Oh no no no no! AV1 dead and finished!
bbc.co.uk
VVC vs AV1 vs HEVC
Logan Moore
Aiden Murphy
S U I C I D E W A T C H
Hudson Kelly
The bitrate savings look higher with VV1 than with AV1. Surely that's what you want? VV1 doesn't save as much nitrate so will have higher filesizes
Jonathan Turner
Exact profile? Source material? Availability of hardware decoders? Objective quality metric? Decoding conplexity?
Angel Bailey
>save nitrate
>VVC CONFIRMED GRASSROOTS TERRORIST
David Harris
>PSNR metric
>encodes were made without -tune psnr
comparison done by retards
John Lee
>nitrate
filmfag confirmed, based projection booths exploding
>muh PSNR
only autist geeks thing PSNR is a relevant metric. Any AV professional knows better.
Thomas Lewis
How trustworthy are BBC articles like this? It looks very professional at a first glance, but once you read through it and see the results it looks rather shady.
No test files are given, quality assessment is purely done via PSNR (it also doesn't help that they call it a measurement for "objective quality"), no specific settings besides the pass count and speed preset are mentioned and those speed presets make no sense as aomenc doesn't use named presets like x264 or x265 but numerical values (although they don't mention what AV1 encoder they use either).
Also these results look biased. How realistic is it for a not even finished standard to have such a speed/quality ratio? Not even twice as resource intensive to encode as AV1 and yet already that much more efficient? Which video coding format in the past has managed to perform such a feat? None. They all were slow as dirt compared to the predecessors.
I also heavily doubt the AV1 vs. HEVC results (especially HEVC being more efficient for high bitrates), but that's a different story.
Nolan Sullivan
No codecs listed...
Henry Russell
Cope