AV1 codec - the best low data level codec ?

[Patrick Tresch]

Hello,

Just come across this codec (it's been here for 6 years now) and was amaized by the finess of the details, the lack of banding. No blocking artefacts and even 8k support for the same data level as H264 (what they say).

I wounder why this open, royalty-free codec isn't more implemented and replacing H264/5?

I don't see it in Resolve output options for example.
Any toughts?

Thanks
Patrick

 

[Afshin]

I wounder why this open, royalty-free codec isn't more implemented and replacing H264/5?

1. Its algorithms are computationally expensive
2. There is uncertainty about it's future legal status
3. AV industry is resistant to change, unless they see a massive improvement with minimal cost
4. Up to 1080p, x264 is still the best. New codecs show improvement in higher resolutions, but most of the content on the internet is still 1080.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I've never seen such a good codec for the web. Usually you see 8k content on showroom TV with a lot of compression artefacts. This would also solve the problem.

- computational expenses are getting less problematic than 6 years ago. How much more computationally intense is this codec VS H265?
- 1080p is a dying format and H264 isn't good enough for 4k (not even speaking about 8k).
- H264/5 are catastrophic codecs with blocks and banding all over the place when you need quality on mondern Oled screen wich are getting bigger streaming from youtube.
- We are the industry and should ask for better codecs and not beeing stuck with decisions made on old logics (like the crazy drop frame thing).

But yes the industry is not prone to change

 

[Phil Holland]

You can encode in Resolve to AV1, but I believe it's hardware dependent for GPUs that feature encoders and decoders. Which if my memory serves correct, is 4000 series cards and now 5000 series ones from Nvidia. Some AMD cards work as well, but I'd need to dig into which ones.

I do encoding R&D along the way, highly CPU demanding before GPU acceleration gets done and early tests for AV1 were great. And we do use it for "some things" I'd say about 2023 onwards.

H.266 is also relatively new, but not a lot of hardware support on the encode/decode yet. So still heavy.

Much of what you see today is H.265 or AV1 or proprietary things going on behind the scenes. But high quality web encoding is a wee bit of a secretive thing across streamers and how they do it. Been doing a lot of that along the way as well.

X264 is not "still the best". Not for a long while. It is good for H.264 encoders however. But quality for bitrate, nope. But if you're happy using it for whatever workflow you have, it's all good.

 

[Afshin]

"best" is of course subjective. I personally consider 1. Hardware/Software support for the codec 2. The time it takes to encode 3. The quality of the artifacts. x264 is still at the top for all three, even the third one, since it preserves grain/noise better. Sometimes x265 makes my ISO 6400 image like its ISO 3200; and I understand some people see it as progress.

 

[Phil Holland]

It would be difficult to go into the extensive work done here, but we run expanded diffs on encoded sequences, both real world footage and test patterns and measure those against uncompressed sequences.

The best I can say is most people don't explore various ways to actually encode various codecs. If you look at Netflix encodes, specifically things like Witcher at the current highest streaming quality they offer, they've spent a lot of time ensuring grain is reproduced faithfully while hitting their bitrate targets. They now use a variety of codecs, but all are aimed at "faithful reproduction". H.265 has been and is pretty much what everybody is using and AV1 is in that mix now.

That said, if it was up to me, I would be increasing the quality of encodes as well as streaming bitrates. I won't call out anybody by name, these are clients and I have advised what I'll be saying next, but there are streaming services that aren't exactly hitting the quality to value ratio at their given price point.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Hello Phil,

I don't find it on Resolve.... Does it have another name than AV1?

I've done some test with Jpeg2000 for DCP encoding in 4k with grain and 250Mb/s is just the lower limit.
350Mb/s would be just enough. Hope they also change that...


I'm just amazed by what I see here in AV1 (codec wise) :

 

[Phil Holland]

Hello Phil,

I don't find it on Resolve.... Does it have another name than AV1?


I'm just amaized by what I see here (codec wise) :

What version of Resolve do you have and what is your hardware setup?

YouTube will re-encode your upload to AV1. However, I need to state that YouTube has also changed the upload and encode quality somewhere in the last few years. I have things uploaded in 8K and 4K before and after that and it's a rather notable difference. Likely a cost savings effort in both bandwidth and physical storage.

 

[Alex Zeder]

FWIW, Nvidia has just released a new SDK in January with support for AV1 encoding in hardware on Blackwell GPUs, whereas it was in software before. Some nice charts also in there, comparing the encoding performance of the different codecs:
https://developer.nvidia.com/video-codec-sdk

 

[Phil Holland]

I can confirm that the new Blackwell GPUs are very, very good for encoding various things. Stay tuned on that front. Can't expand more at the moment.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

OK... so I suppose that it's a no go for the Mac version of Resolve ....

 

[Phil Holland]

Mac gets official ProRes support, which is VASTLY more valuable and useful.

It is still the biggest issue when it comes to motion picture workflow across various houses globally that run exclusively on one OS or even run on all three. I stopped yelling at the sky about that, but if anybody at BMD can hear me, ASK AGAIN.

 

[M Harvey]

Following this conversation...

I'd love to be able to upload a better quality finished product for clients who limited bandwidth.