VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and copy Ultra HD Blu-rays and DVDs! Or rip iTunes movies and music! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Search Comp PM
    downloaded some music videos on youtube at 1080p that use AV1 codec and some where as small as 29mb example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgKAFK5djSk for the size of the video the video and audio quality is still quite good

    ive been told that AV1 is better then x265 but is this really true? im yet to do any tests

    i remember back when some people said VP9 was better then X264 when in fact it was worse
    Last edited by jamespoo; 3rd Nov 2020 at 18:56.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    It's true for AV1 beating x265. VP9 can also certainly outclass x264.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    I've been saying for years now that x265/HEVC may not be the future.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Central Germany
    Search PM
    Having a patent-free codec is not the only goal: If AV1 could not be more efficient than HEVC, it wouldn't pay the joined efforts of so many companies being involved. Its main target is Ultra-HD resolutions, though. And the MPEG already counters with an own successor, VVC.

    But using a codec alone causes no miracles. You can set up codecs to work either faster or more elaborate. The fastest AV1 setup may not beat x265, the fastest VP9 setup may not beat x264. All depending on material and available bitrate limits.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member azmoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Smurf free suburb of Timbuktu!
    Search Comp PM
    Quote Quote  
  6. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    It's going to be awhile before VVC starts being considered. With very long encode times for the concept encoder, which is normal this fast out of the gate. Though bitrate efficiency is good according to those who have tried it. There probably won't be a x266 (or similiar) as x265 did not seem to pay enough to investors.
    Quote Quote  
  7. There probably won't be a x266 (or similiar) as x265 did not seem to pay enough to investors.
    Any sources for that claim?
    Since https://multicorewareinc.com/x266-a-state-of-the-art-open-source-code-for-vvc-encoding...icoreware-inc/ from 8th of September 2020 did sound differently,...

    Cu Selur
    users currently on my ignore list: deadrats, Stears555
    Quote Quote  
  8. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    Don't have a source (besides random comments on Doom and r/AV1), I've simply read that they might not have been happy about the investment in x265 development due to less than expected HEVC adoption, and so doing a x266 might not be something they want to invest in or invest heavily in. But thank you for providing that MulticoreWare press statement.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by LigH.de View Post
    Having a patent-free codec is not the only goal: If AV1 could not be more efficient than HEVC, it wouldn't pay the joined efforts of so many companies being involved. Its main target is Ultra-HD resolutions, though. And the MPEG already counters with an own successor, VVC.

    But using a codec alone causes no miracles. You can set up codecs to work either faster or more elaborate. The fastest AV1 setup may not beat x265, the fastest VP9 setup may not beat x264. All depending on material and available bitrate limits.

    https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/media-at-microsoft/av1-hardware-accelerated-vid...0/ba-p/1765451
    "AV1, which is developed by the Alliance for Open Media (AOM), can reach 50% better compression than H.264 and 20% better than VP9 for the same video content."
    This Microsoft blog post states claims about AV1 potential improvements over h.264 and vp9.

    Better codec than x265 ?: Does AV1 currently achieve higher quality than x265 (for typical content, at a given HD/UHD resolution, and for a given encoding time) and if so what bitrate savings are achieved ?
    AV1 is very slow to encode and accelerated hardware for decoding is just starting to roll out now.
    Quote Quote  
  10. I think the real question is whether or not there is much, if any, reason to move away from x264? Maybe space savings, but that's not really an issue now that HDD space isn't at a premium. I really still think it does a fine job with content that is ≤ 1080i/1080p. Wasn't H265 really meant for resolutions above that? And then when you take compatibility into account, pretty much everything has hardware decode support for H264 8-bit. x265 takes significantly more processing power to compress things. I still have some things that struggle to play H265 even at 8-bit. AV1 seems to only be supported with software players on a computer.
    Last edited by stonesfan187; 12th Oct 2020 at 13:09.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads