4 ms·

AV1 is not the clear winner for video. Currently-existing encoders are worse than x265 for high-bitrate encodes.

CharlesW 1y ago
AV1's advantage narrows to ~5% over H.265 at very high data rates, in the same way that MP3 at 320 kbps is competitive with AAC at 320 kbps. But AV1 is never worse than H.265 from a VMAF/PSNR perspective at any bitrate, and of course H.265 is heavily patent encumbered in comparison. https://chipsandcheese.com/p/codecs-for-the-4k-era-hevc-av1-vvc-and-beyond https://chipsandcheese.com/p/codecs-for-the-4k-era-hevc-av1-...
- MallocVoidstar 1y ago
  I don't care about VMAF or PSNR, I care about looking with my eyes. With x265 on veryslow and AV1 on preset 0/1, and the source being a UHD BD I was downscaling to 1080p, AV1 looked worse even while using a higher bitrate than x265. Current AV1 encoders have issues with small details and have issues with dark scenes. People are trying to fix them (see svt-av1-psy, being merged into SVT-AV1 itself) but the problems aren't fixed yet.
  - spookie 1y ago
    Yup, have had the same experience.
  - ksec 1y ago
    >see svt-av1-psy, being merged into SVT-AV1 itself Part of it being merged for now. It is unfortunate this narrative hasn't caught on. Actual quality over VMAF and PSNR. And we haven't had further quality improvement since x265. I do get frustrated every time the topic of codec comes up on HN. But then the other day I only came to realise I did spend ~20 years on Doom9 and Hydrogenaudio I guess I accumulated more knowledge than most.
  - eviks 1y ago
    Well, did your "eyes" care more about fidelity or appeal? https://cloudinary.com/blog/what_to_focus_on_in_image_compression_fidelity_or_appeal https://cloudinary.com/blog/what_to_focus_on_in_image_compre...
- ksec 1y ago
  >AV1's advantage narrows to ~5% over H.265 at very high data rates.... But AV1 is never worse than H.265 from a VMAF/PSNR perspective at any bitrate, There is a whole discussions that modern codec, or especially AV1 simply doesn't care about PSY image quality. And hence how most torrents are still using x265 because AV1 simply doesn't match the quality offered by other encoder/ x265. Nor does the AOM camp cares about it, since their primarily usage is YouTube. >in the same way that MP3 at 320 kbps is competitive with AAC at 320 kbps. It is not. And never will be. MP3 has inherent disadvantage that needs substantial higher bitrate for quite a lot of samples, even at 320kbps. We have been through this war for 10 years at Hydropgenaudio with Data to back this up, I dont know why in the past 2-3 years the topic has pop up once again. MP3 is not better than AAC-LC in any shape or form even at 25% higher bitrate. Just use AAC-LC, or specifically Apple's Quick Time AAC-LC Encoder.
  - CharlesW 1y ago
    > There is a whole discussions that modern codec, or especially AV1 simply doesn't care about PSY image quality. In early AV1 encoders, psychovisual tuning was minimal and so AV1 encodes often looked soft or "plastic-y". Today's AV1 encoders are really good at this when told to prioritize psy quality (SVT-AV1 with `--tune 3`, libaom with `--tune=psy`). I'd guess that there's still lots of headroom for improvements to AV1 encoding. > And hence how most torrents are still using x265 because… Today most torrents still use H.264, I assume because of its ubiquitous support and modest decode requirements. Over time, I'd expect H.265 (and then AV1) to become the dominant compressed format for video sharing. It seems like that community is pretty slow to adopt advancements — most lossy-compressed music <finger quotes>sharing</finger quotes> is still MP3, even though AAC is a far better (as you note!) and ubiquitous choice. My point about MP3 vs. AAC was simply: As you reduce the amount of compression, the perceived quality advantages of better compressed media formats is reduced. My personal music library is AAC (not MP3), encoded from CD rips using afconvert.
    - shiroiuma 1y ago
      >Today most torrents still use H.264 That's not what I'm seeing for anything recent. x265 seems to be the dominant codec now. There's still a lot of support for h.264, but it's fading.

AV1's advantage narrows to ~5% over H.265 at very high data rates, in the same way that MP3 at 320 kbps is competitive with AAC at 320 kbps. But AV1 is never worse than H.265 from a VMAF/PSNR perspective at any bitrate, and of course H.265 is heavily patent encumbered in comparison. https://chipsandcheese.com/p/codecs-for-the-4k-era-hevc-av1-vvc-and-beyond https://chipsandcheese.com/p/codecs-for-the-4k-era-hevc-av1-...

MallocVoidstar 1y ago
I don't care about VMAF or PSNR, I care about looking with my eyes. With x265 on veryslow and AV1 on preset 0/1, and the source being a UHD BD I was downscaling to 1080p, AV1 looked worse even while using a higher bitrate than x265. Current AV1 encoders have issues with small details and have issues with dark scenes. People are trying to fix them (see svt-av1-psy, being merged into SVT-AV1 itself) but the problems aren't fixed yet.
- spookie 1y ago
  Yup, have had the same experience.
- ksec 1y ago
  >see svt-av1-psy, being merged into SVT-AV1 itself Part of it being merged for now. It is unfortunate this narrative hasn't caught on. Actual quality over VMAF and PSNR. And we haven't had further quality improvement since x265. I do get frustrated every time the topic of codec comes up on HN. But then the other day I only came to realise I did spend ~20 years on Doom9 and Hydrogenaudio I guess I accumulated more knowledge than most.
- eviks 1y ago
  Well, did your "eyes" care more about fidelity or appeal? https://cloudinary.com/blog/what_to_focus_on_in_image_compression_fidelity_or_appeal https://cloudinary.com/blog/what_to_focus_on_in_image_compre...
ksec 1y ago
>AV1's advantage narrows to ~5% over H.265 at very high data rates.... But AV1 is never worse than H.265 from a VMAF/PSNR perspective at any bitrate, There is a whole discussions that modern codec, or especially AV1 simply doesn't care about PSY image quality. And hence how most torrents are still using x265 because AV1 simply doesn't match the quality offered by other encoder/ x265. Nor does the AOM camp cares about it, since their primarily usage is YouTube. >in the same way that MP3 at 320 kbps is competitive with AAC at 320 kbps. It is not. And never will be. MP3 has inherent disadvantage that needs substantial higher bitrate for quite a lot of samples, even at 320kbps. We have been through this war for 10 years at Hydropgenaudio with Data to back this up, I dont know why in the past 2-3 years the topic has pop up once again. MP3 is not better than AAC-LC in any shape or form even at 25% higher bitrate. Just use AAC-LC, or specifically Apple's Quick Time AAC-LC Encoder.
- CharlesW 1y ago
  > There is a whole discussions that modern codec, or especially AV1 simply doesn't care about PSY image quality. In early AV1 encoders, psychovisual tuning was minimal and so AV1 encodes often looked soft or "plastic-y". Today's AV1 encoders are really good at this when told to prioritize psy quality (SVT-AV1 with `--tune 3`, libaom with `--tune=psy`). I'd guess that there's still lots of headroom for improvements to AV1 encoding. > And hence how most torrents are still using x265 because… Today most torrents still use H.264, I assume because of its ubiquitous support and modest decode requirements. Over time, I'd expect H.265 (and then AV1) to become the dominant compressed format for video sharing. It seems like that community is pretty slow to adopt advancements — most lossy-compressed music <finger quotes>sharing</finger quotes> is still MP3, even though AAC is a far better (as you note!) and ubiquitous choice. My point about MP3 vs. AAC was simply: As you reduce the amount of compression, the perceived quality advantages of better compressed media formats is reduced. My personal music library is AAC (not MP3), encoded from CD rips using afconvert.
  - shiroiuma 1y ago
    >Today most torrents still use H.264 That's not what I'm seeing for anything recent. x265 seems to be the dominant codec now. There's still a lot of support for h.264, but it's fading.