My latest hyperfixation
-
But it looks much worse at higher bitrates. H265 can get decent bitrates and have no visible difference from the original. AV1 loses a bunch of quality right out of the gate. If you are wanting to archive footage I think h265 is much better.
are you archiving it until the patents expire? I use AV1 because of the license
-
are you archiving it until the patents expire? I use AV1 because of the license
I’m not really worried about the licensing of the codec I use for my personal archive. Even if I was worried, I would use h264 or VP9 before I used AV1.
-
I tried AV1, but it seems to work really poorly for compressing film grain which is my main usecase (movies).
I realise you can add fake film grain, but that's not really my thing.
I'm sure it's great for video game footage or low grain modern video, but that's not what I need it for.
For now, I'll likely stick with x265.
I could be wrong, but isn't the idea that it removes the film grain to aid compressing the ""actual"" image behind the grain, and then the player adds the grain back in during playback?
The way you say it makes it sound like you want to compress the grain itself, and that sounds to me like a "I like the vinyl crackle in my digital media" take. Not that that's a bad thing, everyone has preferences, but it's also unlikely that AV1 (or any codec for that matter) was designed with the preservation of accurate film grain in mind.
-
I don't disagree about archiving. Though for a local collection, I think the space savings of AV1 are worth it.
Especially for grainy footage, which is extra costly in h265. The noise analysis and synthesis in AV1 is killer, IMHO. But of course... it's not the same noise.
Hard drives are cheap and are only getting cheaper! If you are talking about proxy media, AV1 might be good for that with fast enough hardware support.
The noise synthesis thing is interesting. I have played with it, and it definitely works as advertised, but I’m not sure how I feel about relying on it.
-
But it looks much worse at higher bitrates. H265 can get decent bitrates and have no visible difference from the original. AV1 loses a bunch of quality right out of the gate. If you are wanting to archive footage I think h265 is much better.
The newer iPhone models actually capture their images as JPEG XL and they have retired their HEIC images. All of Apple's software has full native support for JPEG XL as well.
-
Thank you for your TED Talk. I had no idea about the creator of AVIF or anything, BUT, I still really like that I can just use the same knowledge when it comes to transcoding jpegs/whatever to it. It uses the same codec, same parameters, supports animations, is like 1/100th the size of gifs...
I guess webp can do that latter part as well, but having a single tool able to do these things is neat in my opinion. (Please don't come at me, systemd haters)
I think jxl also supports waaaaay higher resolutions and everything. So yeah, fair argument that I'm not, in any way, against.
Compression and accessibility are just really fascinating things to me, and I'm sure once the next huge, well-supported thing, comes around, so will I.Yes, and I agree with you. People should have choice of what format they use because different people have different needs.
I don't hate AVIF inherently for its technology. I hate it for what it stands for. Namely, megacorporation Culture. One rogue manager has their feelings hurt and everyone bends over to accommodate them. Google has a fully SIMDified Rust decoder for JPEG XL that is fully standard compliant. But it doesn't go into Chrome, because everyone just parrots the one guy that once made up some lie about it not "having public interest". Best example is Google Interop 2025 not taking in JPEG XL. Literally every graphics software on the planet supports it, as well as multiple newspapers and CDNs want to use it, and I don't mean the newspaper next door, I mean newspapers like The Guardian and CDNs like cloudflare. You can call Apple a lot, but the jpeg-xl implementation is some objective good for computing, Microsoft is slowly but surely rolling out support in Windows as well. Literally the only missing link in the chain is the Google Chrome browser, because it's a monopoly.
And with that, I refuse to use it. Because if I were to use it and pump the numbers for AVIF, I would reinforce the blockade. Therefore I just can't, even though the technology is very useful and that's just another side of the Google Monopoly.
-
I could be wrong, but isn't the idea that it removes the film grain to aid compressing the ""actual"" image behind the grain, and then the player adds the grain back in during playback?
The way you say it makes it sound like you want to compress the grain itself, and that sounds to me like a "I like the vinyl crackle in my digital media" take. Not that that's a bad thing, everyone has preferences, but it's also unlikely that AV1 (or any codec for that matter) was designed with the preservation of accurate film grain in mind.
wrote last edited by [email protected]That's more or less what I'm saying yes, I do like the original film grain look of movies, and often attempts to remove it removed detail, making things look smudgy.
As for if no codec is designed for this, Blu-Rays preserve film grain, often very well, and they use x265. Granted they do this partially by brute force by having a bit rate of 30mbps+, but I've found that you can quite easily reduce that but rate to 12mbps and still preserve most film grain reasonably well. Especially if you use h265, the CPU version (NVENC is nowhere near as good with grain).
By comparison, with my brief stint with AV1 I found even maxing out the settings did not seem to preserve film grain. I guess the codec is inherently heavy handed, which is fine for what it's intended for.
On film grain movies x264 can work, but then you typically need 20-50% more space for the same quality.
-
HEIC faces a few struggles with adoption:
- It's patent encumbered.
- It's not free as in "free beer", someone has to pay for it.
- It's not free as in "free speech" - you can't use, modify, and distribute software or formats without restrictions due issue #1.
AV1 and AVIF don't have any of these issues –someone correct me if I'm wrong or missing something– so anyone is able to include/distribute the software and modify to their needs.
Ahh I see. I'm curious what the future holds lol
-
noob here
is DAV1D a thing as well ?
That's a decoder for AV1. That allows you to play AV1 files, but it can't create new AV1 files.
-
That's a decoder for AV1. That allows you to play AV1 files, but it can't create new AV1 files.
thanks !
-
That's more or less what I'm saying yes, I do like the original film grain look of movies, and often attempts to remove it removed detail, making things look smudgy.
As for if no codec is designed for this, Blu-Rays preserve film grain, often very well, and they use x265. Granted they do this partially by brute force by having a bit rate of 30mbps+, but I've found that you can quite easily reduce that but rate to 12mbps and still preserve most film grain reasonably well. Especially if you use h265, the CPU version (NVENC is nowhere near as good with grain).
By comparison, with my brief stint with AV1 I found even maxing out the settings did not seem to preserve film grain. I guess the codec is inherently heavy handed, which is fine for what it's intended for.
On film grain movies x264 can work, but then you typically need 20-50% more space for the same quality.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah, it does feel like AV1 is tuned for higher compression. Hence its explicitly designed to try and denoise the grain away then replicate it.
To be clear, I'm with Pyro here (I just denoise grain away with a BM3D-V prefilter), but TBH I'd rather keep the raw rips at such high bitrates anyway.
-
Ah, but are you using aomenc, SVT-AV1 or rav1e? Or one of the forks maybe?
wrote last edited by [email protected]av1an with its dark scene boost/per scene tuning is the best.
It works with x265 (or hardware encoders) too.
-
I could be wrong, but isn't the idea that it removes the film grain to aid compressing the ""actual"" image behind the grain, and then the player adds the grain back in during playback?
The way you say it makes it sound like you want to compress the grain itself, and that sounds to me like a "I like the vinyl crackle in my digital media" take. Not that that's a bad thing, everyone has preferences, but it's also unlikely that AV1 (or any codec for that matter) was designed with the preservation of accurate film grain in mind.
Yeah, it does feel like AV1 is tuned for higher compression. Hence its explicitly designed to try and denoise the grain away then replicate it.
To be clear, I'm with Armand1 here (I just denoise grain away with a BM3D-V prefilter), but TBH I'd rather keep the raw rips at such high bitrates anyway.
-
Somebody save my CPU.
made with Krita
wrote last edited by [email protected]Just wait until you discover vapoursynth.
-
Somebody save my CPU.
made with Kritawrote last edited by [email protected]Clicked the link and was instantly blocked. WTF
-
Clicked the link and was instantly blocked. WTF
-
Clicked the link and was instantly blocked. WTF
What?...
My power just went out, are you talking about the cloudflare 404? lol -
Are you using a VPN or something maybe? Just spitting ideas out my ass but maybe there's lots of people accessing it using the same IP?
-
Are you using a VPN or something maybe? Just spitting ideas out my ass but maybe there's lots of people accessing it using the same IP?
No VPN, direct connection to carrier. I'm in Brazil, maybe there's a block.
-
Somebody save my CPU.
made with KritaAll VP9 and Opus here, but I have a similar fixation. Wouldn't find this lady odd at all.
