View Single Post
Old 3rd September 2015, 17:43   #15  |  Link
mandarinka
Registered User
 
mandarinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadFrame View Post
Nothing wrong with that.
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.
It is unpolished in exactly the same sense in which you say that we didn't yet see HEVC convincingly beating H.264. x265 isn't similarly good as x264 (in that case it would be beating its output across the field in all scenarios). But libvpx from Google is much worse than that, that is not even close.

For VP9 libvpx doesn't even have decent threading (tiles, WTF? only one thread possible for each whole 512 pixels of width? Come on! Are we supposed to encode 1920x1080 with measly three threads? And add to that the compression hit of tiles).
And then there is the question of quality. No x264, that's for sure. But hopefully Google won't be the (only) source of the "go to" NetVC encoder :/

Libvpx is exactly what I had in mind when speaking about encoders being unpolished.

-------------------------------------

Anyway, what I have more hopes for here is that the rogue HEVC patent holders will either rediscover their reasoning and offer fair rolyaty rates (like MPEG-LA basically), or they will be blackmailed/contract-forced/sued/pressed to do so. Sane fair royalties aren't a problem. Who knows, maybe that is even a side goal of this Alliance - and if it serves to that goal, yay.

Last edited by mandarinka; 3rd September 2015 at 17:51.
mandarinka is offline   Reply With Quote