4 ms·
AV1 beats h.265 by 20-30%, h.266 beats h.265 by 50%. Honestly for that little of an improvement I'll go with AV1.
by zionic 6y ago
AV1 beats h.265 by 20-30%, h.266 beats h.265 by 50%. Honestly for that little of an improvement I'll go with AV1.
- freeone3000 6y agoReally? Because by that metric, H.266 is as far ahead of AV1 as AV1 is ahead of h.265.
- prvc 6y agoSo they themselves claim. Will wait for empirical tests with available codecs to really evaluate this. Also note that for a given bitstream specification, there will be "room to grow" for encoder implementations (AV1 is designed to be flexible in this way). I am not aware of any precise method for evaluating how much room exactly there theoretically could be ex ante.
- zanny 6y agoThe audience of h266 and whom will "win" the codec war isn't individual consumers, even powerusers that know what a codec is. H266 will be adopted by broadcasting and archival and will make mpeg tankers of money. Whatever the next generation of physical home media is after blu-ray will use it, the player for it will read it, and your TV cable box will take h266 signals in to decode. The costs of paying mpeg will be in the cost of the discs, the cost of the cable package, etc. The real win we should... hope? For is that h266 never sees a personal computer hardware decoder from Qualcomm / Samsung / Intel /AMD / Nvidia / etc. If online video is exclusively distributed with AV1 then none of these companies need touch the festering MPEG patent hell and consumers avoid that parasite leeching money out of their computer purchases. Because the cable box and physical media player are dying. You can generally opt out of them and avoid filling the MPEG coffers with software patent money. And the big web companies that have the power to dictate what computers are using for the next decade and beyond are all way favoring AV1 with the exception of Apple.
- fomine3 6y agoI expect H.266 patent fee is not so much expensive like you worried.