4 ms·
What’s missing is the encoding time difference. AVIFs are slow.
by toastal 3y ago
What’s missing is the encoding time difference. AVIFs are slow.
- shmerl 3y agoCan't GPU encoders be used for it? If they work for AV1 they should work for AVIF too. And software encoders are improving as well.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoTheoretically... But: - There are no implementations of this, AFAIK - They would suffer from the same adoption difficulty hardware video encoding suffers from. - They would suffer from the same quality issues and format limitations compared to software encoders (where intel/nvidia dGPU hardware AV1 maxes out at ~x265 medium last I checked)
- shmerl 3y agoStill it would be interesting to see it implemented. Sure it might be more limited in features compared to software encoders, but at least it could be an option when it's acceptable with software encoders being another one when more features are needed. Adoption time is applicable to anything new(ish), so AV1 isn't really special in that sense. It's already close to reaching wide adoption in hardware, so it's progressing well.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoIts not ubiquitous like AVC and HEVC though, which is a problem. There have been some holdouts (like Apple, IIRC) Google will integrate hardware AVIF into Pixels if anyone does, so we will get to see it in action there at least.
- shmerl 3y agoHEVC wasn't ubiquitous right away either. But it's DOA because of patent trolls like MPEG-LA. AV1 came later, so it will take its time to become ubiquitous while avoiding issues of HEVC. Apple is a brake on the progress, as always. They'll arrive last.
- youngtaff 3y agoComes with substantial compute costs at scale… know of companies where the cost of supporting AVIF is many millions more than the cost of supporting JXL
- toastal 3y agoNot to mention the resources/energy doing that compute would cost.