Looks like the AV1 shills have to pretend that failure codec AV1 didn't happen and that AV2 was "our codec" all along to finally make open source video encoding happen. https://www.phoronix.com/news/AV2-Next-Week
>AV1 successorembarrassing
old hardware won't support itnew hardware is too expensive
These codec people literally live in a bubble. Nobody wants shit new encoders that are bound to new hardware especially in this market.
>>108887583>next weekgreat timing with the RAM and storage prices
>butthurt VVC shill threadHow’s your DOA codec doing? Paid your patent loicense yet?
>>108887704What a retarded thing to say. New will be old in 10 years, just like it happened with every past codecs.
>>108887583> AV2-Next-WeekBasically >>108880599.
h264 is all you need
>>108887628Do you really treat your CPU like some kind of a “virgin” that is “raped” by any compute-intensive tasks?
>>108887583> to finally make open source video encoding happenThat is happening for at least two decades now!(Do you really think that the source code of x264 was closed in 2006, for instance?)
>>108888146>there's an open source encoder for h264 therefore h264 is open source...are you seriously this fucking retarded?
can we expect moot to add av2 support day 1 on 4chan?
>>108888185Yes, day 1 of 2035.
the only codec that is widely supported by everyone everywhere is h264
>>108888339theres a reason why netflix, youtube, other video streamers use av1its just better
>>108888345i have yet to find a single person on this world who thinks that youtubes compression is good
>>108888354Youtube compresses 1080p the way it does to promote people buying premium subsstill, 1440p, 4k uploads look perfectly fine if the channel doesnt fuck the settings up
>>108888364i have yet to find a single person on this world who thinks that youtubes compression, even with premium subscription, would be good
>>108888384Well if somene wants to stream several gb's 4k videos for free to you its a bit weird to start complaining about it.ofc mandatory paid services have more quality, because you pay
>>108888391i have yet to find a single person on this world who thinks that youtubes compression, even with premium subscription, would be good
av1 mimicked avi which is a jewish nameav2 ruins this - this is anti semitism
>>108888392https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9_L9fwYSdgtheres a 4k video for youwhat do you think of the quality
>>108888399looks worse than any HEVC blu raybtw. i have yet to find a single person on this world who thinks that youtubes compression, even with premium subscription, would be good.Do you say that youtubes compression is good? Stop dancing around the subject and say the words: "youtubes compression is amazing and great".If you can't say those words, then idk what youbare doing, why do you keep replying like this?
Sharty shitposting bot ehcool
>>108887583Cool
>>108888391Youtubes compression is so bad, that you watch a 4k video, in a window, on a screen that isn't 4k, because that results in higher quality than the slop they ship in your native resolution.So if you have a 4k screen, you would have to find 8k videos on youtube to not get raped.
>>108887583no thanks, i will wait for AV3
>>108888463You just said the bitrate is higher at higher resolutions. Which is expected in general.Define bad in the context of you, and a billion indians, getting it for freeWho does it right for free
Now that AV1 is a legacy format, is it finally ready for 4chan?
>>108888414>looks worse than any HEVC blu rayOf course it looks worse than BD, but that's a retarded quality threshold for a free streaming service
codec people are so autistic lmaostill using h264, works everywhereno, I don't care if my videos are a bit larger in size
>>108888603>but that's a retarded quality thresholdwhy?HEVC BluRays are 10 years old. Meanwhile bandwidth is cheaper than ever and keeps getting cheaper every year. Bandwidth is so cheap that cloudflare gives it away for free.
>>108888663It's only free because it's a glowop to siphon data and control traffic
>>108888354Youtube's compression is bad because of low bitrate. AV1 improved the situation by allowing higher quality at the same bitrate. AV2 will improve things further. If youtube used h264 instead at the same bitrate, then it would look even worse.
>>108887583fuck now I need a new graphics card
>>108887628jews did this
>>108888913That's pointless.
>>108888345Youtube has H264, VP9 and AV1 options for most videos, H264 usually not available for 1440p+, serving VP9 to my firefox most of the time.
>>108890243They will use AV2
>>108888749>higher quality at the same bitrateHahaHAHAHAHAHA
>>108887583DOA.
>>108891234No.
>>108891172I've compared the VP9 vs the lower bitrate AV1 for some Tokyo Lens Explore videos, a lot of forest filmed on gopro or similar in 4k, not ideal cinema footage but good quality. They trade blows, but VP9 wins slightly, in the end it's just more data. Which is annoying because it forces using the more inefficient codec for archival. Should have at least made AV1 version only slightly smaller, so it would be smaller AND better. However, lately I've also seen some videos with equal size VP9 and AV1 version, in that case the AV1 is probably simply better. Not sure whether they upgraded the AV1 bitrate on the VP9 level or nerfed the VP9, that would require comparing visually similar content from different dates.
>>108887583kek
>>108891234>DOA.yes, av1 was
>hmmm I want to save some space, lemme use av1>2 years pass>sheeeit i sure wish i had the originals so that i could convert to the fotm format without another generational lossreencoding is a stupid idea
>>108894015av1 was supposed to just be a streaming codec, not archiving stuff. those people who did that are just dumb.
>>108891172Do you not understand the concept of compression efficiency
>>108893958no it wasn'talmost every youtube video uses AV1 next to their VP9 garbageAV2 will be massive step forward
>>108894668>almost every youtube video uses AV1 next to their VP9 garbageand youtube will throw av1 in the trash and use av2 instead because av1 is dogshit.
>>108894019you kow there's technically no difference between the same two costs?> streaming companies want to cut down bitrate for the same perceptual quality to save bandwidth> when archiving you want smaller files for the same perceptual quality to save space
>>108894015i'm happy with my 1080p breaking bad av1 rip that fits in under 20gbs i really don't care
>>108887742>New will be old in 10 yearsNo it absolutely won't, hardware from the past 5 years has had extremely limited adoption due to excessive prices
>>108888663>bluray disc has a given size and there’s no difference in cost whether you fill 5% of it or 99% of it, so might as well provide the best quality that will fit>streaming has ongoing cost so you’re incentivised to lower filesizeAnon i dont think you need a phd in rocket surgery to understand it
>>108895865>hardware from the past 5 years has had extremely limited adoption due to excessive pricesEvery gpu in the last 5 years has av1 decodingMost recent phones, even cheap chinesium, can also do av1
>>108887704The gcompanies now thriving on b2b do. That's all that matters.THE DOW IS OVER 50K ANON
>>108894173Did you not read the post I was replying to?
>>108896262BD is like 25GB. For a two hour movie that means an average bit rate of ~30Mbit/s. With that many bits you might be able to use MPEG1/2 and still get good quality.
Why do google shills spam their streaming codec and try to convince people to use it for storage?
>>108897461better quality at lower filesizes and royalty free so you dont have to pay for it
>>108897498Okay but I’m not paying shit for any codec I use at home, and nobody but me cares about how much space the files on my drives take
>>108897524what if you wanted to post a file on 4chanwrong codec = your video is 50% shorter and worse quality
>>108897543>what if you wanted to post a file on 4chanI use h264 cause nothing else works
>>108897569But if moot clicked a button that enabled av2 you could post a twice as long vid at better quality
>>108897596Hiroshimoot wont do shit tho
>>108897569>I use h264 cause nothing else worksBut 4chan has been supporting VP9 for way longer than H264
>>108887583Can we finally get AV1 on this site
>>108898203Hiroshimoot and his team don't know how to add support for it
>>108898203No. Your codec exists to artificially drive profit to Intel and AMD for unneeded upgrades. h264 is all you need.
>>108899803No. Your codec exists to artificially drive profit to Intel and AMD for unneeded upgrades. Xvid is all you need.
>>108898203>Can we finally get AV1 on this siteno
>>108887583>the AV1 shills>sIt's all Daiz lol
>>108887704youtube uses av1
>>108891172This. AV1 on YT is slopmaxxing quality.
>>108900451>youtube uses av1Sadly they use it to deliver the same shitty quality but at a lower bitrate, instead if delivering higher quality at the same bitrate
>>108900488ok and you're gonna blame them for it?
The year is 2035, YouTube has adopted AV4
>>108900634its gone now but the original leeroy jenkins video on youtube got re encoded so many times it was a just a blurry smudge
>>108900033No. Your codec exists to artificially drive profit to Intel and AMD for unneeded upgrades. Cinepak is all you need.
>>108899803>>108900033>>108900688H.261 is all you guys need.Meanwhile, we need AV1 and AV2.>>108900634There's absolutely no way AV4 would have such a bad deblocking filter.
>>108887583h264 just werks we dont need a new codec>>108888111based
>>108900949>h264 just werks we dont need a new codecpoorfag with an old laptop spotted
>>108901324i have a sapphire rapids xeon and 7900xtx
MORE BLURLOWER BITRATESLET'S GOOOOOOO
>>108901786autism speaks
I never understood 4chans inability with Av1Isnt it just a whitelisting a format, the actual technology is handled by google or something. The 4chan mac server streams a file to the user pc, and chrome plays it. What am I missing
>>108903224you're right that it's not a technical/laziness issue. actually it would have been /more work/ to exclude av1 as they allow webm already and it requires more checking to see if said webm is av1 or vp8 or vp9then to add insult to injury they much later added mp4/h.264 support, which is absolutely a lot more effort than taking av1 off the blacklisti do not know why av1 is not allowed here, all i can say is that 4chan has gone out of their way to deny it
i use AV1 to encode camgirls' streams and save 50% of disk space so i'll gladly move to AV2
>>108903301RapeApe (the actual admin of this site) absolutely refuses to allow image/video codecs newer than vp9 for some reason
