Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > New and alternative video codecs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11th October 2017, 14:38   #1  |  Link
iwod
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 667
RealNetworks Launches New Video Codec

https://streaminglearningcenter.com/...deo-codec.html

https://www.realnetworks.com/realmediaHD
iwod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 15:10   #2  |  Link
uneedme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Dear me... how is the efficiency? and visual quality. Could real new HD codec survive from the hevc and av1's double teamed siege...
uneedme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 15:16   #3  |  Link
nevcairiel
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 8,955
Its 2017, the year of UHD, and they release a "HD" codec and compare it to H.264. They sure are slow.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders
nevcairiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 15:25   #4  |  Link
iwod
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 667
Quote:
Originally Posted by uneedme View Post
Dear me... how is the efficiency? and visual quality. Could real new HD codec survive from the hevc and av1's double teamed siege...
No idea but they already has a deal in China.

My guess it is a modernized Rmvb. And to be honest Rmvb is pretty good at low bitrate for Anime, even against x264.

But I think a codec that dont have Hardware Acceleration has no place today. The future, or rather the present is already mobile.
iwod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 15:35   #5  |  Link
uneedme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
As a Chinese...... I have never heard of that kind of deal......and cant find any of this kind of web articles referring to this... business deal? for what? I dont know any youtube-like web-stream site use real hd codec as the main solution...where did you get that "deal" information......

the "rmvb" is an ancient existence from my point of view......

......


But I dont want to judge before seeing it‘s performance... how is the efficiency? and visual quality......

Last edited by uneedme; 11th October 2017 at 15:55.
uneedme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 20:55   #6  |  Link
amayra
Quality Checker
 
amayra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 173
so do we have new closed source codec ?
__________________
I love Doom9
amayra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2017, 00:47   #7  |  Link
littlepox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by uneedme View Post
As a Chinese...... I have never heard of that kind of deal......and cant find any of this kind of web articles referring to this... business deal? for what? I dont know any youtube-like web-stream site use real hd codec as the main solution...where did you get that "deal" information......

the "rmvb" is an ancient existence from my point of view......

......


But I dont want to judge before seeing its performance... how is the efficiency? and visual quality......
Written in the news that CIBN Oriental Network (国广东方网络(北京)有限公司) will use it.
littlepox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2017, 01:11   #8  |  Link
burfadel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,166
Comparing with x264 makes sense, it's currently the mainstream codec. The claimed saving would take it into h.265 territory quality wise. They do compare it to h.265 though in terms of CPU use and battery life, only because it is supposedly much better. For the h.265 successor, efficiency needs to be worked on since it was just discussed in a recent thread. That's 64 times slower compression than h.265 and 16 times slower decompression. Savings also aren't stated, it could be only (considering requirements) 40 percent more efficient, for example. If you got an hour watching a h.265 on your phone, the battery would last about 3.5 minutes on it's successor at the current 16 times slower stat. Of course it's not exact as the screen it's only lit for the time the video plays, so that's 1 hour screen use versus 3.5 minutes.

Basically they're showing efficiency can be done, so hopefully it will give them the push they need. Nothing is said of the audio, wonder if AAC (proprietory) is used, or their own format? Codecs like Opus would be ideal, higher quality at a lower bitrate than AAC-LC (the high quality AAC variation), and unlike AAC works just as well in low bandwidth scenarios, and is more effective than AAC-HE (the AAC low bandwidth variation of AAC).

I wonder how it was achieved?
burfadel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2017, 13:22   #9  |  Link
uneedme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlepox View Post
Written in the news that CIBN Oriental Network (国广东方网络(北京)有限公司) will use it.

Cheers!~ I found the articles

http://www.cibn.cc/content/details_33_2591.html

http://www.realnetworks.com.cn/news/634

https://finance.sina.cn/2017-08-18/d...2718199.d.html


国广东方网络(北京)有限公司

but i never know 国广东方网络(北京)有限公司......

one of seven of top licensed OTT companies......looks like it has GOV background...

it may behind the curtain as an infrastructure solution provider(doubt it) or even only license distributor and do nothing shit else(make sense)

unless it forcing the licensing binding with use of real codec, otherwise no one would use real codec......


As i never heard of CIBN...... it looks like no one buy it‘s licensed broadcast......

the GOV may paid off the bill we never know......

Last edited by uneedme; 14th October 2017 at 13:34.
uneedme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2017, 20:00   #10  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by burfadel View Post
For the h.265 successor, efficiency needs to be worked on since it was just discussed in a recent thread. That's 64 times slower compression than h.265 and 16 times slower decompression. Savings also aren't stated, it could be only (considering requirements) 40 percent more efficient, for example. If you got an hour watching a h.265 on your phone, the battery would last about 3.5 minutes on it's successor at the current 16 times slower stat. Of course it's not exact as the screen it's only lit for the time the video plays, so that's 1 hour screen use versus 3.5 minutes.

Basically they're showing efficiency can be done, so hopefully it will give them the push they need.
That 16x is just an example worst case from the current, incredibly early state of development. I can't imagine it would be more than 2x more complex per pixel. Which is a lot smaller than the Moore's Law gains we'll have by the time it would actually ship. HEVC was only worst-case 2x more complex than H.264 in the end.

Also, the 3.5 minute example wouldn't be true even if the decoder was 16x more complex. A decoder is only a small part of the SoC and a smaller part of a device. The backlight, antenna, CPU, running Android, user interface, etcetera together use a lot more power than the decoder does today. Even switching from a H.264 hardware decoder to a HEVC software decoder won't cut battery life in half, and that's probably more than 16x watts/pixel.

Quote:
Nothing is said of the audio, wonder if AAC (proprietory) is used, or their own format? Codecs like Opus would be ideal, higher quality at a lower bitrate than AAC-LC (the high quality AAC variation), and unlike AAC works just as well in low bandwidth scenarios, and is more effective than AAC-HE (the AAC low bandwidth variation of AAC)
HE AAC is so last decade. xHE-AAC is the current hotness, which does way better than HE-AAC at low bitrates. Like Opus, it is a hybrid CELP/DCT codec that can do hybrid speech and music coding.

But in general, video and audio codec choices are decoupled these days. Codecs generally all can slot into MPEG program/transport streams, so you can mix and match based on whatever target devices can do.

For large scale streaming services, video and audio aren't even delivered from the same files or the same http requests.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Instant Video

My Compression Book

Amazon Instant Video is hiring! PM me if you're interested.
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd October 2017, 16:56   #11  |  Link
iwod
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 667
Quote:
HE AAC is so last decade. xHE-AAC is the current hotness, which does way better than HE-AAC at low bitrates. Like Opus, it is a hybrid CELP/DCT codec that can do hybrid speech and music coding.
And only at low bitrate like below 64kbps.... who use that for Video? ( Correct me if I am wrong though ) . We haven't really seen any major improvement in audio encoding. As of right now I would rather use MP3 which is finally patents free, and supported everywhere, and if quality wasn't good enough just give it a little bit more bitrate to play.
iwod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd October 2017, 18:33   #12  |  Link
IgorC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
HE AAC is so last decade. xHE-AAC is the current hotness, which does way better than HE-AAC at low bitrates.
A main thumb rule says xHE-AAC requires 8 kbps less for the same quality (as formal MPEG test has indicated it). 8 kbps is a deal up to 32 kbps. It isn't so at let say 64 kbps where xHE-AAC sounds just as polished HE-AAC.

xHE-AAC isn't actually hotness of the moment. Not anymore. 3DA is.

Maybe xHE-AAC has traction between broadcast companies but it has zero presence in an internet community where Opus (Youtube, Whatsapp, a pile of VoIP apps, etc...) is implemented each day more and more.

A tuned implementation of xHE-AAC (which nobody has seen yet in a wild) could be better than Opus at 32 kbps and lower.

Anyway we won't see xHE-AAC in Netflix, Spotify, etc.. Nor MPEG surround (standard since 2007) nor 3DA (standard since 2015). Too expensive and too little advantage over Opus and AAC for popular bitrates as 48/64/96/128/160 kbps.
IgorC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.