This get's me so excited, how do people not get excited about this? Saving so much data! I'm waiting for AV1 so much.

Microsoft released AV1 codecs ages ago.

lupierz:

This get's me so excited, how do people not get excited about this? Saving so much data! I'm waiting for AV1 so much.

We're at a point where CPU-only codecs are delivering extremely good performance. What really needs this the most are ARM-based devices, which Intel isn't going to support.

lupierz:

This get's me so excited, how do people not get excited about this? Saving so much data! I'm waiting for AV1 so much.

As someone who creates content for Youtube since 2010 I can't say I'm excited. Why? Because everything we create, no matter how you encode it, gets re-encoded the moment its uploaded to youtube to VP9. I've been an editor for nearly 14 years now, and the codecs rabbit hole is deeper than the ocean. The more you look into it, the more retarded it gets. If Youtube is the main platform to dominate it all, and youtube influences editing programs like premiere/avid/vegas/resolve, and all those programs have encoding presets based on "youtube 1080p" or "youtube 2160p", why do we never see VP9 or AV1 in them? Why is it all H.264 or H.265? When exactly are we going to match it all? If you upload H.265 or H.264 in SDR, youtube re-encodes it to VP9. If you upload H.265 in HDR youtube re-encodes it to VP9.2.. Youtube's own recommendation is H.264 with bitrates respecting resolution/framerate. Why is there no actual handshake? There's some rare, and i mean rare youtube uploads from LG or samsung in HDR that utilize AV1 - god knows how exactly did those people encode the videos in order to trick Youtube into using AV1. I'll get excited when youtube actually creates proper uploading rules. Be that VP9 or AV1 or whatever in god's name. As long as when you encode your stuff in that codec and upload it - it doesn't get re-encoded. Because the re-encode takes the already trashed color-banding from h.265 and trashes it further. All these codecs getting released mean absolutely nothing for the mass - hence why nobody gives a dime. //Edit Just to add some salt to the already huge wound - "data saving" - what? What data saving? If you encode the video and view it on your own device the data saving is around 25% versus H.265. But how exactly does it matter when the only way for people to view whatever it is that you made is through youtube? Hypotetically if you upload 4k at 1k bitrate(which is absolute madness), no matter how you encode it, youtube takes it and re-encodes it to VP9 in a FIXED bitrate - a bitrate they calculated well enough to make sure it runs smooth across all devices. If you upload the same 4k video in 1000k bitrate, 1 million kbps, youtube will take that pure-ass quality and trash it down to the same calculated VP9 bitrate the 1k upload was upscaled to. Oh and of course - encoding in AV1 and then uploading to youtube results in youtube re-encoding your precious AV1 into VP9. H.264 and H.265 are licensed. AV1 and VP9 are open source. There's no proper way to encode in those formats without going out of your way for special encoders - the open source ones. But its easy to encode into the paid ones - which get converted into the open source VP9 in the end of the day. Maybe I'm just out of my mind and loosing a grip on reality.

schmidtbag:

We're at a point where CPU-only codecs are delivering extremely good performance. What really needs this the most are ARM-based devices, which Intel isn't going to support.

You have clearly not tried decoding high movement (fast paced), high bitrate, high color depth (10/12-bit), 60 fps, 4K/8K AV1 videos using a CPU. Most CPUs struggle A LOT.