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 12th March 2023, 04:53   #121  |  Link
ksec
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
That's why I asked what are you using btw, because you have to do at least some things to get HEVC working in Fedora (and other Desktop Linux distros). Having to install codecs is the problem here, because officially recommending those codecs to people can be considered as "inducing" patent infringement. It's why Fedora can't show a pop-up saying "run the following commands to install such and such codec".

This is the problem I am highlighting here: Once you have to tell people that they need to have this and that, and can't even tell them how, the whole universal accessibility concept of the web is lost.
As far as I am aware. The HEVC and AVC decoding issue is only a concern using third party open source drivers. So if you have something like Ubuntu which installs drivers from Nvidia and Intel you would have no problem. the argument is basically that what ever patent there is, those official drivers are being accounted for.

But considering this is Fedora / Redhat, the company which declare AAC-LC as patent free ( Thank God ). This comes a little bit of a surprise. Especially after this has been the norm for years before declaring it unsafe. But they are now under IBM, I guess legal have a different interpretation.

Anyway we only have wait a few more years before AVC patents expires. We will have a truly parent free half decent video codec.
__________________
Previously iwod

Last edited by ksec; 12th March 2023 at 04:57.
ksec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2023, 05:00   #122  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
Well, it is Linux we're talking about there's not a lot it has done consistently across distributions in terms of advanced digital media and graphical stuff.
When it comes to video, it's because of legal roadblocks, not technical reasons. Stop trying to deflect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
I certainly don't remember that for digital video, ever. I spent years making a lot of money encoding RealVideo, Windows Media, and QuickTime versions of the same content for the web as plenty of customers only had one of the three. When we got to more universal playback, it was due to the ubiquity of Flash's H.263 decoder support. We did have a while where browsers became powerful enough at H.264 + AAC-LC because universal enough that a single file could play on >99% of web browsers, but it was only a few years between that becoming reliable and HDR (with a 10-bit encoding requirement) becoming important.
From the browser's perspective, RM, WMV and QT/MOV were binary blobs to be downloaded, so it was out of scope. The problem started with the Flash Player plugin and then continued with HTML5 video tag leaving the format unspecified (nice implementable specification there folks).

Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
Browsers have been about the only place where HEVC hasn't been universal the last five years.
For a good reason. The web is supposed to be universally accessible and universally implementable, which means it avoids patent-encumbered formats (more so patent-encumbered formats with multiple patent pools). Eventually, this boils down to whether you consider access to the web a fundamental human right. I do.

Last edited by kurkosdr; 12th March 2023 at 05:40.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2023, 05:21   #123  |  Link
birdie
Artem S. Tashkinov
 
birdie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwill View Post
That was because GIF being a completely open format and totally not patent encumbered was a perfect match for the Web of the People. Right comrades ?

*edit*
So whats going on with x266? Cant be that hard to write a H.266 encoder. Looking at their feature roadmap I think it would take me just 2-3 man-months to get to a working release....
I guess they don't want to make public something which is a lot worse (both in quality and performance) than already existing codecs such as VVEnc.

And VVEnc is quite good actually albeit slow but not much slower than e.g. libaom.
birdie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2023, 07:59   #124  |  Link
rwill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
Well, it is Linux we're talking about there's not a lot it has done consistently across distributions in terms of advanced digital media and graphical stuff.

Quote:
Remember when the web was universally accessible and not subject to whether you've gone through the MPEG LA and Access Advance tollbooths? I do.
I certainly don't remember that for digital video, ever. I spent years making a lot of money encoding RealVideo, Windows Media, and QuickTime versions of the same content for the web as plenty of customers only had one of the three. When we got to more universal playback, it was due to the ubiquity of Flash's H.263 decoder support. We did have a while where browsers became powerful enough at H.264 + AAC-LC because universal enough that a single file could play on >99% of web browsers, but it was only a few years between that becoming reliable and HDR (with a 10-bit encoding requirement) becoming important.

Browsers have been about the only place where HEVC hasn't been universal the last five years.
I support that on the Web the baseline should be a 160x120 Theora video and those platforms that want better have to support H.264/HEVC or VVC. So the < 1% market share Linux Desktop guys get their stamp sized video and have no reason to complain anymore and the rest ( > 99% market share ) can finally move on, which they have already anyway.

Personally I don't get the Linux Desktop people. They are a clear minority but defend and make demands for their fragmented platform like some Otaku does for his waifu.
rwill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2023, 08:05   #125  |  Link
rwill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by birdie View Post
I guess they don't want to make public something which is a lot worse (both in quality and performance) than already existing codecs such as VVEnc.

And VVEnc is quite good actually albeit slow but not much slower than e.g. libaom.
Well should this be the case they have to be somewhat careful, lest they will never have anything to release ever.
rwill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2023, 08:53   #126  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwill View Post
I support that on the Web the baseline should be a 160x120 Theora video and those platforms that want better have to support H.264/HEVC or VVC. So the < 1% market share Linux Desktop guys get their stamp sized video and have no reason to complain anymore and the rest ( > 99% market share ) can finally move on, which they have already anyway.

Personally I don't get the Linux Desktop people. They are a clear minority but defend and make demands for their fragmented platform like some Otaku does for his waifu.
As a person who uses Desktop Linux professionally, I can attest that I don't think I am entitled to "make demands" for Blu-Ray playback or access to every AAA PC game that gets released or anything like that. But access to the web is a human right. It's necessary for people to do things like filing taxes or searching for information so they can do their jobs. This means the web has to be universally accessible.

Oh, and your 160x120 Theora video thing, besides being stupid (downscaling loses a ton of information which can be important for things like tutorials) is something that's not even guaranteed to be there. Theora mandated as a minimum format with the same resolution as the other available formats would be a good idea because at least it makes for an implementable HTML5 spec.

But anyway, you don't have to care about my opinion. Have you ever wondered why W3C didn't propose a format for the HTML5 video tag? It's because they have a principle to not include patented-encumbered technology in W3C standards, which means their views are closer to mine than yours. But since they couldn't agree on a royalty-free standard, they left it unspecified (because that totally makes sense, I guess).

Also, people here forget a good 5% of Windows users run versions older than Windows 8, which means they aren't guaranteed to have HEVC OS codecs and probably run old PCs with old GPUs without hardware HEVC decoding either. But I know, those are poor people. Who cares if they can access the web?

Last edited by kurkosdr; 12th March 2023 at 09:13.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2023, 12:50   #127  |  Link
rwill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
<..> I can attest that I don't think I am entitled to "make demands" <..> But access to the web is a human right. <..> Theora mandated as a minimum format with the same resolution as the other available formats would be a good idea <..>
Wow - access to video on the web a human rights issue - this sure escalated fast.
rwill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2023, 15:30   #128  |  Link
FranceBB
Broadcast Encoder
 
FranceBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, UK
Posts: 2,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
Also, people here forget a good 5% of Windows users run versions older than Windows 8, which means they aren't guaranteed to have HEVC OS codecs and probably run old PCs with old GPUs without hardware HEVC decoding either.
There will always be a compatibility fallback in streaming platforms, though.
I mean, nowadays you would probably get H.265 HEVC for HDR UHD contents and H.264 AVC for SDR FULL HD 8bit and lower and I think that's going to stay for a very very very long time. I mean, if you watch a TV Series on streaming platform x and you go there with, let's say, Windows XP and a backported version of Chromium (currently Chromium 108 is the latest that has been backported), it will almost definitely serve you the H.264 version at all resolutions and bitrate combinations, ranging from FULL HD to HD to SD and possibly lower streams with AAC audio which is perfectly decodable. Speaking of which, even via software only decoding, H.264 nowadays is pretty well handled, so I don't really think it's gonna be a problem anytime soon as H.264 is here to stay. Ironically AV1 would be much harder to decode for an x86 SSE4.1 max operating system, so much so that even Google itself offers VP9 + Opus rather than AV1 to the Windows XP users even for UHD contents.

This is me on Windows XP Professional x86 with the Extended Microsoft Support which ended on July 2019 and Chromium 108:

- YouTube - VP9 + Opus
- BBC - H.264 + AAC


Quote:
Originally Posted by birdie View Post
I guess they don't want to make public something which is a lot worse (both in quality and performance) than already existing codecs such as VVEnc.
I guess that's the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwill View Post
Well should this be the case they have to be somewhat careful, lest they will never have anything to release ever.
Well, the current situation is the following while comparing with VTM, however no comparisons were done against VVEnc:

FranceBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2023, 17:46   #129  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
There will always be a compatibility fallback in streaming platforms, though.
I mean, nowadays you would probably get H.265 HEVC for HDR UHD contents and H.264 AVC for SDR FULL HD 8bit and lower and I think that's going to stay for a very very very long time. I mean, if you watch a TV Series on streaming platform x and you go there with, let's say, Windows XP and a backported version of Chromium (currently Chromium 108 is the latest that has been backported), it will almost definitely serve you the H.264 version at all resolutions and bitrate combinations, ranging from FULL HD to HD to SD and possibly lower streams with AAC audio which is perfectly decodable.
First of all, even H.264 system codecs are not guaranteed to exist on Windows Vista and earlier, so some browsers will fail H.264 decoding on those OSes too. Also, even this H.264 fallback is not guaranteed to exist on all websites (this is why W3C's decision to not include some mandatory format for the HTML5 video tag was a big omission). This is why I think Mozilla's and Google's initial decision to restrict decoding on formats with a palatable IPR situation was the right one, given the nature of the spec. Even H.264 was problematic enough from an IPR standpoint (but that was grandfathered in, I guess).

Last edited by kurkosdr; 12th March 2023 at 20:47.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2023, 01:39   #130  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
When it comes to video, it's because of legal roadblocks, not technical reasons. Stop trying to deflect.
There is no legal roadblock to passing off bitstreams to drivers that pass them on to hardware components that I am aware of.

Quote:
From the browser's perspective, RM, WMV and QT/MOV were binary blobs to be downloaded, so it was out of scope. The problem started with the Flash Player plugin and then continued with HTML5 video tag leaving the format unspecified (nice implementable specification there folks).
Correct. And that period covers the majority of the history of video in browsers, circa 1995-2016 or so, depending on how one defines it.

Quote:
For a good reason. The web is supposed to be universally accessible and universally implementable, which means it avoids patent-encumbered formats (more so patent-encumbered formats with multiple patent pools). Eventually, this boils down to whether you consider access to the web a fundamental human right. I do.
Is access to the web at stake here somehow? It seems we're more talking about "access to anything that anyone could publish to the web."

The fundamental challenge is that digital media is really complex, with heavy compute and real-time requirements. That's very different that the original goals of the web, which focused on publishing content in a way that different clients could render in ways that maximally preserve the information being presented. Stuff that requires constant heavy compute with real-time requirements was way out of scope.

Media codecs are also really complex beasts, with an enormous number of tools that need to be combined in very complex ways to provide enough improvement to merit the high costs of adopting a new format. So far, the MPEG/ISO process has, despite its many drawbacks, created codecs sufficiently superior to alternatives that they become dominant despite those limitations.

This is because Moore's Law and hand-tuned assembly and hardware DRM and vsync and lots of stuff that other web stuff doesn't require become essential.

H.263 has been patent free for decades. It was good enough for Flash and YouTube to become juggernauts. But the advancements around video codecs are too important and complex for content publishers to be happy to stick with a "good enough" format like we have with JPEG and PNG for so long.

This is how it has always been, and I don't see a clear alternative that would be long-term sustainable. Maybe if AV2 winds up being just better than VVC, sure. But we're still not going to see anyone publishing premium HDR content to web browsers without DRM, because that would cannibalize other revenue streams way more than the Linux market could add. And if somehow movie studios were forced to release their high value content in ways they can't preserve a good share of that value, we'll just have less and cheaper content made.

We have Peak TV because streaming enabled new business models that made it possible to monetize depth of engagement; before the only way to increase revenue was to increase number of viewers of ads, however apathetic they are. Anyone who prefers to make content under different business models is welcome to do so, and plenty do. Anyone who only wants to watch content produced via business models or distributed with technology they approach of is welcome to do so.

None of us have a right to make content creators make the content we want the way we want it under terms that we define.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2023, 01:43   #131  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
But anyway, you don't have to care about my opinion. Have you ever wondered why W3C didn't propose a format for the HTML5 video tag? It's because they have a principle to not include patented-encumbered technology in W3C standards, which means their views are closer to mine than yours. But since they couldn't agree on a royalty-free standard, they left it unspecified (because that totally makes sense, I guess).
There are and were able patent-free video codecs available to pick from. MPEG-1, H.263, and Theora, for example. I presume they weren't picked because they weren't good enough to be competitive, but they certainly did exist. H.263 was the dominant web codec for several years, before Flash added H.264.

Quote:
Also, people here forget a good 5% of Windows users run versions older than Windows 8, which means they aren't guaranteed to have HEVC OS codecs and probably run old PCs with old GPUs without hardware HEVC decoding either. But I know, those are poor people. Who cares if they can access the web?
There is no version of Windows guaranteed to have HEVC out of the box. Pretty much all OEM systems do and have for years. But a system builder could certainly build a system that doesn't, with some effort.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2023, 05:17   #132  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 309
Oh ffs, what do VP8 and Theora have to do with v-sync? And when did they have any kind of issues with assembly hand-tuning (which all software decoders and encoders have)? If you are gonna post such long posts, at least try to make sense.

Also, VP8 was certainly good enough, and Theora was good enough as a fallback, and W3C could have chosen either as a mandatory format for the video tag to define an implementable HTML5 spec (which is kind of an important attribute for a spec, if you haven't noticed), but some "important" members with lots of patents in the patent pools (Apple and Microsoft) blocked that. Design-by-committee at its worst.

And no, the primary purpose of W3C is not to please content creators or care about hardware DRM, the primary purpose of W3C is to define implementable standards for the web, in case you also failed to notice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
There is no legal roadblock to passing off bitstreams to drivers that pass them on to hardware components that I am aware of.
[...]
There is no version of Windows guaranteed to have HEVC out of the box. Pretty much all OEM systems do and have for years. But a system builder could certainly build a system that doesn't, with some effort.
That's the problem here. With no mandatory format defined in the spec, the browser can't guarantee the implementation of the spec no matter what software decoders it bundles (I hope this plain fact is apparent to everyone). And passing to system codecs doesn't guarantee successful decoding either due to what you said there and the other issues mentioned in this thread. The fact Chrome and Firefox used to agree on what formats to decode offered some hope that the mess the W3C farted out as a purported standard would at least be defacto standardised, and formats with particularly bad IPR issues avoided in the process as a bonus, but nope. it's a mess that will stay that way. Can't wait until some evolution of WMV becomes an important codec for the web. Why not? If it comes into existence, there will be a system decoder for it in most Windows PCs (and Macs, since Apple will probably license it). Just pass it to the system codecs!

Last edited by kurkosdr; 13th March 2023 at 06:12.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2023, 05:35   #133  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
Is access to the web at stake here somehow? It seems we're more talking about "access to anything that anyone could publish to the web."
According to this line of thinking, IE with its incompatible JavaScript and ActiveX wasn't breaking compatibility with other web browsers, just with something that someone could publish. But according to this line of thinking, what's the point of even having web standards?

Last edited by kurkosdr; 13th March 2023 at 06:17.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2023, 05:54   #134  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
H.263 has been patent free for decades.
No, and certainly not for decades.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have...expired_yet%3F

Last edited by kurkosdr; 13th March 2023 at 06:09.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2023, 07:19   #135  |  Link
rwill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
Well, the current situation is the following while comparing with VTM, however no comparisons were done against VVEnc: <..>
This is how VVenC stacks up against x265...

https://github.com/fraunhoferhhi/vve...er-Performance

There seems to be no mischief going on with x265 settings as far as I can tell from the x265 command lines.
If you look at "VVenC: Runtime vs PSNR BD-rate" x265 placebo has 30% higher BD-rate than HM-16.24.
They specify the x265 command line to be "--preset {0,1,2,3,…,9} --tune psnr --crf {17,22,27,32} --keyint 1s --min-keyint 1s --profile main10 --output-depth 10", so thats PSNR tune with CRF bitrate control.

Now either HM got really good in the last couple years or x265 aged like milk or.. well I don't know. 'placebo' preset should be closer to HM really.

VTM having some SIMD optimizations now makes it less of a pushover performance wise but it still lacks threading. Adding some conservative mode decision + threading and you should end up where VVenC 'slow' is.

But I am really surprised by how bad x265 is compared against HM-16.24. And the x265 guys (those that are still left anyway) now want to make a competitive VVC encoder?

Well good luck then.
rwill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2023, 07:26   #136  |  Link
rwill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
There are and were able patent-free video codecs available to pick from. MPEG-1, H.263, and Theora, for example. I presume they weren't picked because they weren't good enough to be competitive, but they certainly did exist. H.263 was the dominant web codec for several years, before Flash added H.264.
I am still hoping for EVC Baseline Profile to somehow get off the ground. While not patent free its supposed to be royalty free. It allows for a really tiny efficient implementation because of its small toolset.

Hoping for something remotely usable that is truly patent free in the year 2023, where almost everything promising regarding video has been at least patented twice, appears to be some sort of pipe dream to me.
rwill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2023, 23:59   #137  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwill View Post
This is how VVenC stacks up against x265...

https://github.com/fraunhoferhhi/vve...er-Performance

There seems to be no mischief going on with x265 settings as far as I can tell from the x265 command lines.
If you look at "VVenC: Runtime vs PSNR BD-rate" x265 placebo has 30% higher BD-rate than HM-16.24.
They specify the x265 command line to be "--preset {0,1,2,3,…,9} --tune psnr --crf {17,22,27,32} --keyint 1s --min-keyint 1s --profile main10 --output-depth 10", so thats PSNR tune with CRF bitrate control.
HM has always offered better quality within its limitations than x265, with epochal patience. x265 was always better in quality @ perf, and supports all the rate control, adaptive quantization, etcetera stuff needed for practical real-world encoding.

HM can absolutely be better at delivering better mean PSNR with fixed-QP, fixed GOP encoding without VBV. But that's not a thing anyone actually watches.

Quote:
But I am really surprised by how bad x265 is compared against HM-16.24. And the x265 guys (those that are still left anyway) now want to make a competitive VVC encoder?
It's "bad" at stuff no x265 customers or users want to do. This is always true about reference encoders versus commercial encoders.

I expect that VVCEnC already beats the reference encoder using real-world scenarios and performance requirements. And x266 certainly would need to as well for a meaningful 1.0 release.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2023, 00:05   #138  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwill View Post
I am still hoping for EVC Baseline Profile to somehow get off the ground. While not patent free its supposed to be royalty free. It allows for a really tiny efficient implementation because of its small toolset.

Hoping for something remotely usable that is truly patent free in the year 2023, where almost everything promising regarding video has been at least patented twice, appears to be some sort of pipe dream to me.
The only thing I've heard about EVC in the last few years is the base codec for the ML extensions in the MPAI-EVC project: https://mpai.community/standards/mpa...bout-mpai-evc/

Although MPAI seem to be pivoting focus to the newer end-to-end ML MPAI-EEV codec: https://mpai.community/standards/mpa...bout-mpai-eev/
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2023, 17:50   #139  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwill View Post
I am still hoping for EVC Baseline Profile to somehow get off the ground. While not patent free its supposed to be royalty free. It allows for a really tiny efficient implementation because of its small toolset.

Hoping for something remotely usable that is truly patent free in the year 2023, where almost everything promising regarding video has been at least patented twice, appears to be some sort of pipe dream to me.
Unfortunately, nobody wants EVC. Mozilla and Google don't want it due to the "Baseline" vs "Additional tools enabled" thing (sure, you can choose to decode without using the additional tools, but at what quality cost?), and Microsoft and Apple don't want it because it's a threat to HEVC and by extension the patents they have in HEVC.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2023, 09:35   #140  |  Link
ksec
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwill View Post
I am still hoping for EVC Baseline Profile to somehow get off the ground. While not patent free its supposed to be royalty free. It allows for a really tiny efficient implementation because of its small toolset.

Hoping for something remotely usable that is truly patent free in the year 2023, where almost everything promising regarding video has been at least patented twice, appears to be some sort of pipe dream to me.
Yes. While The E stands for Essential, I could actually argued it should stand for Efficiency. How on earth did they manage to achieve something better than AVC Part 10, while simultaneously being computationally less expensive to decode. It also uses mostly H.264 era patents. And would actually becomes patents free relatively quickly. If it was combined with LC-EVC ( Another set of standard ) it would give HEVC level plus quality with a much lower complexity. But yes... a pipe dream to me as well.
__________________
Previously iwod
ksec is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
vvc, x266

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 08:53.


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