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 > VP9 and AV1

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 20th June 2013, 16:27   #201  |  Link
mandarinka
Registered User
 
mandarinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by dapperdan View Post
so I'm not sure the remaining suits from Nokia make VP8 any worse in this regard than H.264 given the Motorola suits.
That is sadly not true. Motorola was contractually obliged to license those patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to any implementer. (Their suit with MS was most likely a breach of that and the courts will beat them into submission.)

However, VP8 as a proprietary 1-vendor made codec is different. Nokia has no obligations at all with regards to 1) giving the license at all 2) asking ridiculous sums of money 3) withholding the license from select subjects (f.e. based on if they are competition to Nokia).

Basically, Nokias patent once found infringed are (can be used as) a show-stopper, Motorola's patents just mean paying a small royalty.
Naturally, there is a chance that Google will buy the needed license to those patents as it did with the MPEG-LA-related companies.
mandarinka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2013, 17:59   #202  |  Link
dapperdan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 201
I don't believe it's been fully settled that you can't use those kind of patents to block imports. Even if it finally goes that way, that's been a long time that people have been able to throw crippling legal threats about that would be enough to sink most small players and had the big players worried enough to go running to the government for help.

There's also Microsoft vs Alcatel-lucent that's been rumbling on for years and with awards of up to 1.5 billion which was all about MPEG patents too. I believe part of the argument there is similar in that they were supposed to be signed up for MPEG-LA but thought they could do a bit better out of the deal by trolling instead.

Bottom line is, lots of patents + lots of money leads to lots of problems, and MPEG-LA isn't the panacea it's often made out to be
dapperdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2013, 19:01   #203  |  Link
mandarinka
Registered User
 
mandarinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
Well, with MPEG-LA, you have at least the promise of FRAND licensing by MPEG-LA players - and luckily, by other subjects too - because you enter into such an obligation when you license H.264 from them (and H.264 licensing is extremely wide-spread thanks to its ubiquity).

With VP*, the only one promising anything to you is Google. Google's license has similar grant-back term, so people who use VP8 can't sue you for using VP8. However, Google hasn't been able to catch as many as potentially threatening parties on that hook, compared to MPEG-LA.

I agree that MPEG-LA doesn't give you certainty either, but there is a real difference there.
mandarinka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st June 2013, 10:24   #204  |  Link
Bathrone
Curious Beta Tester
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
Both VP8 and VC-1 wound up with lots of patent claims being asserted that weren't anticipated during standardization.
Ben you make some well founded points in your post, thanks for that

Im thankful for competition to HEVC and choice for us who want to use next gen codecs
Bathrone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st June 2013, 11:21   #205  |  Link
dapperdan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarinka View Post
Well, with MPEG-LA, you have at least the promise of FRAND licensing

...

With VP*, the only one promising anything to you is Google.

...

Google hasn't been able to catch as many as potentially threatening parties on that hook, compared to MPEG-LA.
Unfortunately there's no actual legal definition for FRAND (which is crazy when you think about it). They're currently beating out some kind of compromise in the courts, but that's where it's happening *in courts*, during high profile legal cases with no guarantee of how things will turn out and with all sorts of threats of import bans (which were ruled legal by at least some courts, so not a total hail mary play) based on MPEG-LA FRAND patents.

...

I posted a link to the list of the people who are promising you their patents for VP8 at no cost above:

CIF Licensing LLC

France Telecom

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.

Fujitsu Limited

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.

LG Electronics Inc.

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

MPEG LA, LLC

NTT DOCOMO, INC.1

Panasonic Corporation

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Siemens Corporation2

...

VP8 has been a core part of Android since 2.3, and basically everyone uses android, or builds chips for android so the list of non-vp8 users is shrinking fast. (Android is of course big in phones and tablets, but it's expanding to laptops, desktops, TVs etc.)

...

The difference is subtle and complicated while it is often represented as black and white.

Last edited by dapperdan; 21st June 2013 at 11:26.
dapperdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th June 2013, 20:21   #206  |  Link
xooyoozoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 197
Did a quick 'spot-check' comparison of the latest 6/28 master commit. Long story short, nothing much has really changed, and I doubt much will change for months and years, as the 0.x-1% refinements take a while to add up.

This is versus an HEVC anchor clip: Kimono @ QP32. Matched bitrate and keyint as usual, and same settings as previous encodes but this time, preset was changed to Best (not sure if there's much of a difference...).

VP9 bitsream

Side-by-side comparison vs HEVC. Encoded at CRF10

This is only one point of data, so I can't give an all encompassing bd-rate number, but I can say that in this single instance VP9 needs ~32% more bits for the same quality.

xooyoozoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th June 2013, 22:56   #207  |  Link
mandarinka
Registered User
 
mandarinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
The VP9 encoder shows quite serious issues after the scenechange, so it might be rate-control messing up the results a bit. /Still not an excuse, since they want to push this format fast for example on youtube. The videos will be screwed there for years I guess /
mandarinka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th June 2013, 23:11   #208  |  Link
pieter3d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Santa Clara CA
Posts: 114
You can run the VP9 encoder in two-pass mode, probably that will fix the scene change problems
pieter3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th June 2013, 13:50   #209  |  Link
BadFrame
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by pieter3d View Post
You can run the VP9 encoder in two-pass mode, probably that will fix the scene change problems
Yes, from what I gather from reading the mailing list, they (Google) run all their VP9 encodes as two-pass, also cq-level and end-use=cq seems to be silently ignored (defaulting to end-use=vbr), I guess they'll work on cq at a later stage in development.
BadFrame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2013, 02:51   #210  |  Link
xooyoozoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by pieter3d View Post
You can run the VP9 encoder in two-pass mode, probably that will fix the scene change problems
I didn't realize the one-pass option is now enabled(?); it wasn't working for the longest time.

In any case, the sample above was with VP9's 2pass, as it'd be a lot more difficult to get matched bitrates otherwise.

Quote:
vp9enc $input -o $output.webm --codec=vp9 --target-bitrate=$bitrate \
--kf-min-dist=0 --kf-max-dist=$kint -p 2 --best --end-usage=vbr --static-thresh=0 \
--min-q=0 --max-q=63 --auto-alt-ref=1 --lag-in-frames=25 --limit=$frms \
--minsection-pct=0 --maxsection-pct=2000 --bias-pct=50 \
--arnr-maxframes=7 --arnr-strength=5 --arnr-type=3

Last edited by xooyoozoo; 1st July 2013 at 02:54.
xooyoozoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2013, 08:37   #211  |  Link
schweinsz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by xooyoozoo View Post
Did a quick 'spot-check' comparison of the latest 6/28 master commit. Long story short, nothing much has really changed, and I doubt much will change for months and years, as the 0.x-1% refinements take a while to add up.

This is versus an HEVC anchor clip: Kimono @ QP32. Matched bitrate and keyint as usual, and same settings as previous encodes but this time, preset was changed to Best (not sure if there's much of a difference...).

VP9 bitsream

Side-by-side comparison vs HEVC. Encoded at CRF10

This is only one point of data, so I can't give an all encompassing bd-rate number, but I can say that in this single instance VP9 needs ~32% more bits for the same quality.

Could you provide more results on more sequences such as the JCT-VC sequences, bqsquare, bqterrace, racehorses, basketballdrive, cactus.
schweinsz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2013, 18:59   #212  |  Link
mzso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 930
Okay. So was vp9 finalized? Somebody talked about last minute additions a not long ago.
mzso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2013, 21:16   #213  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzso View Post
Okay. So was vp9 finalized? Somebody talked about last minute additions a not long ago.
It was finalised on the 11th june: https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/forum/#!topic/webm-discuss/UzoX7owhwB0, here is the github for VP9: http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=webm/libvpx.git;a=summary

Last edited by hajj_3; 1st July 2013 at 21:20.
hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2013, 09:26   #214  |  Link
dapperdan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 201
The latest WebM Project blog post:

http://blog.webmproject.org/2013/07/...v-channel.html

It's not exactly long but the interesting bits are, their claims on how VP9 stacks up:

"VP9 development began eighteen months ago. In the short time since, according to our internal tests, we've produced a codec that shows video quality that is slightly better than HEVC (H.265) and is 50% better than VP8 and the best implementations of H.264 high profile."

and what the immediate project goals are now that the bitstream is final:

"We’ll now be working on optimizing libvpx for speed and performance, and working—with help from partners and the WebM community—to ensure that VP9 is positioned to integrate with the major encoding tools and consumer platforms, including mobile and embedded"
dapperdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2013, 22:22   #215  |  Link
xooyoozoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 197
Quote:
we've produced a codec that shows video quality that is slightly better than HEVC (H.265)
At this point, I would love to see some examples of situations and settings, however contrived, where this is true...
xooyoozoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2013, 11:13   #216  |  Link
dapperdan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 201
Well, they made very similar claims (VP9 1% behind HEVC) at Google IO so I'd guess most of the variables there hold true for this one as well (though they were less forthcoming about the HEVC details compared with the x264 ones, it was more of a passing remark at that time).

VP9/libvpx (obviously) vs the HEVC reference encoder. (I think they claimed they had access to other pre-release encoders but weren't allowed to publish benchmarks due to EULA restrictions)
Quality measured by PSNR.
Test set a broad selection of Youtube content.
They published their VP9 encoder settings on the mailing list and x264 as well, but I don't think they specified anything for HEVC.

Google are better than most at documenting/releasing their test setups for others to recreate so you might want to just ask them for more details on the areas that aren't fully specified.
dapperdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2013, 18:33   #217  |  Link
mandarinka
Registered User
 
mandarinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
It was probably some fringe case and the "lead" if true was a result of a difference in encoder decisions - since I think you could more or less think of VP9 as a weaker subset of compression tools available under HEVC...
mandarinka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2013, 01:15   #218  |  Link
Keiyakusha
契約者
 
Keiyakusha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by dapperdan View Post
"VP9 development began eighteen months ago. In the short time since, according to our internal tests, we've produced a codec that shows video quality that is slightly better than HEVC (H.265) and is 50% better than VP8 and the best implementations of H.264 high profile."
What I understand from this quote:
"best implementations of H.264 high profile" = x264
VP8 quality = x264 quality
VP9 quality = HEVC quality and 50% better than VP8/x264

So. I can believe that some HEVC implementation is 50% better than x264.
But in reality VP8 is like half the x264 quality...
Does that mean the truth behind their lies is that VP9 in fact no more than half of the HEVC quality?

Last edited by Keiyakusha; 5th July 2013 at 01:20.
Keiyakusha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2013, 04:00   #219  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by dapperdan View Post
Quality measured by PSNR.
Test set a broad selection of Youtube content.
Unfortunately, PSNR is probably the worst available objective metric available. I'd like to see 3SSIM or MOVIE at least. I really don't understand why anyone focusing on a real-world codec would spend much time on PSNR.

I'd love to see some proper double-blind subjective tests comparing VP9 and other codecs. People watch a rapid succession of frames of decoded videos, not Rate/Distortion plots !

This is a quite interesting paper that highlights how useless PSNR can be, and how different codecs can show quite different correlations between subjective and objective measurements: https://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~z70wang/pu...ons/vpqm13.pdf.

If Google is only tuning their VP9 implementation for PSNR, then their implementation may offer substantially lower subjective quality than the VP9 bitstream may be capable of.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2013, 02:35   #220  |  Link
Rumbah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 480
If anyone is interested here is a Windows Cygwin compile of vpxenc/vpxdec to tinker with. I tried to get a MinGW compile to work but gave up after trying for some time.

x264.janhum.alfahosting.org/vpx05072013.7z
Rumbah is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
google, ngov, vp8, vp9, vpx, webm

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 09:41.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.