4 ms·

AV1 is an amazing codec. I really hope it replaces proprietary codecs like h264 and h265. It has a similar, if not better, performance to h265 while being compl

AV1 is an amazing codec. I really hope it replaces proprietary codecs like h264 and h265. It has a similar, if not better, performance to h265 while being completely free. Currently on an Intel-based Macbook it is only supported in some browsers, however it seems that newer video cards from AMD, Nvidia, and Intel do include hardware decoders.

karn97 1y ago
9070xt records gameplay by default in av1
- monster_truck 1y ago
  RDNA3 cards also have AV1 encode. RDNA 2 only has decode. With the bitrate set to 100MB/s it happily encodes 2160p or even 3240p, the maximum resolution available when using Virtual Super Resolution (which renders at >native res and downsamples, is awesome for titles without resolution scaling when you don't want to use TAA)
  - kennyadam 1y ago
    Isn't that expected? 4K Blurays only encode up to like 128Mbps, which is 16MB/s. 100MB/s seems like complete overkill.
    - vlovich123 1y ago
      I think op just didn’t type Mbps properly. 100MB/s or ~800Mbps is way higher than the GPU can even encode at a HW level even I would think
      - monster_truck 1y ago
        100,000kbps. It will more than double that for 3240p. https://i.imgur.com/LyrhNXZ.png https://i.imgur.com/LyrhNXZ.png
        vlovich123 1y ago
        Right. That’s 223642 kilobits/s (kbps) in your picture or ~200MBit/s whereas you wrote (intentionally or otherwise) 200Mbyte/s a nearly 10 fold difference (100Mbit/s =~ 12Mbyte/s). 100MByte/s is 800Mbit/s or ~800000 kbps which is an order of magnitude more insanity than already choosing 100Mbit/s for live streaming (and not physically possible on consumer GPUs I believe).
    - monster_truck 1y ago
      It isn't for the amount of motion involved. Third person views in rally simulators and continuous fast flicks in shooters require it
- rasz 1y ago
  Is the encoder any better than previous AMD offerings? https://goughlui.com/2024/01/07/video-codec-round-up-2023-part-14-av1_amf-av1-amd-advanced-media-framework/ https://goughlui.com/2024/01/07/video-codec-round-up-2023-pa...
adzm 1y ago
Isn't VP9 more comparable to h265? AV1 seems to be a ton better than both of them.
- dagmx 1y ago
  They’re all in the same ballpark of each other and have characteristics that don’t make one an outright winner.
  - CharlesW 1y ago
    AV1 is the outright winner in terms of compression efficiency (until you start comparing against VVC/H.266¹), with the advantage being even starker at high resolutions. The only current notable downside of AV1 is that client hardware support isn't yet universal. ¹ https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/13/5/953 https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/13/5/953
- senfiaj 1y ago
  I think VP9 is more comparable to h264. Also if I'm not mistaken it's not good for live streaming, only for storing data.
  - toast0 1y ago
    VP9 works for live streaming/real time conferencing too.
    - senfiaj 1y ago
      Yeah, but I think it has much higher CPU usage, at least when there is no native hardware decoder/encoder. Maybe this has more to do with adoption, since H264 has been an industry standard.
      - toast0 1y ago
        Codec selection is always a complex task. You've got to weigh quality/bitrate vs availability of hardware encode/decode, licensing, and overall resource usage. The ITU standards have had a lot better record of inclusion in devices that people actually have; and often using hardware encode/decode takes care of licensing. But hardware encode doesn't always have the same quality/bitrate as software and may not be able to do fancier things like simulcast or svc. Some of the hardware decoders are pretty picky about what kinds of streams they'll accept too. IMHO, if you're looking at software h.264 vs software vp9, I think vp9 is likely to give you better quality at a given bitrate, but will take more cpu to do it. So, as always, it depends.
flashblaze 1y ago
I'm not really well versed with codecs, but is it up to the devices or the providers (where you're uploading them) to handle playback or both? A couple of days ago, I tried to upload an Instagram Reel in AV1 codec, and I was struggling to preview it on my Samsung S20 FE Snapdragon version (before uploading and during preview as well). I then resorted to H.264 and it worked w/o any issues.
- kevmo314 1y ago
  Instagram (the provider) will transcode for compatibility but likely the preview is before transcoding, the assumption being that the device that uploads the video is able to play it.
  - ta1243 1y ago
    Yes that sounds spot on. I don't know instagram, but I would expect any provider to be handle almost any container/codec/resolution combination going (they likely use ffmpeg underneath) and generate their different output formats at different bitrates for different playback devices. Either instagram won't accept av1 (seems unlikely) or they just haven't processed it yet as you infer. I'd love to know why your commend is greyed out.
- sparrc 1y ago
  Playback is 100% handled by the device. The primary (and essentially only) benefit of H.264 is that almost every device in the entire world has an H.264 hardware decoder builtin to the chip, even extremely cheap devices. AV1 hardware decoders are still rare so your device was probably resorting to software decoding, which is not ideal.
aaron695 1y ago
Get The Scene involved. They shifted to h.264 successfully, but I haven't heard of any more conferences to move forward in over a decade. Currently "The Last of US S02E06" only has one AV1 - https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=The+Last+of+Us+S02E06 https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=The+Last+of+Us+S02E06 same THMT - https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=The+Handmaids+Tale+S06E09 https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=The+Handmaids+Tale+S06... These are low quality at only ~600MB, not really early adopter sizes. AV1 beats h.265 but not h.266 - https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202402.0869/v1 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202402.0869/v1 - People disagree with this paper on default settings Things like getting hardware to The Scene for encoding might help, but I'm not sure of the bottleneck, it might be bureaucratic or educational or cultural. [edit] "Common Side Effects S01E04" AV1 is the strongest torrent, that's cool - https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=Common+Side+Effects+S01E04 https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=Common+Side+Effects+S0...
- wbl 1y ago
  There was a conference?!
  - kasabali 1y ago
    Sponsored by FBI probably :p
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  Holy shadowban Batman! All of your comments are [dead]. What did you do to anger the HN Gods?
- aidenn0 1y ago
  At higher quality/bitrates, the difference is much smaller and device support is universal for AVC and quite good for HEVC. Anything over 1.5GB for a single episode would probably only be farily similarly sized with AV1. There is one large exception, but I don't know the current scene well enough to know if it matters: sources that are grainy. I have some DVD and blurays with high grain content and AV1 can work wonders with those thanks to the in-loop grain filter and synthesis -- we are talking half the size for a high-quality encode. If I were to encode them for AVC at any reasonable bitrate, I would probably run a grain-removal filter which is very finicky if you don't want to end up with something that is overly blurry.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

karn97 1y ago

9070xt records gameplay by default in av1

monster_truck 1y ago
RDNA3 cards also have AV1 encode. RDNA 2 only has decode. With the bitrate set to 100MB/s it happily encodes 2160p or even 3240p, the maximum resolution available when using Virtual Super Resolution (which renders at >native res and downsamples, is awesome for titles without resolution scaling when you don't want to use TAA)
- kennyadam 1y ago
  Isn't that expected? 4K Blurays only encode up to like 128Mbps, which is 16MB/s. 100MB/s seems like complete overkill.
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    I think op just didn’t type Mbps properly. 100MB/s or ~800Mbps is way higher than the GPU can even encode at a HW level even I would think
    - monster_truck 1y ago
      100,000kbps. It will more than double that for 3240p. https://i.imgur.com/LyrhNXZ.png https://i.imgur.com/LyrhNXZ.png
      - vlovich123 1y ago
        Right. That’s 223642 kilobits/s (kbps) in your picture or ~200MBit/s whereas you wrote (intentionally or otherwise) 200Mbyte/s a nearly 10 fold difference (100Mbit/s =~ 12Mbyte/s). 100MByte/s is 800Mbit/s or ~800000 kbps which is an order of magnitude more insanity than already choosing 100Mbit/s for live streaming (and not physically possible on consumer GPUs I believe).
  - monster_truck 1y ago
    It isn't for the amount of motion involved. Third person views in rally simulators and continuous fast flicks in shooters require it
rasz 1y ago
Is the encoder any better than previous AMD offerings? https://goughlui.com/2024/01/07/video-codec-round-up-2023-part-14-av1_amf-av1-amd-advanced-media-framework/ https://goughlui.com/2024/01/07/video-codec-round-up-2023-pa...

adzm 1y ago

Isn't VP9 more comparable to h265? AV1 seems to be a ton better than both of them.

dagmx 1y ago
They’re all in the same ballpark of each other and have characteristics that don’t make one an outright winner.
- CharlesW 1y ago
  AV1 is the outright winner in terms of compression efficiency (until you start comparing against VVC/H.266¹), with the advantage being even starker at high resolutions. The only current notable downside of AV1 is that client hardware support isn't yet universal. ¹ https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/13/5/953 https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/13/5/953
senfiaj 1y ago
I think VP9 is more comparable to h264. Also if I'm not mistaken it's not good for live streaming, only for storing data.
- toast0 1y ago
  VP9 works for live streaming/real time conferencing too.
  - senfiaj 1y ago
    Yeah, but I think it has much higher CPU usage, at least when there is no native hardware decoder/encoder. Maybe this has more to do with adoption, since H264 has been an industry standard.
    - toast0 1y ago
      Codec selection is always a complex task. You've got to weigh quality/bitrate vs availability of hardware encode/decode, licensing, and overall resource usage. The ITU standards have had a lot better record of inclusion in devices that people actually have; and often using hardware encode/decode takes care of licensing. But hardware encode doesn't always have the same quality/bitrate as software and may not be able to do fancier things like simulcast or svc. Some of the hardware decoders are pretty picky about what kinds of streams they'll accept too. IMHO, if you're looking at software h.264 vs software vp9, I think vp9 is likely to give you better quality at a given bitrate, but will take more cpu to do it. So, as always, it depends.

flashblaze 1y ago

I'm not really well versed with codecs, but is it up to the devices or the providers (where you're uploading them) to handle playback or both? A couple of days ago, I tried to upload an Instagram Reel in AV1 codec, and I was struggling to preview it on my Samsung S20 FE Snapdragon version (before uploading and during preview as well). I then resorted to H.264 and it worked w/o any issues.

kevmo314 1y ago
Instagram (the provider) will transcode for compatibility but likely the preview is before transcoding, the assumption being that the device that uploads the video is able to play it.
- ta1243 1y ago
  Yes that sounds spot on. I don't know instagram, but I would expect any provider to be handle almost any container/codec/resolution combination going (they likely use ffmpeg underneath) and generate their different output formats at different bitrates for different playback devices. Either instagram won't accept av1 (seems unlikely) or they just haven't processed it yet as you infer. I'd love to know why your commend is greyed out.
sparrc 1y ago
Playback is 100% handled by the device. The primary (and essentially only) benefit of H.264 is that almost every device in the entire world has an H.264 hardware decoder builtin to the chip, even extremely cheap devices. AV1 hardware decoders are still rare so your device was probably resorting to software decoding, which is not ideal.

aaron695 1y ago

Get The Scene involved. They shifted to h.264 successfully, but I haven't heard of any more conferences to move forward in over a decade. Currently "The Last of US S02E06" only has one AV1 - https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=The+Last+of+Us+S02E06 https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=The+Last+of+Us+S02E06 same THMT - https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=The+Handmaids+Tale+S06E09 https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=The+Handmaids+Tale+S06... These are low quality at only ~600MB, not really early adopter sizes. AV1 beats h.265 but not h.266 - https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202402.0869/v1 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202402.0869/v1 - People disagree with this paper on default settings Things like getting hardware to The Scene for encoding might help, but I'm not sure of the bottleneck, it might be bureaucratic or educational or cultural. [edit] "Common Side Effects S01E04" AV1 is the strongest torrent, that's cool - https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=Common+Side+Effects+S01E04 https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=Common+Side+Effects+S0...

wbl 1y ago
There was a conference?!
- kasabali 1y ago
  Sponsored by FBI probably :p
phendrenad2 1y ago
Holy shadowban Batman! All of your comments are [dead]. What did you do to anger the HN Gods?
aidenn0 1y ago
At higher quality/bitrates, the difference is much smaller and device support is universal for AVC and quite good for HEVC. Anything over 1.5GB for a single episode would probably only be farily similarly sized with AV1. There is one large exception, but I don't know the current scene well enough to know if it matters: sources that are grainy. I have some DVD and blurays with high grain content and AV1 can work wonders with those thanks to the in-loop grain filter and synthesis -- we are talking half the size for a high-quality encode. If I were to encode them for AVC at any reasonable bitrate, I would probably run a grain-removal filter which is very finicky if you don't want to end up with something that is overly blurry.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]