5 ms·

It's good to see that libvpx and x265 are moving forward. However, not mentioned is that a higher bitrate doesn't necessarily correlate with higher perceptual

It's good to see that libvpx and x265 are moving forward. However, not mentioned is that a higher bitrate doesn't necessarily correlate with higher perceptual quality. Additionally, part of H.264's appeal is its widespread hardware support, which enables features like smartphones with 4K video recording.

vetinari 11y ago
Nowadays, smartphone SoCs support both VP9 decoding and encoding in hardware. They have been supporting the same for VP8 for a while.
- andreasley 11y ago
  On the desktop: Nvidia added full hardware acceleration support for HEVC and VP9 in their GM206 GPU only this year. Intel has partial hardware acceleration for both codecs since this year as well, as does AMD. But: Only for decoding. On mobile, there are some SoCs that can do HEVC and VP9 decoding in 4K in hardware (like Nvidia's Tegra X1), but the large majority of smartphones does not yet have this capability. Encoding is a different story altogether. And iPhones will only do H.264 anyway for the foreseeable future. I'm a strong proponent of open standards and I'm really looking forward to VP9 and HEVC, but it will be a while before they'll have good hardware acceleration on all platforms.
  - fithisux 11y ago
    We shouldn't depend on HW implementations. Instead OpenCL (possibly/hopefully with a DSP profile should suffice).
    - Narishma 11y ago
      OpenCL and other GPU implementations of codecs are not as efficient in terms of power consumption as dedicated hardware.
      - astrange 11y ago
        OpenCL implementations of codecs aren't even as efficient as CPU implementations. Just because there's some pixels in there doesn't make it a good fit. They are entirely useless.
  - leonatan 11y ago
    HEVC is not an open standard. It has, arguably, even worse/strict license model.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      Not to mention -when last I checked- multiple, competing patent pools, each with its own licensing terms! >:D
    - acdha 11y ago
      “open standard” just means is that there's a spec which you could use to produce a compatible encoder or decoder. It doesn't mean that no country in the world has issued a patent which could conceivably affect your ability to sell a product. The other thing to remember is that most companies find the presence of a licensing model reassuring because you know the costs up front, as opposed to finding out when someone sues after you've shipped millions of units. That's one of the reasons why VP8 never posed a threat to H.264 – it was almost certain to get bogged down in lawsuits if it became popular – and why HEVC Advance is arguably the biggest threat to H.265 since it removes that comfort zone.
      - Silhouette 11y ago
        “open standard” just means is that there's a spec which you could use to produce a compatible encoder or decoder. A published standard has that advantage, but I think when most people talk about "open standards" they are implying a standard that can freely be implemented, in much the same way that for example Open Source software implies more than mere visibility of the source code.
        acdha 11y ago
        “most” people in certain communities: if you poll open source developers, that's probably true but almost everything you use has components covered by ISO/IETF/ITU-T/etc. standards which do allow licensing at varying levels and all of those people also strongly feel that they work on "open standards” as well. > in much the same way that for example Open Source software implies more than mere visibility of the source code. This has a very similar problem: public domain != BSD != Apache != GPL, etc. Depending on who you talk to, only some of those are true open source licenses. In both cases, the term is too vague to be useful for this level of fine-parsing and you have to talk in more detail about the aspects which you're specifically referring to rather than using a broad term.
- threeseed 11y ago
  Smartphones are not the only hardware that uses codecs. There are computers, consoles, handhelds, DSLRs, video cameras, security cameras etc. When you actually look at hardware in its totality VP9 has been completely irrelevant. And from my perspective a ubiquitous codec is infinitely more valuable than an open one.
IshKebab 11y ago
Err it is mentioned - there is even a graph of SSIM vs bitrate showing it.
- andreasley 11y ago
  You're absolutely right. My bad.

vetinari 11y ago

Nowadays, smartphone SoCs support both VP9 decoding and encoding in hardware. They have been supporting the same for VP8 for a while.

andreasley 11y ago
On the desktop: Nvidia added full hardware acceleration support for HEVC and VP9 in their GM206 GPU only this year. Intel has partial hardware acceleration for both codecs since this year as well, as does AMD. But: Only for decoding. On mobile, there are some SoCs that can do HEVC and VP9 decoding in 4K in hardware (like Nvidia's Tegra X1), but the large majority of smartphones does not yet have this capability. Encoding is a different story altogether. And iPhones will only do H.264 anyway for the foreseeable future. I'm a strong proponent of open standards and I'm really looking forward to VP9 and HEVC, but it will be a while before they'll have good hardware acceleration on all platforms.
- fithisux 11y ago
  We shouldn't depend on HW implementations. Instead OpenCL (possibly/hopefully with a DSP profile should suffice).
  - Narishma 11y ago
    OpenCL and other GPU implementations of codecs are not as efficient in terms of power consumption as dedicated hardware.
    - astrange 11y ago
      OpenCL implementations of codecs aren't even as efficient as CPU implementations. Just because there's some pixels in there doesn't make it a good fit. They are entirely useless.
- leonatan 11y ago
  HEVC is not an open standard. It has, arguably, even worse/strict license model.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    Not to mention -when last I checked- multiple, competing patent pools, each with its own licensing terms! >:D
  - acdha 11y ago
    “open standard” just means is that there's a spec which you could use to produce a compatible encoder or decoder. It doesn't mean that no country in the world has issued a patent which could conceivably affect your ability to sell a product. The other thing to remember is that most companies find the presence of a licensing model reassuring because you know the costs up front, as opposed to finding out when someone sues after you've shipped millions of units. That's one of the reasons why VP8 never posed a threat to H.264 – it was almost certain to get bogged down in lawsuits if it became popular – and why HEVC Advance is arguably the biggest threat to H.265 since it removes that comfort zone.
    - Silhouette 11y ago
      “open standard” just means is that there's a spec which you could use to produce a compatible encoder or decoder. A published standard has that advantage, but I think when most people talk about "open standards" they are implying a standard that can freely be implemented, in much the same way that for example Open Source software implies more than mere visibility of the source code.
      - acdha 11y ago
        “most” people in certain communities: if you poll open source developers, that's probably true but almost everything you use has components covered by ISO/IETF/ITU-T/etc. standards which do allow licensing at varying levels and all of those people also strongly feel that they work on "open standards” as well. > in much the same way that for example Open Source software implies more than mere visibility of the source code. This has a very similar problem: public domain != BSD != Apache != GPL, etc. Depending on who you talk to, only some of those are true open source licenses. In both cases, the term is too vague to be useful for this level of fine-parsing and you have to talk in more detail about the aspects which you're specifically referring to rather than using a broad term.
threeseed 11y ago
Smartphones are not the only hardware that uses codecs. There are computers, consoles, handhelds, DSLRs, video cameras, security cameras etc. When you actually look at hardware in its totality VP9 has been completely irrelevant. And from my perspective a ubiquitous codec is infinitely more valuable than an open one.

IshKebab 11y ago

Err it is mentioned - there is even a graph of SSIM vs bitrate showing it.

andreasley 11y ago
You're absolutely right. My bad.