5 ms·
I really like HEVC/h265. It's pretty much on par with VP9. but licensing trouble has made it difficult to get adopted everywhere even now. VVC/h266 seems to be
by adzm 2y ago
I really like HEVC/h265. It's pretty much on par with VP9. but licensing trouble has made it difficult to get adopted everywhere even now. VVC/h266 seems to be having the same issues; AV1 is pretty much just as good and already seeing much more adoption.
- radicality 2y agoWhat’s the tldr of the licensing problems? I’ve started reading this article which list the various H.26x proposals - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Coding_Experts_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Coding_Experts_Group Seems like the group that comes with these is eventually part of the UN ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicat... Is it because they come with the codecs “jointly” with the MPEG organization, which is for profit? If the group is part of a standards organization that’s part of the UN, I feel like they should come up with non-patent-encumbered “recommendations”.
- peutetre 2y ago> What’s the tldr of the licensing problems? There are multiple patent pools for H.265 wanting to be paid licensing fees (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, Velos Media). HEVC Advance and Velos Media even want content distribution licensing fees. And there are patent holders not in any pool who also want to be paid (Technicolor, Motorola, Nokia, etc.). It's a mess.
- ksec 2y ago>HEVC Advance and Velos Media even want content distribution licensing fees. That is not correct. Unless you meant they once "suggested" to ask for content distribution licensing.
- peutetre 2y agoIt's correct. It's category 4: https://accessadvance.com/topic-what-do-we-license/ https://accessadvance.com/topic-what-do-we-license/
- ksec 2y agoContent distribution licensing fees implies and refers to streaming and broadcasting. Physical Media has always been a seperate and its own category.
- peutetre 2y agoNo, it doesn't. You were wrong. Just accept that and be happy.
- ksec 2y agoOk, I will bite >>HEVC Advance and Velos Media even want content distribution licensing fees. 1. Are Broadcasting and Streaming "content distribution"? 2. Do HEVC Advance and Velos Media currently, or has ever charges for Broadcasting and Streaming? And to quote: You were wrong. Just accept that and be happy.
- peutetre 2y agoThere's nothing to bite. You've been wrong before. You'll be wrong again.
- ksec 2y agoLOL, You didn't even bother answering the question. I will let others be the judge. But it is rather obvious from your other reply about your knowledge on video codec. Have a nice day.
- peutetre 2y agoLook, your claim is that selling movies on discs is not content distribution. But it clearly is. You're just wrong. Don't worry about it.
- threeseed 2y agoiPhone, DJI, Cameras etc all use H.265 or RAW. It's really like H.264 all over again where everyone claims the patent pools make a big difference but only on the periphery.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago“Everyone” meaning the vocal minority of HN users trying to maintain the purity of their Gentoo installs.
- labster 2y agoHey, someone needs to protect our precious binary fluids.
- kuschku 2y ago"Cameras all use H.265", curious , what cameras are you referring to? While some cameras do support it, it's much more common to use ProRes, DNxHD/DNxHR or h264 in all-intra mode (as e.g. in XAVC-I and XAVC-S-I). h265, or long-GOP codecs in general, are only really used for long talking head shots or lectures.
- deletedie 2y agoHow does being long-GOP affect the decision? (genuine question)