View Single Post
Old 3rd September 2015, 05:47   #9  |  Link
BadFrame
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarinka View Post
I don't want to be a party pooper, but I would be conservative with the expectations.
Nothing wrong with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarinka View Post
I am afraid that NetVC is far from guaranteed to beat HEVC,
Well judging by the tests being done in this forum, it seems HEVC is far from guaranteed to beat h264

Anyway, VP9 is not miles behind HEVC quality-wise as of now (although encoder performance-wise it's still far behind), but of course a lot of the problems in keeping up with HEVC is that of software patents limiting the amount of compression techniques available to VP9, with the upcoming NetVC being able to use the patents from Cisco and Microsoft as well (and chances are we'll see more companies with patents join this alliance), it can be more competitive with HEVC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarinka View Post
I am afraid that NetVC is far from guaranteed to beat HEVC, which seems to be what +-everybody is assuming and cheering for.
Certainly there is no such guarantee, however it doesn't have to 'beat' HEVC, it needs to be 'close enough' and widely supported. You must realize what a disaster HEVC is right now in terms of royalties, with two pools, one which demands 0.5% of all content.

With this it happening it's not just Google but also anyone else with a longterm interest in streaming video that wants out from MPEG LA's (and offshoots) grasp, and NetVC is the obvious solution.

Google was already committed to avoid MPEG LA royalty schemes (as per their continued codec development), now Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft, Cisco and Mozilla joins up, I can only assume Facebook and other services interested in streaming video will follow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarinka View Post
And on top of that, it will only come to market in few years from now, and add to that the years that will be needed for polished encoders to appear.
h264 is already available until then (heck Microsoft is adding VP8/VP9 to their own browsers according to recent updates), meanwhile HEVC is more or less dead as a platform for streaming video due to the current royalty debacle, sites like Youtube, Netflix, Amazon, etc can just continue to serve h264 content until the new codec is ready and widely supported.

Also not sure what you mean by 'polished encoders' ? Google themselves develop the official encoder which is very much like x264/x265 in usage/options, which anyone can slap a polished gui/framework around should they so choose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarinka View Post
From technical point of view (ignoring royalties and ideological stuff), that's what is going to bring us good stuff.
HEVC may end up being the technically best offering, but that doesn't really matter in a wider perspective if only the anime encode scene ends up using it

As of now I see a near future where most legal content shuns HEVC due to the royalty demands and instead continues to use h264 while seeing how NetVC and the HEVC pool fiasco pans out.

However, we do know that Google, Amazon, Netflix and basically every other company with a longterm interest in streaming video DOES NOT want to be subject the MPEG LA's royalty schemes, in fact they don't want to pay royalties at all.

With this second HEVC patent pool having formed, with it's own huge demands, this has now reached a tipping point, and the result is this 'Alliance' with the clear objective of creating a competitive royalty free codec, which again is something the entire industry of streaming video REALLY want.

I see nothing that would make these companies turn around and go back into MPEG LA's fold now that they've taken this step, and I'm certain many other companies with the same interests will follow.

Note again that I'm not claiming NetVC will be a technically better solution than HEVC, atleast not in the near future (this all mainly depends on software patents they gain the use of), but the difference in quality will be no where near as large as the difference in price, given that the former is royalty free, and the latter is a royalty nightmare.
BadFrame is offline   Reply With Quote