Hi Anton (And all Anandtech): Please put a space between "AV" and "1". I know that many write it "AV1", but that reads like "AVI" to me when I glance at it. Maybe it's my eyesight (too much time staring at computer screens), but that proximity of "I" to "AV" plus the font you guys use makes it easy to misread.
The official name of the codec is AV1, not AV 1. Asking them to write it the wrong way seems rather odd. Should we be adding arbitrary spaces to other abbreviations too? I get that it kind of looks like AVI, but blame that on the people who decided on the name, not journalists covering the codec.
I do indeed blame it on the people who decided on the name, more specifically, how to write it. A dash between AV and version number would have solved this neatly.
I know the context. My issue is that, when I scan the headlines to see if I want to read it or not, AV1 and AVI just look really similar. But, we're stuck with AV1, and I'll have to get used to doing a double take when scanning headlines.
If you know the context, how can you mix them up? There is no AVI decoder, so if you misread it as an AVI decoder, you should know it's supposed to be AV1.
Unrelated to how AV 1 is written, the remaining, huge obstacle to it's acceptance is the absence of a usable encoder (software or hardware-assisted) that doesn't require 28 or more cores to encode in anything approaching reasonable times.
I get the feeling that hardware encoding (or some kind of hybrid solution?) is going to be the only sane way to encode for awhile.
And that's not so bad. AV1 hardware encoders will be everywhere soon enough, just like AVC/HEVC hardware encoders are everywhere now (even though most people don't use them).
Most people don't use hardware encoders because they tend to produce utter crap - or they require much larger file sizes to match the quality of software encoders. Hardware decoders is a different story though, since they do not (commonly) affect playback quality.
Of course most people use hardware encoders. More than 90% of all content is created on cell phones now, and those only use hardware encoders. If you're talking about the pirate scene and home cinema ripping, that's become an extremely niche use case compared to the 00's, and a one-time investment of a massive core count is still available to anyone who wants better than AVC.
The rav1e is currently the state of the art software AV1 encoder. It seems to already be quite fast. It's not x264 levels of fast, but that shouldn't really be expected.
How fast is it? Would love to hear any experiences with the most recent release. I know libaom is considered "reference" for quality, but it's really, really slow.
I'm not sure what you mean "state of the art". It produces neither the fastest encodes or the best quality per bitrate.
Aurora, ALLEGEDLY, is both the fastest and has the best quality. For normal encoders svt-av1 looks to be tops for performance while libaom will probably produce the best quality given that it supports so many tools.
rav1e is written in Rust, which means it is the cleanest and "safest" encoder, but not necessarily the faster one. C might lack memory safety, but nothing can beat its speed and its optimization potential. Rust can get very close though, so it might represent a good trade-off.
It's not ideal for pixel-perfect graphics, but things like movies, TV shows and webcams typically use it, and I imagine that is the kind of purpose that this decoder is aimed towards.
If you were streaming a game you might prefer 4:4:4, but you'd also want to do it in real-time. This is technically possible now, but it'll surely impact the game as well. Realistically most will wait for use a hardware encoder - or an entirely separate system, but how many will get one just for AV1? The most immediate benefit is for the companies for whom 4:2:0 is perfectly acceptable.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
24 Comments
Back to Article
eastcoast_pete - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
Hi Anton (And all Anandtech): Please put a space between "AV" and "1". I know that many write it "AV1", but that reads like "AVI" to me when I glance at it. Maybe it's my eyesight (too much time staring at computer screens), but that proximity of "I" to "AV" plus the font you guys use makes it easy to misread.Valantar - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
The official name of the codec is AV1, not AV 1. Asking them to write it the wrong way seems rather odd. Should we be adding arbitrary spaces to other abbreviations too? I get that it kind of looks like AVI, but blame that on the people who decided on the name, not journalists covering the codec.eastcoast_pete - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
I do indeed blame it on the people who decided on the name, more specifically, how to write it. A dash between AV and version number would have solved this neatly.willis936 - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
Context helps. AVI is a container. AV1 is a video coding scheme. There is zero overlap between the two and I don't see how they could be confused.eastcoast_pete - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
I know the context. My issue is that, when I scan the headlines to see if I want to read it or not, AV1 and AVI just look really similar. But, we're stuck with AV1, and I'll have to get used to doing a double take when scanning headlines.tuxRoller - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
Can you change your font? I'm using roboto on Android and 1iI look nothing alike.ajp_anton - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
If you know the context, how can you mix them up? There is no AVI decoder, so if you misread it as an AVI decoder, you should know it's supposed to be AV1.nandnandnand - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
No.1. Nobody is talking about .AVI anymore.
2. Once AV1 has been out for a while, it will be time to talk about AV2.
sheh - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
Plus, if anyone were to talk about AVI, no codec that is commonly contained in it needs any acceleration nowadays. Or 10 years ago.29a - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
It would probably be more fruitful to as them to change the font than to change the spelling.eastcoast_pete - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
Unrelated to how AV 1 is written, the remaining, huge obstacle to it's acceptance is the absence of a usable encoder (software or hardware-assisted) that doesn't require 28 or more cores to encode in anything approaching reasonable times.brucethemoose - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
I get the feeling that hardware encoding (or some kind of hybrid solution?) is going to be the only sane way to encode for awhile.And that's not so bad. AV1 hardware encoders will be everywhere soon enough, just like AVC/HEVC hardware encoders are everywhere now (even though most people don't use them).
Santoval - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link
Most people don't use hardware encoders because they tend to produce utter crap - or they require much larger file sizes to match the quality of software encoders. Hardware decoders is a different story though, since they do not (commonly) affect playback quality.foxyshadis - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
Of course most people use hardware encoders. More than 90% of all content is created on cell phones now, and those only use hardware encoders. If you're talking about the pirate scene and home cinema ripping, that's become an extremely niche use case compared to the 00's, and a one-time investment of a massive core count is still available to anyone who wants better than AVC.ReaperUnreal - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
The rav1e is currently the state of the art software AV1 encoder. It seems to already be quite fast. It's not x264 levels of fast, but that shouldn't really be expected.eastcoast_pete - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
How fast is it? Would love to hear any experiences with the most recent release. I know libaom is considered "reference" for quality, but it's really, really slow.tuxRoller - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
I'm not sure what you mean "state of the art". It produces neither the fastest encodes or the best quality per bitrate.Aurora, ALLEGEDLY, is both the fastest and has the best quality.
For normal encoders svt-av1 looks to be tops for performance while libaom will probably produce the best quality given that it supports so many tools.
Threska - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
All of them free except for Aurora.Santoval - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link
rav1e is written in Rust, which means it is the cleanest and "safest" encoder, but not necessarily the faster one. C might lack memory safety, but nothing can beat its speed and its optimization potential. Rust can get very close though, so it might represent a good trade-off.nirolf - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
Only “4:2:0 chroma subsampling”? Isn’t that “bad”?GreenReaper - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
It's not ideal for pixel-perfect graphics, but things like movies, TV shows and webcams typically use it, and I imagine that is the kind of purpose that this decoder is aimed towards.If you were streaming a game you might prefer 4:4:4, but you'd also want to do it in real-time. This is technically possible now, but it'll surely impact the game as well. Realistically most will wait for use a hardware encoder - or an entirely separate system, but how many will get one just for AV1? The most immediate benefit is for the companies for whom 4:2:0 is perfectly acceptable.
nirolf - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link
Thank for the explanation! It's enough for 4K HDR also?nevcairiel - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
Practically all consumer video content is 4:2:0, including UltraHD Blu-rays in 4K HDR, or Netflix HDR streaming, or.. you name it. So, yes.Adonisds - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
I think probably not because HDR uses 10 bits and that requires 4x more power to decode