>>108814116
stfu

>>108814129
Tranny

>>108814116
it got wide adoption though-
most mobile SoCs support AV1 decode
most GPUs for the last 7 years support AV1 encode and decode
Youtube runs AV1 by default
Netflix runs AV1 by default

How is that not wide support? Define your goalpost.

File: 1778273054743454.webm (1.27 MB, 720x1280)

1.27 MB WEBM

>>108814116
Just because 4chan became the fax machine of the internet doesn't mean ALL websites are like that, you know. User AV1 uploads are now slowly being enabled in other places.

https://umigalaxy.com/explore/general/275-i-made-a-video-tutorial-of-how-to-encode-av1

>>108814154
>>108814200
No one uses it
Not even pirates

>>108814300
Netflix and YouTube are most of the human traffic on the web.
>pirates don't use it
Wrong? Plenty of streaming (sports/F1/cable TV/etc) use AV1.
'The Scene' still uses H.264 for boomer reasons, who cares.

Also so what if a new version is coming out?
Are you an MPEG-LA troll? I'm not giving you any money.

>>108814300
No one uses TCP

>>108814300
The website I posted LITERALLY allows AV1 uploads. That's not the only example.

https://umigalaxy.com/explore/videogames/385

ffprobe:

[STREAM]
index=0
codec_name=av1
codec_long_name=Alliance for Open Media AV1
profile=Main
codec_type=video
codec_tag_string=[0][0][0][0]
codec_tag=0x0000
width=720
height=720
coded_width=720
coded_height=720
closed_captions=0
film_grain=0
has_b_frames=0
sample_aspect_ratio=1:1
display_aspect_ratio=1:1
pix_fmt=yuv420p
level=5
color_range=tv
color_space=unknown
color_transfer=unknown
color_primaries=unknown
chroma_location=unspecified
field_order=unknown
refs=1
id=N/A
r_frame_rate=60/1
avg_frame_rate=60/1
time_base=1/1000
start_pts=7
start_time=0.007000
duration_ts=N/A
duration=N/A
bit_rate=N/A
max_bit_rate=N/A
bits_per_raw_sample=N/A
nb_frames=N/A
nb_read_frames=N/A
nb_read_packets=N/A
extradata_size=17

It's just the website you're on doesn't support it but that's not the whole internet. If you can't comprehend that then I can't help you, I'm not a tard wrangler

>>108814339
>'The Scene' still uses H.264 for boomer reasons
More and more uploads are in H.265 now

>>108814367
They are in h265 for the same boomer reason they were in h264: boomer devices keep upgrading to the proprietary formats.

>>108814300
Isn't YouTube using it? Also av1 returns +30k results on piratebay

>>108814361
>It's just the website you're on doesn't support it but that's not the whole internet
Retards here live on 4chan, so they judge formats by if they're supported by this dogshit website
They'd call VP9 shit if this website only supported h264

>>108814300
>No one uses it
I use it
>Not even pirates
lurk more
>>108814367
>More and more uploads are in H.265 now
only because of 4k hdr otherwise they would still be on h264

av1 is perfectly capable of very high quality encoding, not sure why some retards are pretending otherwise

>>108814116
youtube has it (only if you get many views though)

File: 1748768148549576.png (45 KB, 960x533)

45 KB PNG

Why don't we have AV1 support here anyway? Is it literally just because Indians would complain that their shitty phones can't play AV1 videos?

>>108814427
This website has no staff; until the hack it was running on a multiple years old software stack.

>>108814427
moot added the vp8 support years ago, before he sold the site.
hiro doesn't know how to fix it and won't pay to fix it either.

>>108814445
>>108814451
But we did get h264 mp4 support in 2024 so clearly they're able to do some shit

File: ill warn you.png (657 KB, 960x720)

657 KB PNG

>>108814381
AV1 is legit different in that regard thoughbeitism, it was designed to be backward compatible and by year 2030, 99% of CPUs (including phone CPUs) will be able decode it without hardware support. Here's some proofs, I have an i5-7500 GT-1030 GPU, which is ~10 years old, VERY ancient in 2026. I ran

 ffmpeg -benchmark -i in.webm -f null -

on the AV1 webm in >>108814361

I got:

frame=  333 fps=0.0 q=-0.0 Lsize=N/A time=00:00:05.55 bitrate=N/A speed=22.1x elapsed=0:00:00.25
bench: utime=0.672s stime=0.141s rtime=0.252s

What this means is that I can decode AV1 video with low CPU usage so even a TURBO poorfag like me can still benefit from AV1 despite not having any kind of hardware support for it at all.

>>108814427
Even those are getting good at decoding AV1 through software now. As far as I understand ARM lags about 10 years behind x86 so a modern 2026 budget phone will be equivalent to a 2016 skylake i3 CPU, that should be enough horsepower...

>>108814538
I wouldn't be surprised if moot had done that too, but left it disabled for legal reasons.

>>108814549
Boomer devices are smart TVs, car entertainment systems, screens on airplanes, set-top boxes, etc.

File: cb2d13229e8a0a4a4f41d1df4(...).jpg (494 KB, 2000x2000)

494 KB JPG

>>108814583
Yes even those are going to decode AV1 just fine. Again they use ARM CPUs which lag 10 years behind x86. I really often think about how much of a terrible awful mistake ARM has been for consumers. Yeah things got better battery life but at the cost of sending humanity 10 years into the past, perpetually. If not for this stupid fucking toy CPU, we would have all been fully adopting AV1 by 2020 worldwide.

It is supported on all current GPUs for around 5 years. Also TV boxes like Fire TV support it just fine. It is the best for high definition web videos.

>>108814903
My GPU is older than 5 years.
Meanwhile my connection is fast enough to stream proper high quality content instead of youtube compressed low quality slop.

>>108815059
My Thinkpad T430 (2c/4t) from 2013 can handle AV1 in 1080p okay. It just causes some CPU load, but not like the machine gets unusable. 4k would be a problem, but the iGPU doesn't support 4k displays anyway.

Even the Nvidia Shield on my TV has no problems with 1080p AV1 and it has no GPU acceleration for it.

>av1 encoder is finally usable speed wise
>av2 releases
fuckin hell m8

Avift won.

>>108814300
>faggot that still pirates media using 25 year old methods is surprised 25 year old pirates use old codecs
faggote

>>108814116
its just inferior to old school 264/265 CPU encoding
it doesnt even come close

>>108815153
That's cool, but i do not want to consume lower quality garbage.
I have the bandwidth to get proper content.

Even the most normiest normies complain about how utterly shit and vomit-inducting youtube videos look like. They call it "the youtube compression" because they don't know what AV1 is, but they are talking about AV1.

>>108814339
>'The Scene' still uses H.264 for boomer reasons, who cares.
"The Scene" doesn't encode for the most part anymore. They upload "WebDL"s as is. H.264 comes from source for almost all non-UHD content.
And for offline consumption, where quality is paramount, an H264 1080p source with significantly (30%+) higher bitrate is what you would want anyway, if you're not retarded.

>>108815194
I don't think it is AV1 problem that YouTube is bitrate starving its content. That is just capitalism.

>>108815194
how fucking stupid do you need to be to blame the codec for jewtube compressing videos to shit

>>108815221
>>108815228
AV1 got specifically developed for youtube. Google is its creator.
If AV1 is vomit shit in the very case it got created for, when used by its creator, i don't even consider it for my use case.

>>108814549
>backward compatible
worked great until I tried watching high bitrate video
it just turned into a slideshow

>>108815194
YouTube gimps free 1080p videos to make you pay for "premium".
Is the "premium" version also AV1?
I assume it looks fine?

>>108815257
Youtube gimps 1080p period
1440 and 4k looks a lot better, premium or not

>>108815257
I don't think there is a premium version of 1080p AV1. They just do premium h264 1080p for legacy devices.

>>108815221
>capitalism is when you have to find a way to serve videos to literal billions of users that bitch and moan about quality

>>108815353
It is a race to the bottom. YouTube used to have good h264 1080p and now they don't.

File: HCDY2DYWUAA6BDB.png (105 KB, 273x268)

105 KB PNG

>>108814116
What do you call this phenomenon where you can't interact with a certain type of thread/certain topic on a board because most surely the discussion is astroturfed by the same anon/the same bots every time?
Feels like Daiz poisoned /g/ and we can never have a genuine discussion about video technology ever again.

>>108815363
If you want more users, you need to not shit on their face with low quality.
Tiktok wouldn't have become popular in the West if youtube wouldn't suck so much.
Tiktok provided normies with almost ad-free high-quality while also having a download option. Normies then produce and flock to brainrot videos, but this doesn't change the fact that tiktok uploads have higher visual and audio quality and is less hostile to its users.

>>108815389
Okey, I don't know anything about ticktock. I never used it. I don't use YouTube shorts either. I am not into me funny 30s videos.

>>108815353
Nobody forced Google to buy YouTube.
They just saw a successful website and decided to acquire it to destroy it.

>>108815410
You just have to understand that punching your customer in their face and smashing their skull in with a hammr, is not good for business.
Youtube allowed a Chinese company to enter and take over their market.

Blaming capitalism for youtubes bullshit is the most braindead stance you can have. Because it is literally and verifiably bad for business.

>>108815366
> a genuine discussion about video technology ever again
what is there to discuss? use the best codec with reasonable encoding speed. atm its av1.
>but h264
its so that 90 year old boomers can play the pirated movie on their 40 year old shitbox

>>108815425
Or maybe google is a glowfag business that emerge out of a DARPA project and they aquired youtube for propaganda purposes?

>>108814300
All major streaming platforms are going to adopt it to save money on paying for H264/H265 licensing

>>108814339
>'The Scene' still uses H.264 for boomer reasons, who cares.
the reason is that it looks better than the H265 or AV1 stream because providers like to bitstarve H265 and AV1 even more
even youtube looks better in H264 because they bitstarved the AV1 stream

>>108815458
anon have you ever considered that you’re fucking tarded

>>108815438
Best depends on the use case.

1080p - h264 for best compatibility and reasonable size.
4k - AV1
8k - no idea but might be AV2

>grab BR as source
>convert to av1 to make filesize manageable
>a year later shidd and piss because av2 is now a thing
man who cares, just watch what you have

>>108814339
>'The Scene' still uses H.264 for boomer reasons
and by "boomer reasons" you mean that they use H.264 because the 4k BluRay they rip is in H.264 and ANY conversion would LOSE quality.
You could have the best lossy compression method the world has ever seen and you would still LOSE QUALITY if you convert lossy to lossy.
People do not want to LOSE QUALITY, they want the ORIGINAL QUALITY.
And if this means to download a 500 MB larger file, so be it.

>>108815465
anon have you ever considered that you’re fucking blind

>>108815471
It will be years before AV2 will take over.

>>108815468
No.
Best depends on your original format.
If your original format is H.264, then the best is H.264.

>>108815475
4k bluray is h265.

>>108815489
Oh yes, 1080p BluRays are h264 and ripped as such and the 4k ones are h265 and their rips as well.

File: BTFOd.png (36 KB, 915x221)

36 KB PNG

>>108815465

>>108815487
That is not like out works with re-encodes. And normally you don't do raw bluray rips, because it would just be a waste of space. They use high bitrates because they have space on the already paid optical medium, not because it is needed.

>>108814116
bullshit
>>108814137
bullshit

>>108815504
Why would anyone ever accept a re-encode?
I don't want garbage that got run through yet another quality losing filter. I want the original.

If i download a BluRay rip. You know what i want? I want pixel-by-pixel the exact same thing that was on the BluRay.
If i want a murky filter to see it in lower quality, i can apply that myself.

>>108815504
>They use higher quality because they have space on the already paid optical medium, not because you need high quality
I want high quality.
>you don't need a good visual quality, this murky compression is enough!
Imagine unironically actually saying this.

>>108815489
he is right and you're proving it, retard. no one uses h264 for uhd distribution, for multiple reason, and this is one of them.

>>108815501
In this example AVC will be the best and VP9 the worst. AV1 is moire efficient as AVC, but not so that it can do with less than half the bitrate. More like 30-50%.

>>108815519
> Why would anyone ever accept a re-encode?
Because I don’t want 10 20TB hdds just to hold my linux distros
I download blurays and then convert them to av1 crf28 and I’m happy with the outcome

>>108815519
>Why would anyone ever accept a re-encode?
You don't have to accept anything, it will be reencoded and you will be happy. What matters is bandwidth costs of huge corpos not your opinion.

>>108815519
Then go for raw rips. I don't want to waste the space on my NAS nor waste my bandwidth. I don't even download 4k for that reason.

this is a highly homosexual thread

>>108815533
Why you are calling me retard? I just proved it.

>>108815558
>it will be reencoded and you will be happy
It isn't, though.
Aren't you literally seething here >>108814339 and whining about those evil boomers only offering a remux in original quality, rather than a re-encode?

>>108815558
>What matters is bandwidth costs of huge corpos not your opinion
sorry, i do not watch youtube

>>108814300
yet AV1 is widely available through Radeon igpu 700m series onwards since 2023. it's been three years and some gpus and igpus generations

>>108815540
Archiving is done in the highest possible quality.
Lowering quality for an archive is retarded.
If you don't have the storage to archive something... then just don't do it.

>>108815458
bistarving AV1 is just itself doing the intended purpose

>>108815558
>What matters is bandwidth costs of huge corpos
Which are very low because their data centers are close to the internet exchanges and they're probably even members of the very exchanges they use.
People at home pay many times more for the bandwidth needed to view those same videos.

It's like buying something from a factory that's right next to a container terminal and they only have to pay for the short hop to the terminal but you have to pay for the long journey across the ocean and then across land to your home.
Yet the factory owners complain and crush your package to make their short hop even cheaper.

>>108815615
I today discovered that I can do really nice and small screen captures with AV1 in OBS. AMD iGPU can even encode AV1 now. Perfect for sharing in bug reports, because you can directly watching it in your browser.

>>108815620
Having an archive or a media library are two different use cases. The quality in the library just have to be passable.

>>108814154
>most mobile SoCs support AV1 decode
nta but qualcomm's midrange offerings (which is what most phones use) still have no av1 decode, Snapdragon 6 Gen 5 and 4 Gen 5 where just announced and still no av1 decode.
they should've been kicked from AOM togheter with apple, no idea why they're still in it when they're one of the main companies still pushing for mpeg and working against av1 adoption

>>108815684
>2026
>no av1 hardware decode
what in the global south

File: 1760570719927129.jpg (65 KB, 888x601)

65 KB JPG

>>108815663

>>108815743
yep
they also went back to usb 2.0, when 3.0 was standard on all of their midrange offerings even back in 2016
it's insane how shitty snapdragon SoCs are getting and how retarded the entire phone market overall is.

>>108815663
amd's rdna 3 av1 encoder literally cannot do 1920x1080, and it's way less efficient than svt-av1 preset 8, literally a waste of silicon but sure
>Perfect for sharing in bug reports, because you can directly watching it in your browser.
the odds that the people you're sending the bug report to are running a platform/mail client/whatever with no av1 support are extremely high, for a short small resolution screen recording i'd just record with whatever the fuck i want and then transcode with x264 veryslow, takes me less than 10 seconds.

>>108814728
People use arm because x86 is a literal monopoly between Intel and AMD, x86 comes with a lot of backward compatibility baggage, ARM IP cores are good, and CISC is le bad or whatever.

>>108815596
>Aren't you literally seething here
nta
Im not a bandwidthlet nor storagelet so I kind of enjoy fuckhuge h264 encodes that preserve the film grain in the original.

>>108815657
>People at home pay many times more for the bandwidth needed to view those same videos.
Yes, but they don't care. They'd rather save a $2 per year by encoding in a new format that forces you to buy a new $350 C/GPU to decode.
And yes it will be a reencode of their old x265 encode of the original h264 encode

>>108815441
You can literally watch any view on youtube, there's no propaganda except for legal reasons and corporate courtesy. They just want the goys to watch ze ads.

>>108814451
>hiro doesn't know how to fix it and won't pay to fix it either.
Hiro doesn't run the site. Rapeape, mrvacbob and desuwa run it.

Adding a video codec would be trivial because they are all in mp4 or webm containers, and the site code remuxes all videos for safety.

>>108814549
>Here's some proofs, I have an i5-7500 GT-1030 GPU, which is ~10 years old,
Nobody cares what PC you run, 70% of the web runs on mobiles, and mobiles can't decode fuck all if they don't have hardware support for it. And yes, people use old phones very often. So old phones not being able to decode AV1 is a serious problem when it comes to interoperability. Most sites that use it have a system in place to be able to serve different file formats depending on support, so for ex if AV1 is not there, they fall back to h264 or vp9/8.

>>108814728
>Yes even those are going to decode AV1 just fine.

Sure, once people upgrade, except those are all devices that people only upgrade if they need to or when they break and are unfixable. TVs and cars usually last 10+ years minimum, often 20 or more years, unless they break.
They don't buy next years model because it has a faster cpu/gpu.

Case in point I still use a plasma from 2009. Shit works, so why upgrade.

>>108815504
>They use high bitrates because they have space on the already paid optical medium, not because it is needed.

No, they use it because they want their premium positioned buy-once physical format to look the best, and the disc has enough space to allow for it. Even back in the DVD days you had Superbit discs which had minimal extra content and extra dubs included, so they can give the video a higher bitrate.

Also with streaming they are limited both by bitrate and by the fact that people play the videos on piece of shit low end devices, so using a high bitrate is counter productive. With physical media like blurays, the standard already tells you what it is that any device must be capable of playing, so they can just max out everything.

>>108815519
>Why would anyone ever accept a re-encode?
High quality encodes can easily shave down half the file size and when you have thousands of movies this quickly adds up.

>>108815565
>this is a highly homosexual thread
Now that you are here it indeed is.

>>108815904
it can do up to 4k as it says right there in pic related >>108815853

>>108815997
>And yes it will be a reencode of their old x265 encode of the original h264 encode

And that's still better than the idiocy that some directors do like Cameron using AI to upscale to 4k blurays, Lucas constantly changing shit in every release of his movies, or I think it was Scorsese who came up with some horse shit like downscaling the movie to DVD resolution first to "remove fake detail".

True Lies and Star Wars non-SE literally do not have good Blu-ray releases; the best you can find for both are fan made 35mm scans, or a D-Theater rip (True Lies) or the fucking Laserdisc copies (SW original trilogy was included as a bonus in one of the dvd/bluray releases, and it was a Laserdisc capture).

>>108816288
...are you retarded
https://github.com/GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs/AMF/issues/423
yes, it can do 4k, but trying to encode 1920x1080 results in 1920x1088, which means everything will be scaled back and fourth twice and look really blurry
I have an rx 7600 and a 1080p monitor, the av1 encoder is completely useless because of this.

>>108815519
You would never be able to tell the difference between the 100 GB original and a 50% smaller re-encode. Unless you're doing archival, this is just a waste of space
Reminds me of people who claim they can tell the difference between a FLAC and a 256 kbps OPUS

>>108816319
what about 1920x1200?

>>108816526
it should fit in 8x8 alignment i think so yes

>>108816335
I can tell the difference. Almost all normies can tell the difference!

And if i don't do archival i delete it after watching. I don't have to keep the goyslop around! Why would i?
If it is good enough to be kept, it is good enough to be preserved in it's original highest quality.
Either i keep it or i don't, there is no in between. Especially because you have to spend time reencoding, who the fuck does that?
If you claim that you are doing this, i assume that you are lying unless you prove the opposite, because it's just so dumb.

I think you are just making shit up in your head because you got BTFO by the fact that reencoding always, neccessarily, loses quality.
You are promoting a quality loss.

>>108817241
>reencoding always, neccessarily, loses quality
Mathematically? Yes
Perceptibly? Not if you encode at a good enough bitrate

>>108817723
a "good enough bitrate" would be bigger than input bitrate, which makes the whole operation worse than useless.

>>108816335
>100 GB original
Bluray quality movies are not 100GB, they are chock full of extras and alternate language sound channels which inflate their sizes. If you kill all of those, even something like a 3 hour movie will be around ~35GB, or if it's a 4k movie, ~70GB.

But your average 2 hour flick even fits on a BD25 half the time.

File: otter.png (895 KB, 600x662)

895 KB PNG

There's a thread about AV1 video encoding up right now, thought some of you'd like to be there instead of this shit ass thread

>>108817526
>>108817526
>>108817526
>>108817526

>>108814116
netflix switched from avc to av1. literally more than half of the videos on youtube are av1 and 4k/8k are av1 by default. facebook and instagram use av1 for reels. ms teams and google meet also fully switched to av1. idk av1 at this point seems to be the universal standard for any service that wants to provide higher quality video at lower bandwidth.

>>108818016
see post above you, this is the hourly ragebait thread that never gets deleted here on /g/

>>108818016
>higher quality video at lower bandwidth
You mean same quality at much lower bandwidth
They're only switching to AV1 to save on bandwidth, not to provide you higher quality

>>108815684
>nta but qualcomm's midrange offerings
I assume most here are westerners who don’t use shit hardware.

>>108814339
The Scene is peak Gen X. Apologize.

is there a single person on the planet using a device thats designed to play video who cant click on av1 vid and have it work?

>>108814116

> its successor came out

Oh, did it really?

I believe https://av2.aomedia.org/ still displays only the draft version of it even now.

>>108814116
Literally everything apart from your mongolian basket weaving forum supports it.

>>108820409
Then why are you here?
Fuck off and enjoy your youtube compression.

>>108818078
>>108818016
It is actually lower quality at lower bandwidth.
Because the original, that those streaming services get, is not AV1. What you are getting served is a reencode, which is physically impossible to be of equal quality as the original.

>>108820558
>Because the original, that those streaming services get, is not AV1
Yes, the original is an extremely high quality reference copy larger than even the size of a fucking Bluray disk. You were never going to be getting that quality. It's a waste when you can get perceptually lossless quality for far less so you can actually stream the fucking thing.

>>108820577
If you think that streaming providers get the encrypted DCP that needs to request a new key on every showing, like cinemas have it, you are a total retard.

Streaming providers get the same thing you get on BluRay.

>>108820577
>It's a waste when you can get perceptually lossless quality...
yet, cinemas and BluRays use higher quality.

I guess the capitalist companies are just super fucking stupid!
They could use the perceptually lossless youtube compression instead and safe lots of money!

>>108820731
>Physical medium that isn't burdened by transporting data over a computer network uses higher quality
No shit.

>>108820900
Also they wouldn't save any money because Bluray disks don't scale like hard drives. It's the same price for pack of disks regardless of how much of the disk they use.

>>108820911
Anon, the old BluRays that did 1080p max are cheaper to produce, they had to come up with completely new shit to do those HEVC 4k BluRays.
They could have always just use the "perceptually lossless" youtube compression, that you propose, and throw the bitstarved 4k AV1 on it, without needing new technology.

But somehow they don't do that.
Somehow even normies spot that the "perceptually lossless" AV1 is garbage.
Somehow capitalist companies go out of their way to use more expensive technology to deliver higher quality, rather than going for the "perceptually lossless" youtube compression.

If i want to save bandwidth, i download the perceptional lossless YIFY.
A: 10 V: 10

>>108820223
>HURR DURR WE'RE WESTERNERS WE DON'T HAVE SHIT HARDWARE
ok, so why are you interested in av1 at all when MUH STORAGE IS CHEAP?
also, it really doesn't matter because at the end of the day if 90% of mobile devices out there don't support av1, services and software will have way less incentive to support it, so you can't use it either but of course an ameritard isn't going to understand a basic concept like that

>>108821715
I'm pretty sure every flagship phone for the past 5 years has had AV1 support so it is out there.

>>108821626
The reason they had to make the disks bigger is because if they didn't then the 1080p copy of the Bluray would have a higher bitrate than the 4K copy.

Also they can't compress it because Bluray players won't know what to do with it.

What's up with av1 not being royalty free apparently? Some dolby lawsuit shit? Is av2 the same?

>>108822556
It is royalty free, the royalties are just owned by a single group and there are overlapping claims. In practice it won't be the AV1 group that'll sue you, it'll be Dolby, et al, and with any luck it'd get thrown out of court.

>>108822452
Well, no, the 1080p and 4K would have the same bitrate for obvious reasons, but the perceptual quality of 4K would be substantially lower because those bits would be made to go further. 4K is HEVC when 1080p BR was h.264 (or VC1) so it was already a full hardware and software change. But why would you use AV1 and not HEVC when the consumer is paying for the license anyway? The only reason to use AV1 is when you can't pass the license cost onto the consumer very easily as it's encoding quality is not any better than HEVC, it's just easier to use for streaming services that can't afford to pay MPEG-LA per stream.

>>108822725
>Well, no, the 1080p and 4K would have the same bitrate for obvious reasons, but the perceptual quality of 4K would be substantially lower because those bits would be made to go further.
Yes, that's what I meant.

>N kb/s 1080p != N kb/s 4K
>(It will look better at 1080p if N is the same value for both)

Therefore the disks have to be bigger to fit an equivalent quality UHD / 4K film onto it that doesn't look perceptually worse.

Also you're right that there's not much reason to use AV1 over HEVC for Bluray disks even if they could do (which they couldn't, the Bluray players can't do it).

>>108823581
>decrease the loading times*

>>108814300
>Not even pirates
thats because pirates have switched to downloading the streams directly from amazon, netflix, etc.
https://streamfab.dvdfab.at/streamfab-download-status.htm

get with the times, grandpa

>>108821715
>ok, so why are you interested in av1 at all when MUH STORAGE IS CHEAP?
>also, it really doesn't matter because at the end of the day if 90% of mobile devices out there don't support av1, services and software will have way less incentive to support it, so you can't use it either but of course an ameritard isn't going to understand a basic concept like that
I don’t mind having higher quality at the same storage level. I’m sitting on >75 TB either way, but in terms of bandwidth saving, especially on mobile devices, AV1 is the clear choice.
Honestly, they should make the switch to AV1 mandatory so as to simply exclude the nitwits from the wider internet.

How did video compression end up so ass backwards that we went from tuning encoders like x264 to retain as much detail as possible to aiming for blurry 3mbps slop.

>>108824880
Besides AV1 Shrek that's not what's happening. People are taking the same sized x264 encode and making it smaller with equivalent quality (zero perceptual loss, they look the same or better side-by-side)

>>108824890
In case anyone hasn't seen it yet:
https://files.catbox.moe/suzncp.mkv

Very cool that it fits into 8 MB.