meerkt wrote:No H265 comparison, oddly.
jihadjoe wrote:AFAIK AV1 is about even to slightly better than HEVC at lower bitrates, HEVC taking the lead at higher bitrates.
IMO the the problem mostly is AV1 is second to market, and HEVC already has a solid foothold in devices with dedicated decode/encode hardware. It's in GPUs, camcorders, set-top boxes, DVD/BR players... Unless AV1 gets dedicated decode hardware it will actually cost the consumer more to use it just because of power use from less efficient decode. Netflix and Google will probably use it, but that's savings for THEM, achieved with additional costs (decode inefficiency) passed on to the consumer.
The royalty-free argument is hard to sell too, because that cost is born by the device manufacturers and isn't really felt by the consumer.
DragonDaddyBear wrote:H.265 won't die, tough. The movie and tv industry, which produce the majority of the content, are backing the incumbent and profiting from it. We, the consumers, will still need devices that support it. The biggest winner in this is the streaming providers.
Redocbew wrote:If the only downside to AV1 is longer encoding times I doubt Netflix, Amazon, et al really care too much about that, but a reduction in bandwidth could be a big deal.
Codecs for streaming video have seen considerable churn in the last few years. If that continues then I'd expect it to start looking like the web API churn with most of the major players clustering around the most widely used technology which pisses them off the least.
jensend wrote:For h.265, you have to pay expensive royalties to three separate patent consortia (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, Velos) and, if you want to actually CYA legally, arrange licenses with fifteen other individual companies which hold h.265 patents but have not joined any consortium. This kind of disastrous legal mess and costly licensing situation is not something people are willing to deal with given that there are other viable options for video.