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 1st May 2018, 15:05   #41  |  Link
TomV
VP Strategy, Beamr
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
Could a moderator rename this thread please as this codec has an official name now 'Versatile Video Codec' (VVC): http://news.itu.int/versatile-video-...arts-strongly/
Versatile Video Coding
TomV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2018, 15:25   #42  |  Link
AntiqueRefrigerator
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 1
so is the war about codecs changing from quality to cpu cycles? av1 seems to be barely better than hevc and takes 1000x longer. sure you can have more quality, but what about creation time? do we still care about that?
AntiqueRefrigerator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2018, 20:17   #43  |  Link
iwod
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiqueRefrigerator View Post
so is the war about codecs changing from quality to cpu cycles? av1 seems to be barely better than hevc and takes 1000x longer. sure you can have more quality, but what about creation time? do we still care about that?
If you look back at video codec history, CPU cycle questions were always on the table. The only difference is 20 years we didn't even know where the limits are, we thought we could infinitely scale, 10Ghz+ processors, or 64 Core CPU and parallelism would work out fine.

Now that we have reached a plateau, these questions becomes much more important.
iwod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2018, 10:01   #44  |  Link
iwod
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 723
http://blog.chiariglione.org/the-mpe...o-start-again/

Sounds like VVC is coming along nicely. I wish they could aim a little higher then the 50% improvement though.

There is another pieces about the problem of IP.

http://blog.chiariglione.org/ip-coun...enue-counting/
iwod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2018, 19:50   #45  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiqueRefrigerator View Post
so is the war about codecs changing from quality to cpu cycles? av1 seems to be barely better than hevc and takes 1000x longer. sure you can have more quality, but what about creation time? do we still care about that?
No one cares about exhaustive search, which is where the orders of magnitude speed increases come for. Every tool has to get tested every way, so there's a combinatorial explosion.

The real metric is efficiency @ perf. If a new codec is able to deliver better quality in the same encoding time, that's a win. And as Moore's Law marches on, the number of MIPS/pixel we are willing to spend keeps going up up up.

x265 beats x264 for most scenarios with the same encoding time, AND it can provide much more efficient encoding for the patient.

Any new codec has to show that it can provide significant efficient gains in reasonable encoding time. And quality @ perf gets way better in the initial years after a new bitstream is defined as performance and psychovisual tuning gets done.

Increases in decoder complexity are a bigger barrier, since that goes to the cost of all those decoders in all those devices. If something takes 4x the silicon and milliwatts to decode versus an existing standard, it would have to be REALLY more efficient.

MPEG-2 -> H.264 -> HEVC were about 2x more complex per pixel, for about 2x better efficiency. Generally more complexity or lower efficiency gains don't really move the market (see MPEG-4 part 2, Theora, VP6-9)
__________________
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 22nd May 2018, 20:34   #46  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
The other big problem is that it will be ratified 2.5yrs after AV1. There will be huge numbers of phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, tvs etc with hardware decoders shipping by the time h.266 is ratified. I reckon within 1yr of h.266 is ratified that AV2 will be ratified, which will likely have 0-15% better compression than h.266.
The delay of the bitstream freeze has pushed hardware AV1 decode back a year and we'll probably only see significant numbers of AV1 HW decode devices shipping in 2020. So if H.266 is looking promising by then, or if AV1 hasn't surpassed HEVC in quality @ perf, the big drivers of adoption might not happen. AV1's compression efficiency improvements are initially promising, but it needs to demonstrate significant gains versus HEVC in double-blind visual testing at similar encoding complexity.

Does anyone have any sense of the increased HW decoder complexity of AV1 versus HEVC, and how much is additive (versus the same decoder using the same functional blocks for multiple codecs)?

I worry that the current AV1 encoder is so slow that there really isn't a big enough corpus of encoded content to figure out what quality/efficiency delta could be anticipated in the real world in a given time frame.

The cost to add AV1 decode depends on the delta in silicon area and milliwatts. I've not heard any estimates for that delta yet. Anyone else? Obviously the cheaper the cost to add decode, and the bigger the relative value, are both going to be big factors in adoption.
__________________
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 26th May 2018, 07:11   #47  |  Link
foxyshadis
ангел смерти
 
foxyshadis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
Posts: 9,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
MPEG-2 -> H.264 -> HEVC were about 2x more complex per pixel, for about 2x better efficiency. Generally more complexity or lower efficiency gains don't really move the market (see MPEG-4 part 2, Theora, VP6-9)
I really believe that it's been closer to 1.4x quality for 2x complexity, at some "midrange" (when you insert ASP between MPEG-2 and AVC). Each generation gets 2x or more better at the low-end, and barely budges the needle at the top-end, but some magical middling rate that's barely objectionable is where codecs are really put to the test. HEVC easily qualifies for "not worth the hassle" except for its day-1 promise of built-in hardware-accelerated 10-bit and HDR; except at the absolute lowest bitrates it never comes close to living up to its half-rate promise. If AVC RExt had found its way into hardware, HEVC's use case would have been squeezed to nothing, considering the ongoing licensing spats, while the world again waited for the next world heavyweight champion to appear.

A quadratic increase in complexity for a linear increase in efficiency sucks, but that's what we have the remnants of Moore's law for.
__________________
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. ~ Ed Howdershelt
foxyshadis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd September 2018, 22:47   #48  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 832
https://streaminglearningcenter.com/...oding-vvc.html
hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd September 2018, 23:18   #49  |  Link
LigH
German doom9/Gleitz SuMo
 
LigH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany, rural Altmark
Posts: 5,605
I am not able to build the "VTM Repository" (trunk) in MSYS2 / MinGW: If you try to create the Makefile with the CMake generator "MinGW Makefiles", it complains that sh.exe must not be in the path; if you try the generator "MSYS Makefiles", BBuildEnv.cmake warns that it is not fully supported, and make fails with:

Code:
jvet-svn/source/Lib/CommonLib/x86/CommonDefX86.h:158:71: error: SSE vector return without SSE enabled changes the ABI [-Werror=psabi]
It seems to be mostly optimized for Visual C++.
__________________

New German Gleitz board
MediaFire: x264 | x265 | VPx | AOM | Xvid
LigH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2018, 04:16   #50  |  Link
Blue_MiSfit
Derek Prestegard IRL
 
Blue_MiSfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
Does anyone have any sense of the increased HW decoder complexity of AV1 versus HEVC, and how much is additive (versus the same decoder using the same functional blocks for multiple codecs)?

I worry that the current AV1 encoder is so slow that there really isn't a big enough corpus of encoded content to figure out what quality/efficiency delta could be anticipated in the real world in a given time frame.
Well said. I'd like to see a lot more of this.
Blue_MiSfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2018, 23:58   #51  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_MiSfit View Post
Well said. I'd like to see a lot more of this.
Iím sure itíll come. But Iím not really expecting to have a good sense of how AV1 and HEVC would compare for real-world scenarios before Q4 2019. HEVC is going to be better at quality @ perf for any real-world perf scenario for a long time. Getting all the inter and intra frame parallelization working is quite a project, and all the tuned vectorization (AVX2 & AVX512 these days).

This article on threading in x265 is an eye-opening read about the challenges of just parallelizing a modern codec. https://x265.readthedocs.io/en/default/threading.html

And just look at the sheer amount of ASM code in it https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/...579?at=default.

Given the greater complexity of AV1, it would take a greater equivalent effort to provide the same degree of optimization as x265 has after 5+ years of serious development.
__________________
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 7th September 2018, 11:01   #52  |  Link
iwod
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
I am looking at the graph and table, which state VVC is currently only ~25% to 30% less bitrate than HEVC. May be it would flare better at 500Kbps and 1Mbps, but not too excited by it.

How about a codec that targets to similar or better quality than 1Mbps 720P HEVC @ 500Kbps, 2Mbps 1080P HEVC @ 1Mbps, 8Mbps 4K HEVC @ 4Mbps.

And as to patents fees, why cant they keep it simple? All software implementation should be free. $0.5 for hardware decoder and $1 hardware encoder, $1.25 for both and charged per unit. No Caps, there more you sell the more you pay. License includes all the previous HEVC and AVC patents.

That is combined to be $3B+ yearly revenue. On a twenty years target they are getting back ~$60B for their investment.

Edit: The software implementation being free meant we could have a image format implementation that is available free for the web. We need something to replace jpeg.

Last edited by iwod; 7th September 2018 at 14:00.
iwod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2018, 19:49   #53  |  Link
foxyshadis
ангел смерти
 
foxyshadis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
Posts: 9,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by iwod View Post
I am looking at the graph and table, which state VVC is currently only ~25% to 30% less bitrate than HEVC. May be it would flare better at 500Kbps and 1Mbps, but not too excited by it.

How about a codec that targets to similar or better quality than 1Mbps 720P HEVC @ 500Kbps, 2Mbps 1080P HEVC @ 1Mbps, 8Mbps 4K HEVC @ 4Mbps.
It's like Moore's Law: The first few iterations are cheap, but you start running into fundamental limitations eventually.

I've been experimenting with long-term references, which are a promising avenue for video that flips from one viewpoint to another and then back (incredibly common), which can give significant savings in some scenes, but making this work within the profiles available is almost impossible. I have no idea why set-tops are limited to a handful of megabytes in 2018.
__________________
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. ~ Ed Howdershelt
foxyshadis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2018, 19:02   #54  |  Link
Clare
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 58
VVC – The Next-Generation Video Standard of the Joint Video Experts Team
Clare 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 03:32.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.