4 ms·

Out of curiosity, what is the big difference of AV1 vs h264 and HEVC / x265 ? As someone who mainly cares about blu-ray / large movies, I was under the impress

Out of curiosity, what is the big difference of AV1 vs h264 and HEVC / x265 ? As someone who mainly cares about blu-ray / large movies, I was under the impression that HEVC was becoming the gold standard. Is that not the case, and/or is AV1 the next iteration, and/or do they solve different problems?

LeoPanthera 5y ago
The only significant difference is patents and licensing. In terms of actual compression, HEVC has slightly better efficiency. AV1 is supposedly a "free" format, but I wouldn't bet my business on it. The patent situation is unclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Patent_claims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Patent_claims
- dvdkon 5y ago
  There are just so many patents on things both specific and vague, that you can't ever be sure you're not infringing on some. As far as I know, all serious companies using HEVC pay to licence relevant patents, while the big players using AV1 don't. If I was building a business than had a choice of codec, I'd rather bet on AV1. Worst case, you get dragged into a legal battle, but so do Youtube and Netflix.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    > Worst case, you get dragged into a legal battle, but so do Youtube and Netflix Except that's not how legal cases work. Just because all three of you infringe doesn't mean lawsuits will result for all three. It's quite likely they would allow Youtube and Netflix to continue infringing to promote the growth and adoption of the codec whilst they go after smaller players who won't be able to put up a fight.
    - tcptomato 5y ago
      Sorry, but what you say doesn't make any sense. You think that YouTube and Netflix will just sit by as precedent is decided next to them? And the right owners having already won in court would just ignore the biggest "offenders"?
      - mschuster91 5y ago
        First you bully enough small-scale offenders who don't fight back to establish precedence and only then you go after the big fishes. This is why grassroots-scale efforts to defend against patent trolls are so important - you absolutely have to prevent precedence case building for patent trolls or it becomes so much harder down the road.
      - threeseed 5y ago
        Google and Netflix would have no choice but to sit by as you can't force yourself to be sued. You can try and invalidate the patent but in a situation like this where the patent holders are serious companies and legitimate innovators it's unlikely to get you far. And yes it is very common to bully lots of smaller players rather than get into an expensive protracted lawsuit with a large one.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        eesmith 5y ago
        Google and Netflix can help fund your legal defense. That's neither standing by nor being sued.
        threeseed 5y ago
        > Google and Netflix can help fund your legal defense I am not aware of this being the case for either company.
        eesmith 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sligor 5y ago
  > HEVC has slightly better efficiency Notice also that the encoder implementation is as important as the codec format itself for the quality/bitrate ratio.
- muglug 5y ago
  > In terms of actual compression, HEVC has slightly better efficiency. Where are you getting that information?
  - throwmeariver1 5y ago
    Their wiki page, every review when you google hevc vs av1… the better question is how do you get your information?
- pgeorgi 5y ago
  The patent situation is always unclear: Companies were gladly licensing the MP3 patent portfolio to the best of their abilities for their portable audio players and yet their shelves were cleared by customs because they missed licensing patents that were not part of the "patent pool". See https://edri.org/our-work/edrigramnumber6-5german-police-cebit/ https://edri.org/our-work/edrigramnumber6-5german-police-ceb... Paying off _some_ patent holders doesn't put you in the clear for all the others. No licensing pool indemnifies you against all other claims. There's never an exhaustive list of patents that apply to any particular product. "Competing product's patent situation is unclear" is always true, no matter the product (unless it's at least some 20+ years old, which should make it _somewhat_ safe because applicable patents expired). Bringing it up to favor one product over another is FUD though because it's true for the other product just as well. The patent regime is an extortion racket: patent offices hand out exclusive rights for money, without accepting any responsibility that these rights are warranted. They don't even guarantee that their own catalog is free from conflicting rights.

LeoPanthera 5y ago

The only significant difference is patents and licensing. In terms of actual compression, HEVC has slightly better efficiency. AV1 is supposedly a "free" format, but I wouldn't bet my business on it. The patent situation is unclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Patent_claims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Patent_claims

dvdkon 5y ago
There are just so many patents on things both specific and vague, that you can't ever be sure you're not infringing on some. As far as I know, all serious companies using HEVC pay to licence relevant patents, while the big players using AV1 don't. If I was building a business than had a choice of codec, I'd rather bet on AV1. Worst case, you get dragged into a legal battle, but so do Youtube and Netflix.
- threeseed 5y ago
  > Worst case, you get dragged into a legal battle, but so do Youtube and Netflix Except that's not how legal cases work. Just because all three of you infringe doesn't mean lawsuits will result for all three. It's quite likely they would allow Youtube and Netflix to continue infringing to promote the growth and adoption of the codec whilst they go after smaller players who won't be able to put up a fight.
  - tcptomato 5y ago
    Sorry, but what you say doesn't make any sense. You think that YouTube and Netflix will just sit by as precedent is decided next to them? And the right owners having already won in court would just ignore the biggest "offenders"?
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      First you bully enough small-scale offenders who don't fight back to establish precedence and only then you go after the big fishes. This is why grassroots-scale efforts to defend against patent trolls are so important - you absolutely have to prevent precedence case building for patent trolls or it becomes so much harder down the road.
    - threeseed 5y ago
      Google and Netflix would have no choice but to sit by as you can't force yourself to be sued. You can try and invalidate the patent but in a situation like this where the patent holders are serious companies and legitimate innovators it's unlikely to get you far. And yes it is very common to bully lots of smaller players rather than get into an expensive protracted lawsuit with a large one.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - eesmith 5y ago
        Google and Netflix can help fund your legal defense. That's neither standing by nor being sued.
        threeseed 5y ago
        > Google and Netflix can help fund your legal defense I am not aware of this being the case for either company.
        eesmith 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sligor 5y ago
> HEVC has slightly better efficiency Notice also that the encoder implementation is as important as the codec format itself for the quality/bitrate ratio.
muglug 5y ago
> In terms of actual compression, HEVC has slightly better efficiency. Where are you getting that information?
- throwmeariver1 5y ago
  Their wiki page, every review when you google hevc vs av1… the better question is how do you get your information?
pgeorgi 5y ago
The patent situation is always unclear: Companies were gladly licensing the MP3 patent portfolio to the best of their abilities for their portable audio players and yet their shelves were cleared by customs because they missed licensing patents that were not part of the "patent pool". See https://edri.org/our-work/edrigramnumber6-5german-police-cebit/ https://edri.org/our-work/edrigramnumber6-5german-police-ceb... Paying off _some_ patent holders doesn't put you in the clear for all the others. No licensing pool indemnifies you against all other claims. There's never an exhaustive list of patents that apply to any particular product. "Competing product's patent situation is unclear" is always true, no matter the product (unless it's at least some 20+ years old, which should make it _somewhat_ safe because applicable patents expired). Bringing it up to favor one product over another is FUD though because it's true for the other product just as well. The patent regime is an extortion racket: patent offices hand out exclusive rights for money, without accepting any responsibility that these rights are warranted. They don't even guarantee that their own catalog is free from conflicting rights.