Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_MiSfit
I guess it's still "wait and see".
I'm still not sure why I'd use AV1 as an OTT operator delivering 4k content. I have to make HEVC for everything that exists today. Even if AV1 ends up being a bit more efficient (and this comes down to encoder implementation) it will still cost me a huge amount of money to encode my library in both formats, so why would I?
I guess it all depends on what clients end up supporting it.
|
Assuming the prior codec has full penetration,
codec_value=decoder_penetration * quality_@_perf advantage
So AV1's success is driven by decoder_penetration and quality_@_perf. The latter is important; 15% better at 10x encoding time doesn't really count unless encoding time was already more than fast enough. When live encoding is needed, or if encoding compute is a limit, MIPS/pixel is the limiting factor, and so AV1 implementations will compete with H.264, VP9, and HEVC at the same MIPS/pixel.
If devices wind up providing just H.264 and AV1, than the decision driver is whether the added compute, storage cost, and cache dilution is worth it. Even if compute was free, at a large scale supporting another codec is a huge operational expense and system complexity increase.