          also... jesus fricking christ ever heard of google or the documentation?
          is -c:v libsvtav1 -b:v 6000k that hard for your zoomzoom brain???

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why 6k bitrate and not crf? are you fricking moronic?
            It's very different from the source with crf. Like, total garbage

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ???
            what does that even mean
            there are 0 cases where crf produces a worse output than variable bitrate, you are literally saying "use X amount with Y% of leeway" instead of "use whatever you need to reach X amount of quality"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >is -c:v libsvtav1 -b:v 6000k that hard for your zoomzoom brain???
            Also, you are a braindead moron btw. No preset. I guess we all know who are the zoomer here

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            oh sorry, you also needed help typing -preset *number*?
            why aren't you complaining about the lack of -i *input* and *output*? that sounds a bit more important to me, doesn't it?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >maybe you meant worst?
        No. h264 is still used everywhere. It has the best encoder and is the most compatible. Its spread is universal.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >h264 is still used everywhere
          not only is that not true, but that doesn't mean it's the best, what moronic argument is that?
          >It has the best encoder
          well your "best encoder" is way less efficient than the worst h265/vp9/av1 encoder
          >is the most compatible
          again, that doesn't make it the best
          >Its spread is universal
          oh thanks for repeating the same dumb bullshit the third time
          did you know? the ford f150 is the best car!! it has the most cargo space and it's the most common on us roads!!! so it is the best car ever!!! that's how moronic you sound

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes it is, relatively speaking.
            Yes x264 is still the best encoder to use with the best rate control and the best defaults.
            Yes it does.
            It's true.
            Cope and seethe, your troony codec will never make it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >best rate control and best defaults
            again, that doesn't fricking matter
            a modern encoder with shitty defaults and moronic rate control still mogs it
            >Cope and seethe
            no, you are the coping moron trying to defend one of the shittiest codecs known to man based on stuff that doesn't fricking matter

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >shittiest codec known to man
            It was only the codec which brought video to the internet, also bluray.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It was only the codec which brought video to the internet
            yes... in 360p or lower quality
            and the ford model t is the best car because it's the car that brought cars to the masses...
            >also bluray
            yeah, that disc format that has a frickton of storage capacity that makes it possible to use any shitty codec uses h264, correct, again, your point?
            also blu rays use h265 for 4k because with h264 you can't fit a 2 hour 4k movie on a fricking 50 gb blu ray because of how exponentially worse it gets at higher resolutions lol, kinda proves the point that h264 is obsolete and ass doesn't it?

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >video codecs
    AV1, but it's not worth the immense time it takes for encoding. Even x265 takes numerous times longer than x264 and the quality isn't magnitudes better at a reasonably high bitrate.
    >audio codecs
    Just use FLAC

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're moronic, preset 8 SVT-AV1 is faster than x265 yet gives you the same compression efficiency.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        x265 is just a bad HEVC encoder. The commercial proprietary ones are much better. x264 and libaom are much closer to the best encoders for their respective codecs than x265 is.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I want to make a test. Please give me conversion command for 1080p video. 6k bitrate

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Just do standard CRF encoding and try to approximate the bitrate. CBR will be worse.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >juse use flac
      kys

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Just use FLAC
      lys

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >but it's not worth the immense time it takes for encoding
      SVT-AV1 preset 4 1080p encodes a bit faster than real-time for me. more than good enough
      >Just use FLAC
      based

      I want to make a test. Please give me conversion command for 1080p video. 6k bitrate

      >ever heard of svt-av1 moron? shit's literally faster than x265 now
      [...]
      Please, I want to test.

      >x265
      ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -c:v libx265 -c:a libopus -b:a 160k -preset slow -x265-params bframes=8:psy-rd=1:aq-mode=3:crf=36 x265.mkv
      >av1
      ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -c:a libopus -b:a 160k -c:v libsvtav1 -preset 4 -crf 36 svtav1.mkv
      now watch as av1 mogs x265 in terms of quality and encodes faster. also just use fricking crf

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >libopus
        >160k
        the audiophool has arrived
        use 96 like a sane human being moron

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I use flac like a normal person. the guy I replied to wanted something to convert a video which I gave him

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            more like, you use flac like a moronic audiophool
            checks out

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            just say so if you're too poor to afford storage, anon

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i can stop being poor
            you can't stop being moronic

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you compare CPU encoding.
      I would just avoid the long encoding times and use the GPU, but with the newest and most efficient codec thats compatible with your usecase.
      >AV1 GPU over x265 CPU,
      >h265 GPU over x264 CPU.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >AV1 GPU over x265 CPU
        ...which gets you x264 level of efficiency, with the low compatibility of av1
        >h265 GPU over x264 CPU
        ...which gets you veryfast preset x264 level of efficiency, with the atrocious compatibility of h265
        gpu encoding never makes fricking sense, when will you morons learn? that shit is for streaming/background clip recording and nothing else

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >atrocious compatibility of h265
          what device after 2015 can't decode h265 with hardware? I don't own one.
          >which gets you veryfast preset x264 level of efficiency
          And on h264 veryfast 1080p my CPU gets around 150fps, my GPU can encode around 400fps. Quality with H265 is still slightly better at the same size. So there is no reason not to use GPU encoding in that case.

          CPU encoding only makes sense if you want the smallest size and time to encode doesn't matter.

          You are right if you encode one movie one video. There it doesn't make sense to GPU encode.
          I used it for anime reencoding, batch downloaded 10-15 shows with 1,5-2gb per episode and didn't want to reencode with h264 60fps for days. With my GPU I can do 300-400fps.
          If you calculate how much a GB of HDD space costs compared to the additional electricity cost you need if you PC runs for days it doesn't make that much sense.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what device after 2015 can't decode h265 with hardware?
            every windows computer that doesn't have vlc/mpv installed or has the 2$ codec extension from microsoft store
            >And on h264 veryfast 1080p my CPU gets around 150fps
            ...why is that not enough? in what scenario do you need to shit on efficiency even further to have more performance?
            you can encode a 2 hour movie in like 10 minutes at that speed, why would you want it to be even faster???
            >there is no reason not to use GPU encoding in that case.
            yes there is, you are making an inefficient transcode, which defeats the point of transcoding entirely
            >CPU encoding only makes sense if you want the smallest size and time to encode doesn't matter
            in what case is that not what you want???
            >I used it for anime reencoding
            ...why are you reencoding anime that's already usually well compressed, with even worse efficiency? that doesn't make any sense
            >If you calculate how much a GB of HDD space costs compared to the additional electricity cost you need if you PC runs for days it doesn't make that much sense.
            then why the frick are you making shitty transcodes instead of sticking to the original?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >then why the frick are you making shitty transcodes instead of sticking to the original?
            was literally gonna say that. makes no fricking sense to me lmao

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >vlc/mpv installed
            Show me one person that cares about codecs and doesn't have at least vlc installed
            >shitty transcodes instead of sticking to the original
            because it is a difference if you have crappy "encodes" with 1,5-2gb on the website where the stuff is uploaded with subtitles in my native language.
            With quick and dirty gpu h265 encoding I end up around 400-600mb per episode, while needing 40-50 minutes per 24 episodes.
            With CPU x264 I need 2-3 hours while having the same size.
            With CPU x265 I need 6-10 hours while maybe saving another 100mb per episode.
            Usually I batch donwload at least 5-10 shows. All devices can decode h265 in hardware.
            Why the frick should you use anything but the fastest option in that case?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Show me one person that cares about codecs and doesn't have at least vlc installed
            exactly... people that don't care about codecs won't be able to watch your h265 videos, that's the point.
            >because it is a difference if you have crappy "encodes" with 1,5-2gb on the website where the stuff is uploaded with subtitles in my native language.
            no idea what that even means
            >With quick and dirty gpu h265 encoding I end up around 400-600mb per episode
            the anime I download already in h265 is usually smaller than that... you once again proved my point
            >Usually I batch donwload at least 5-10 shows
            why do you mindlessly hoard anime, just to then transcode it so it looks like shit, I don't get it, do you have a mental illness or something?
            >Why the frick should you use anything but the fastest option in that case?
            more like, why the frick should you transcode shit in that case?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the anime I download already in h265 is usually smaller than that... you once again proved my point
            Like I said, the website for anime with subs in my mother language has these insanely bloated file sizes. If they where reasonable of course I would download the smaller encode.

            >transcode it so it looks like shit
            ah yes, so everything that isn't cpu encoded looks like shit.
            Because you can't just find a compromise between size, speed and quality.
            GPU h265 encoding is 2-3x faster than CPU x264, and looks better at the same file size. Why should you wait longer for a worse encode at the same size?
            Can a CPU encode get you better quality or smaller files? Yes, but only if you use an even slower encode.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Like I said, the website for anime with subs in my mother language has these insanely bloated file sizes.
            why don't you download anime from torrent trackers and then merge the subtitles with mkvtoolnix?
            >ah yes, so everything that isn't cpu encoded looks like shit.
            at those filesizes with hardware encoding? yes it'll most likely look like shit, get your eyesight checked out
            >Because you can't just find a compromise between size, speed and quality.
            gpu encoding a compromise between size, speed and quality? lol no, speed is all you get moron
            >GPU h265 encoding is 2-3x faster than CPU x264, and looks better at the same file size. Why should you wait longer for a worse encode at the same size?
            this question has already been answered
            >Can a CPU encode get you better quality or smaller files? Yes, but only if you use an even slower encode.
            again: there's no reason you need to encode at more than 150 fps

            >why do you mindlessly hoard anime
            why do you avoid the main question??? why the frick are you downloadiing 5-10 shows a day???

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there's no reason you need to encode at more than 150 fps
            if your mom pays your electricity bill+ still slower
            >lol no, speed is all you get moron
            Show proof. I've researched this topic and did many test encodes that showed me the opposite.
            >why the frick are you downloadiing 5-10 shows a day???
            just downloading ever 2-3 months when I watched the old shows. I don't search for new stuff every week.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >just downloading ever 2-3 months when I watched the old shows. I don't search for new stuff every week.
            well maybe stop doing that??? get a bigger hard drive???

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >h265 GPU over x264 CPU
          >...which gets you veryfast preset x264 level of efficiency
          https://www.igorslab.de/en/nvidias-nvenc-vs-cpu-encoding-the-turing-video-encoder-for-twitch-streaming-co-comparison-analysis-with-netflix-vmaf/3/
          absolute bullshit. H264 Nvenc on rtx2xxx cards is more efficient than x264 medium preset.
          Where you got your numbers from? 2013 GPUs?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            if that testing isn't completely fricked, then the nvenc encoder outperformx x264 veryslow??? looks bullshit to me

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            show proof. Pro tip: "looks like bullshit" is no proof.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ?si=n4A30EM1f7Z6lYOO&t=394
            different source.
            h265 gpu outperforms x264 by a wide margin.
            Doesn't matter if h265 vs x265 or h264 or x264, GPU is only worse by a few percent but faster mutliple times.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      av1 is one of the fastest codecs out there nowadays, svt-av1 is crazy fast, it's actually faster than x264 at equivalent quality

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Is AV1 better than h265?
    Yes
    >Is Opus better than AAC?
    when comparing libopus to the best aac encoders out there (such as apple's qaac), Opus is only better than AAC at 96 kbps and below

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    h264
    jpg
    You don't need more

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I need av1 and jpeg-xl
      also get me some opussy while you are at it

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        based

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          jpeg xl doesn't have hardware acceleration like avif does.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            daiz, we are all begging you to have a nice day
            why won't you do it already

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            not him but jpeg xl is just going to be flif 2.0 without hardware acceleration.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >not him
            yeah sure

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            it's a fricking picture homie

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't have to exclusively be just a "picture". It could be a keyframe, you know those things videos are full of.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    h264 is way too versatile and widespread at the moment. AV1 will take over when the lowest common denominator has an AV1 decoder, and I'm talking sub $100 Android phones.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't AV1 already DOA because of VVC.
    AV2 is also currently being worked on already.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Isn't AV1 already DOA because of VVC.
      oh yeah *codec that has been widespread since 2018* is doa because of *codec that isn't supported anywhere and that nothing has ever used*, sure, how do you even end up with such moronation? do you have a working brain?
      >AV2 is also currently being worked on already.
      correct, just like h267 is currently being worked on already... so?
      yes, the guys that make codecs start working on a new one once the current one is released, correct, shocking.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nope, recent VVC "tests" were using svt-av1 preset 10 to make AV1 look bad. It seems like the slowest VVC encode is only like 10℅ better than the slowest AV1 encode. All and all it's turning out to be a huge disaster for mpeg-la.

      >not him
      yeah sure

      jpeg xl is literally based on the botched flif project, look it up. It's just another israeli grift.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        alright
        show me proof that flif failed because of lack of hardware acceleration and nothing else
        I'm betting you won't provide any data as always, but yeah you are not pixdaiz, right? lol

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Just look up the creator of jpeg xl. This one is elusive as it doesn't have a wikipedia page and early life section.

          Cloudinary: Fun fact time! Favorite city/country traveled thus far and/or your favorite book?

          JS: Hard to pick a favorite. I loved Cape Town, Melbourne, Prague, Tel Aviv

          https://cloudinary.com/blog/innovator-spotlight-jpeg-xl-co-creator-jon-sneyers

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ...yup, proved my point, you are in fact daiz, and you are moronic
            i literally said "you'll reply with unrelated stuff"... and you did
            I asked you for data about "flif died because of lack of hw aceleration" and you replied with... the creator is israelite!! look here!
            that's not data that proves your point, it's not what i'm asking for, I seriously have no idea how you can be a functioning human being

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you trust a israeli image codec so much? FLIF was a grift so what makes you think jpeg xl is NOT a grift?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do you trust a israeli image codec so much?
            I'M JUST ASKING FOR FRICKING DATA
            SHOW ME THE FRICKING DATA butthole

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    all torrent encodes should switch to av1/ opus

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Audio:
    >Opus for maximum efficiency
    >Vorbis for high efficiency and maximum compatibility

    Video:
    >AV1 for maximum efficiency
    >H265 for high efficiency and maximum compatibility

    As more hardware and software incorporates support for Opus and AV1, H265 and Vorbis will become less and less necessary.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >maximum compatibility
      With all web browsers supporting Opus and AV1 but not HEVC and (in case of Safari) Vorbis, I'm not so sure you're correct there.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        oh yeah I didn't even account for that in my

        >Vorbis for high efficiency and maximum compatibility
        as a xiph/vorbis/opus fanboy... no
        aac with a good encoder is on par with vorbis throughout the whole bitrate range (except maybe below 32 kbps or something like that) and it's WAAAY more compatible, vorbis doesn't even come close to maximum compatibility
        can a first gen ipod read vorbis? no it can't, but it can read aac just fine
        can a nintendo dsi read vorbis? no it can't, but again, aac is supported
        can a shitty dvb-t2 decoder playback vorbis encoded audio from it's usb slot? in 99% of cases, no. but of course aac will always work, it's part of the standard.
        I could probably find another dozen of these cases where aac is supported but vorbis isn't, vorbis is medium compatibilty at best aac is very high compatibility, and mp3 is maximum compatibility

        reply
        h265 maximum compatibility? what the frick are you smoking? shit isn't even supported natively on windows without paying 2$ for a codec license lol
        if you ignore the software side, yes, even a pc from the late 2000s can decode h265 happily (as long as it's not over 1080p) in software, and most devices made after 2014 even support hardware decode for it
        but the software side is what fricks it up

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Vorbis is supported almost everywhere now, and was even supported on a large number of PMPs (sans iPod), and in popular audio players like Winamp during the early-mid 2000s. H265 has had wide support for almost 5 years now.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Vorbis is supported almost everywhere now
            ...yes, correct...
            but "almost everywhere" and "maximum compatibility" are two different things, and it still doesn't make any sense to prefer vorbis over aac for compatibility, is the first ipod and nintendo dsi getting an update to enable vorbis anytime soon? don't think so
            >H265 has had wide support for almost 5 years now
            wide support... yeah sure
            doesn't work on windows out of the box (80% market share or something), doesn't work in any browser (you know, the most important kind of software there is, and that does everything nowdays) unless you have a gpu manufactured after 2015 or a mac
            but sure, wide support... just werks everytime...
            btw, little fun fact for you... vp9 is literally much more compatible than h265 due to the licensing stuff
            ...as long as you ignore apple products (which are only like 50% market share right who cares), it really does just werk

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >not HEVC and (in case of Safari)
        actually, I'm pretty sure chromium browsers also don't support hevc unless you have hardware decode for it

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Safari doesn't support Vorbis, others do.
          On the other hand, HEVC only fully works on Safari.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Safari doesn't support Vorbis, others do.
            nvm i can't read
            btw, no, actually it does support vorbis... as long as it isn't in an ogg container... apple logic

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Vorbis for high efficiency and maximum compatibility
      as a xiph/vorbis/opus fanboy... no
      aac with a good encoder is on par with vorbis throughout the whole bitrate range (except maybe below 32 kbps or something like that) and it's WAAAY more compatible, vorbis doesn't even come close to maximum compatibility
      can a first gen ipod read vorbis? no it can't, but it can read aac just fine
      can a nintendo dsi read vorbis? no it can't, but again, aac is supported
      can a shitty dvb-t2 decoder playback vorbis encoded audio from it's usb slot? in 99% of cases, no. but of course aac will always work, it's part of the standard.
      I could probably find another dozen of these cases where aac is supported but vorbis isn't, vorbis is medium compatibilty at best aac is very high compatibility, and mp3 is maximum compatibility

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Realistically, how long until Opus and AV1 become as ubiquitous as AAC and H264?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Already happening, youtube is mass converting everything to av1/opus as we speak. The ONLY thing missing is easy GUI AV1 keyframe extraction becoming a thing.

      Most people don't understand that AV1 video streams are image goldmines.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >youtube is mass converting everything to av1/opus as we speak
        that's highly misleading
        youtube is converting lots of popular videos to av1, yes, but they aren't going to transcode their whole library, it might reach the same coverage as vp9 some day, but most videos on youtube are still badly asic h264 only and that's probably never going to change, 500 hours of content are uploaded every minute and it will never make financial sense to transcode all of it to av1, maybe vp9 some day? but av1 not in the next 10 years that's for sure
        >The ONLY thing missing is easy GUI AV1 keyframe extraction becoming a thing
        oh I see, I just spent time replying to yet another daiz post, frick me

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          AV1 and AVIF are interchangeable with each other, look it up. If you don't care about images consider that those shitty GIFs will be a thing of the past and "encoding" animated avif files won't be necessary half the time.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            wow look! daiz missing the point! never seen that before! shocking!
            no, you are wrong, because basically hardware acceleration keyframe extraction a53 bad iprolapse 15 pro

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >avif is a solution to shitty gifs
            why can't you just use webm or h264 encoded mp4s like telegram does? why does it have to be avif???

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because standard video files blow. Nobody really likes them which is why you still see GIFs being posted here all the time.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ??? avif animated files are literally av1 video but in an heic container instead of mp4/webm
            how is that different
            all that's required is for the browser/application to loop and disable controls if there's no audio

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They're not treated as video files at the OS/browser level. Thus it can finally replace GIF. Also it lets you save delta frames so any part of an AV1 video can be saved as an image.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Also it lets you save delta frames so any part of an AV1 video can be saved as an image.
            daiz is this u

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No clue who that is but it doesn't make sense to destroy the quality of AV1 video with jpeg xl.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            jpeg xl supports lossless encoding moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            WHY in gods green earth would you convert 50-100 KB AV1 keyframes with/without delta frames into a bloated lossless jpeg xl?

            Do you know how moronic that is?

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >not swearing by mpeg-1 audio layer III vbr -v0

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      trash, kys
      also most mp3 morons don't know what vbr is

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe this is an appropriate thread to ask, but is there some GPU requirements/OS requirements or some specific media player to run AV1?
    When I try running AV1 videos on my VLC in LInux Mint, it lags and evetually crashes. I thought VLC as the problem but faced the same problem with mpv. Could it be my GPU? its a potato MX150 NVIDIA gpu 2GB

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Could it be my GPU?
      no, your cpu is doing all the work

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        My CPU is: Intel i5-8265U (8) @ 3.900GHz
        Doesn't seem like it should present problems.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *