4 ms·

See here for performance benchmarks on dav1d (av1 e̶n̶c̶o̶d̶e̶r̶): https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/dav1d#results https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/da

See here for performance benchmarks on dav1d (av1 e̶n̶c̶o̶d̶e̶r̶): https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/dav1d#results https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/dav1d#results Edit: It’s false! This is just a decoder, not an encoder! I just learned it. Here is the link for the performance benchmarks for SVT-AV1, the most popular encoder as I just learned: https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/svt-av1 https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/svt-av1

cogman10 4y ago
dav1d is an av1 decoder
- ______-_-______ 4y ago
  We just need to hold out hope for the release of dav1e
  - lynguist 4y ago
    Does Team Videolan have anything like it on their roadmap?
    - sp332 4y ago
      It's not a videolan project, but is rav1e the kind of thing you're looking for?
      - lynguist 4y ago
        But is the psychovisual output any good or do they only target, say, speed? Because back in the days, both Videolan projects x264 and x265 (especially x264) had much better psychovisual quality than commercial encoders. Back in those days, x264 felt to me like a software written by aliens from the future.
        sp332 4y ago
        Dark Shikari's blog was great. Defunct now, but I think it's all on the Internet Archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20100104193513/http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=201 https://web.archive.org/web/20100104193513/http://x264dev.mu... I don't know of any benchmarks, but rav1e does have --tune psychovisual, and there are issues raised against it, so it seems they take it seriously.
        kasabali 4y ago
        (sorry for venting time :) > Back in those days, x264 felt to me like a software written by aliens from the future. Indeed it may be :) H.264 might not be the latest and best video coding standard anymore, but in my opinion x264 is, and will always be by far the best encoder ever written for a video format. Which brings me to... > Because back in the days, both Videolan projects x264 and x265 (especially x264) had much better psychovisual quality than commercial encoders. Unfortunately x265 isn't a Videolan project (its developed by MulticoreWare Inc.) and it's a very mediocre encoder which doesn't hold a candle to x264 and IMO kind of a shame considering its legacy. Also after 2018 it's practically became maintainenance-only and was surpassed by proprietary encoders in MSU encoder tests in the following years. That's a big loss considering x264 was still seeing significant efficiency and performance improvements as late as 2013 (when the H.264 format was 10 years old), so when compared to x264 I assume a good 4-5 years of potential improvements have been left at the table for x265.
        cogman10 4y ago
        Yup. I think the big issue is x264 was very obviously a labor of love from some very talented developers. I just haven't seen that sort of love dumped into other encoders. Newer codecs have been relying on the format to provide more obvious tools for compression (and mostly giving benefits for HD+ resolutions).
        lynguist 4y ago
        Thank you for the writeup.
        prvc 4y ago
        Would you mind giving a few more details as to why x264 is so good, and x265 isn't?

cogman10 4y ago

dav1d is an av1 decoder

______-_-______ 4y ago
We just need to hold out hope for the release of dav1e
- lynguist 4y ago
  Does Team Videolan have anything like it on their roadmap?
  - sp332 4y ago
    It's not a videolan project, but is rav1e the kind of thing you're looking for?
    - lynguist 4y ago
      But is the psychovisual output any good or do they only target, say, speed? Because back in the days, both Videolan projects x264 and x265 (especially x264) had much better psychovisual quality than commercial encoders. Back in those days, x264 felt to me like a software written by aliens from the future.
      - sp332 4y ago
        Dark Shikari's blog was great. Defunct now, but I think it's all on the Internet Archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20100104193513/http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=201 https://web.archive.org/web/20100104193513/http://x264dev.mu... I don't know of any benchmarks, but rav1e does have --tune psychovisual, and there are issues raised against it, so it seems they take it seriously.
      - kasabali 4y ago
        (sorry for venting time :) > Back in those days, x264 felt to me like a software written by aliens from the future. Indeed it may be :) H.264 might not be the latest and best video coding standard anymore, but in my opinion x264 is, and will always be by far the best encoder ever written for a video format. Which brings me to... > Because back in the days, both Videolan projects x264 and x265 (especially x264) had much better psychovisual quality than commercial encoders. Unfortunately x265 isn't a Videolan project (its developed by MulticoreWare Inc.) and it's a very mediocre encoder which doesn't hold a candle to x264 and IMO kind of a shame considering its legacy. Also after 2018 it's practically became maintainenance-only and was surpassed by proprietary encoders in MSU encoder tests in the following years. That's a big loss considering x264 was still seeing significant efficiency and performance improvements as late as 2013 (when the H.264 format was 10 years old), so when compared to x264 I assume a good 4-5 years of potential improvements have been left at the table for x265.
        cogman10 4y ago
        Yup. I think the big issue is x264 was very obviously a labor of love from some very talented developers. I just haven't seen that sort of love dumped into other encoders. Newer codecs have been relying on the format to provide more obvious tools for compression (and mostly giving benefits for HD+ resolutions).
        lynguist 4y ago
        Thank you for the writeup.
        prvc 4y ago
        Would you mind giving a few more details as to why x264 is so good, and x265 isn't?