oof
so?
AV1 just won even more than they already were.
Are they trying to move everyone away to AV1 faster or something?
VP9 came out in 2013, same as HEVC.AV1 came out in 2018.Both are better than H.264 and HEVC.What's stopping the switch?Same with AVIF, and I hate WebP, but even that's better than sucking off MPEG.
>>108520498They are extracting the remaining juices from the market it seems. Right before everyone transitioned from old codecs they make them expensive. No reputation to lose, they are about to disappear.
>>1085205460 * infinity = 0 anon
>>108520554Netflix is gradually moving to AV1 right now.https://netflixtechblog.com/av1-now-powering-30-of-netflix-streaming-02f592242d80
>>108520590netflix gives a bad impression of av1 to everyone.when people think of av1, they think of bit starved 1080p encodes that look so bad, it almost makes gif looks like a good format.
>>108520498the ability to patent file formats is absurd
>>108520638The European Union has far more stringent restrictions on software patents than the US.
fees are the same if you're below a thresholdbut oh boy do they ramp up>19,999,999 daily users>pay $100k>20,000,000 daily users>pay 2 million
>>108520553>>108520546i guess you haven't heard that dolby is trying to collect licensing fees on av1.
>>108520719they always do.next time they'll create the 'open bt curve consortium' or the 'open subtitle consortium' and charge a fuckton of money for formats nobody cares about.the reason it works is that they force distributors (their friends) to use their format, for instance by making it free for them and putting the cost on media players.
>>108520691>make zero changes to the format>increase the royaltiesI don't see why this is allowed.>noooo you're making too much money while using my IP, you have to pay me moooooooore
>>108520498The fucking audacity of these kikes.
>>108520498How the fuck haven't the patents for h.264 expired yet?
>>108520833Part of the reason I'm glad H.265 didn't win. Just imagine how long that would be locked down.
>>108520781assume for a moment that the fees aren't bullshit to begin withwhy shouldn't larger platforms pay more?
>>108520869>why shouldn't larger platforms pay more?Should have thought about that when you initially set up your royalties.
>>108520897So just disagree with changing the terms? All existing licenses are grandfathered in.>The change applies only to previously unlicensed implementers seeking a new license in 2026 or later, with all companies that held an active AVC license as of the end of 2025 retaining their original terms
>>108520897If you spent 3 seconds reading the whole headline and not just the first few words then you would know that it only applies to new customers.
>>108520498>The change applies only to previously unlicensed implementers seeking a new license in 2026 or later, with all companies that held an active AVC license as of the end of 2025 retaining their original terms.In other words, none of the established big players will be affected.
>>108520719>>108520732tf are you on schizo? It's dolby doing dolby shit besides if they keep slinging shit they'll be blacklisted from like half of silicon valley for a decadeThe vainest of nothingburgers
>>108520606If only a reputable company published something with bitrate instruc-ack!https://www.hikvision.com/content/dam/hikvision/ca/faq-document/H.2645-&-H.2645-Recommended-Bit-Rate-at-General-Resolutions.pdfWorked in the security industry for years and this chart is flawless. It just scales and you can use the HEVC bitrates for VP9 or AV1 as VP9 is the same and HEVC is exactly between 20-30% larger than AV1.Even when I record or stream, using AV1 with a max of 8192 KBpS for 1440p 60fps footage with a VBR target of 5 (out of 7), I get flawless footage without artifacts or crunchiness even in my blacks and reds.
>>108520939huh?
>>108520498What do they have to license? Aren't the patents for h.264 expired?
Behead MPEG-LA.Judo throw MPEG-LA into a wood chipper.Karate chop MPEG-LA in half.Strap MPEG-LA to a space-x rocket.Launch MPEG-LA into LEO via a railgun.Stir fry MPEG-LA in a wok.
>>108520498av2 will be enshittified
>>108520844it's already won for everything that's not throwaway youtube videos (every youtube adcuck already paid their billions for funding av1)
>>108521260Why do you think AV1 was created? H.265 was FORCED against people's will and when they realized how much kike shit was going on they reverted back to H.264.WHAT do you think is going to happen when these stupid turbo kikes make H.264 even more expensive than it needs to be?
>>108521289av1 was created for the same reason vp8 was created. to make the most compressible codec that's good enough for goyslop and getting past the discerning normalfag eye.the patents and royalty shit came after. you really believe a couple hundred k a year would be anything to these corpos? shaving 5 kilobits per second off the bitrate probably does more to the bottom line than any amount of paypigging or otherwise to the mpeg la would.the reason to then shill vp* and derivatives is to manufacture consent so hardware makers care enough to dedicate silicon space to their codecs. plus, any control over the ecosystem is worthwhile control over the ecosystem. you could choose to gatekeep, choke out and/or enshittify at your leisure at any point in the future. it's also great for the jeet ego and jeet resume that everyone in the world adds .avif to the end of their image files.
>>108520546>>108520553>>108520564>>108520719>You cant escape the JewsOk.
>>108520719They don't have any legitimate claims, otherwise they would already have sued the big players like Google and Netflix. They're just trying to hamper widespread adoption by spreading FUD, and hope to scam some small fish in the process.
>>108521402VP8 is inferior to H.264/AVC, VP9 is inferior to H.265/HEVC, AV1 is inferior to H.266/VVC. If it wasn't for patents and royalties, nobody would use them, and they wouldn't have been created in the first place.>a couple hundred k a yearNot even remotely close.
>>108521726>vp8 is inferior to h264yes, quite a bit>VP9 is inferior to H.265/HEVCbarely, like a 10% difference, it's the most underrated codec ever especially when you factor in the fact that it was designed in a way that requires 50+% less cpu cycles to decode in software on devices without hwdec, it's a mistery to me why only youtube and few streamslop services hopped on it, the only thing really holding it back is the lack of hw encoders and lack of a decent/fast sw encoder (which is caused by the fact that nobody cares to use it for some reason).>AV1 is inferior to H.266/VVC...10% less efficient while being like 3 years newer and infinitely more supported + again, no patent pozzing. how jewish are you? h266 isn't even in the same race and still managed to lose but somehow you claim it's better than av1 just because of a small efficiency gain...anyways av2 is right around the corner and will definitely outperform h.266 so what excuse will you come up with at that point?
>>108521726Are you retarded? AV1 is excellent but just less efficient. X265 also had the same issue at its beginning, nobody liked it because of how long encoding times were.
>>108521760>while being like 3 years newerwhoops, meant 3 years older
>>108520554>Both are better than H.264 and HEVC.HEVC is marginally faster, especially overall/in general. AV1 meanwhile completely blows it out of the water in every aspect, all the more so when you compare it to the failed HEVC successor.
>>108520498if america was around during the time man discovered fire we would still be paying a license fee to his schmuck great great great great grandson
>>108520554>Same with AVIF, and I hate WebP, but even that's better than sucking off MPEG....mpeg doesn't make still image codecs though?the alternative to webp is jpeg with a modern encoder (mozjpeg), completely royalty free and straight up better in many ways if you can deal with the 10% efficiency loss.the alternative to avif is jpeg-xl, agin, royalty free, better in every way, maybe 10% less efficient in some scenarios.vp9 and av1 were great because they solved an actual problem, avif/webp were a (terrible) solution in search of a problem that never existed.jpeg already solved lossy image compression in 1992 and for those use cases were additional efficiency is helpful (the internet and nothing else), jxl provides lossless reconstruction for it, there are no codecs in the video/audio world that aged this well and with such future-proof compatibility for a newer format, google decided to fuck with all of this just because... jews.despite all the hate webp/avif gets, it's definitely not enough.
My company just paid Dolby Av1 license fee; it is almost nothing anyway, so there's no point in fighting it.
>>108521863>i gave the school bully my lunch, i wasn't hungry, so there was no point in fighting it.your company is retarded.
>>108521726>>108521760VP9's reference encoder is so abhorrently awful that any discussion about the codec is academic.In the real world>if you move libvpx-vp9 off of slow its encode efficiency walks off a cliff>you can't effectively multithread libvpx-vp9>you can't hit a rate control target>>108521760VVC can handle noisy video correctly and so I will literally never use av1/av2 for anything.It is the technological equivalent of rubbing an entire frame in vasaline then dusting it with a salt shaker.
