>are the Big 3 of their technology
>>106567712>obsolete as fuck patent-pozzed video codec>slightly less obsolete patent-pozzed video codec>obsolete patent-pozzed audio codecav1 + opus is where it's at, kys jew.
>>106567838This ever matters for piracy? Genuine question btw
>>106567838holy fpbp truth nuke.OP btfo.
>>106567838av1? the one that requires more power just to achieve the same level of compresion as hevc? lmao
H264 i still useful, if bit rate is no object
>>106567852AV1 is better because it is faster to download or seed if you bother with that.
>>106567950>faster/less power per given quality to encode with a software encoder>equal power/speed to encode with an hardwar encoder>equal decode speed/power draw when decoding with an hardware encoder>slightly higher decode speed/power draw when decoding via software compared to h265 (dav1d is very well optimized assembly code)stop lying you fucking jew
>>106568078if bitrate is no object there are more sensible options (ffv1, utvideo, prores and so on), plus h264 will always be worse at encoding dark scenes han h265/av1 due to not supporting 10 bit (or at least, not in the main profile, hardware decode for 10 bit h264 is literally only available on nvidia blackwell gpus so far, it doesn't even work in software on most platforms such as android)
>>106567950>svt-av1 preset 3, which is 10-15% more efficient than x265 veryslow at medium/low bitrates and 5-10% less efficient at near-lossless (where its encoding speed actually increases while x265's decreases) achieves an average speed of 50 fps while x265 veryslow on the same machine runs at on average... only 5 fpshttps://rigaya.github.io/vq_results/too bad this site doesn't have p0/p1 results, it would probably still be 2-5x faster tha x265 while providing better quality across the entire rangeso can you provide a source that backs up your claim?
>>106568979and guess what, most av1 hardware encoders are also faster than h265 hardware encoders while being more efficientav1 nvenc is like 50% faster than h265 nvenc
I just use whatever video format to watch my porn, why would I give a shit?
h264 is the only one that's hardware accelerated on computers made in the last 20 years
>>106569077why do h264 fags lie all the fucking time?20 years? no, h264 hardware decoding has only become common in the last 15 years (2010 onwards), vp9/h265 decoding support became common just 5 years later (2015), we are talking 10 vs 15 years of compatibility here, it's not really that big of a gap when it comes to hardware decoding support.when nvidia started including h264 decoding support in 2007 people thought it was retarded and pointless the same way people think av1 is pointless today, the format just caught on surprisingly quickly, that's all.
>>106569064you only need to care if you either store absolutely insane amounts of video locally or you encode your own videos and you need to find codecs that result in the best qualitiy given how much time you're willing to spend on compute. Consumers who care about this stuff are all retarded and should be shot in the face.
>>106567712>AACis this board just completely jeeted now
>>106567838>h.264 >patent pozzednot really, it's 2 years old so 99.9% of patents expired. plus cisco foots the bill if you use it for internet stuff
>>106570904*20 years
>>106567712H.264not worth longer encode time for 265 just to save a few mb versus 264
>>106568881>more sensible options (ffv1, utvideo, prores and so on)kek
H.265 has no use case. It's neither the most compatible nor the most efficient.The meta is AV1 with H.264 as a fallback.
>>106567838calls someone a jew while shilling for a jewgle product lol>>106572069vvc is more efficient than av1 if you want to start discussing about 4k videos compression efficiency
>>106570916wow look, another one of those "new codec takes longer to encode than older codec" posts...and as always, it's not fucking truex265 is significantly faster than x264 at equal efficiency, same encode speed for slightly higher efficiency, or slower for significantly higher efficiency.x265 medium is twice as fast as x264 veryslow and it's significantly more efficient at medium-low bitrates, you can probably do x265 slow or slower to get the same encode speed as x264 veryslow and much higher efficiency across the entire bitrate rangei'm basically repeating what i've said in >>106568979 but of course nobody will listen
>>106573421>calls someone a jew while shilling for a jewgle product lolav1 isn't a google product, you could've argued that with vp9 but av1 is made by a dozen different big corporations and google just happens to be one of thembut besides, free and open source pretty much means it doesn't matter who made it, this argument just doesn't make any sense.>vvc is more efficient than av1yeah by like 10% while having 0 compatibility with anything and no progress since 2020, it's completely DOA, will never catch on.but sure, sucking mpeg's cock isn't jewish at all.
>>106567838I converted some video to av1 and it looked like a smeary fuckfest.
.
test
