I only wish the current generation of $100-200 "hdmi stick" computers that use Atom Z37xx chips (think Intel Compute Stick or Mini PCs like Meego Pad T01) could play those videos in a more smooth way. They can play 1080p60, even 4k in IE11, but go to a crawl every time Chrome tries to play whatever 720p video YouTube send them. Not sure if it's Chrome fault or the new VP9 lacking hardware acceleration.
If you're using Firefox, go into about:config search for webm and make sure all 4 booleans are true (2 are that way be default) so that you get hardware acceleration
Why do Youtube's VP9 streams STILL look so incredibly crap on animated/cartoon content? Horrible flashing artifacts have been plaguing them for MONTHS. I use a different browser specifically to avoid being served VP9 streams. This is not acceptable: https://imgur.com/4z27DdY
I'm not sure what's going on with your setup (bad codec? poor hardware decoder?) but those artifacts aren't inherent to vp9 on YouTube. Here's my screenshot of the same video: http://i60.tinypic.com/1zx5ead.png
As far as I know, mobile devices are still only being served h.264 streams, because only h.264 can be reliably hardware decoded on modern hardware, and hardware decoding is necessary for acceptable battery life. For desktops, they figure it's okay to use CPU-only decoding and be wasteful on the power consumption in exchange for lower data usage.
Google has been pushing mobile chip manufacturers to add dedicated VP9 decoders to their chips, but because of poorly-defined specifications, undocumented and unannounced algorithm changes, parallel-computing unfriendly decoder stages, high silicon area requirements, and the limited adoption of VP9 so far, manufacturers are apprehensive about putting in the effort. Hopefully Google learns from their mistakes when pushing for wider adoption of VP10.
Is Google really committed to this in the long run? My guestimates:
2 years for hardware vendors to get VP9 decode/encode into their new flagship chips 3 years for stocks of "old/cheap non-VP9 capable" hardware to end. 3 years consumer refresh cycle.
We're only about 1.5 years in now. So that's 2020 before you'll have VP9 generally available - although these timelines apply to HEVC as well.
Can Google actually go that long without releasing another version and wasting everyone's time?
Stay at same bitrates like with the h.264 encodes.
Your videos have way too hard compression at 720p and 1080p. And if you reduce the bitrate to half we dont gain any or very very small advantage over better video quality - but thats the main problem: Your videos are way too hard compressed. No High quality at all and especially not HD.
I would be happy if you use VP9 with same bitrates like h.264 - that would improve quality then. Using better encoding at h.264 side would improve it a lot too.
I'm almost 99.99% sure that your issues have nothing to do with the actual quality and resolution of the various formats YouTube has considering that the lowest 144p with a VP9 encode is almost a low enough bitrate to watch on dial-up (56.3Kbps for just the video stream, but the audio pushes it just over the dial-up limit)
For all we know it may have more to do with your browser - without flash or MSE support, the lowest quality available is 360p with a bitrate of 822Kbps, which is considerably more bitrate than YouTube's old 240p format from ~10 years ago.
who cares about NLE software? Vegas and co support nothing. They even dont support nearly all of the h.264 features. No 10bit, no high 444 profile and the list goes on.
NLE programs are bad at decoding and even more bad at encoding. Just bitrate fixed encoding, only very very limited settings to encoder and the list goes on.. NLE are just good for editing decoding and encoding are awful there though. And thats not VP9's fault if they're so damn limited that they even dont support mkv container and full h.264 support. Thats sad.
I am certainly biased, but I think having VP9 (WebM) support via a Premiere plug-in is even better than having Adobe do it directly. This way we can grab the latest updates from Google without having to wait for them to trickle through the Adobe pipeline. The plug-in is open source, so knowledgeable users can make any changes they want. You'd get no such flexibility if WebM support was built-in.
Often there is a product decision for adaptive bitrate players of 'start faster not better', this means they start the video at a medium or low bitrate they can be sure will load and that will load quickly then they use the time to load the next segment at higher quality. This is very obvious when watching Amazon Prime with Smooth Streaming adaptive streaming.
Do you know how Google enables android mobiles to use VP9 decoding in YouTube? I noticed that Note5 and S6 Edge Plus that have the same chipset as the S6 do not play VP9 videos.
Playing with libvpx-vp9 via ffmpeg on windows (current Zeranoe build) is there a way to get it to run on more than one core? Does it scale to multiple processors?
I only wish the current generation of $100-200 "hdmi stick" computers that use Atom Z37xx chips (think Intel Compute Stick or Mini PCs like Meego Pad T01) could play those videos in a more smooth way. They can play 1080p60, even 4k in IE11, but go to a crawl every time Chrome tries to play whatever 720p video YouTube send them. Not sure if it's Chrome fault or the new VP9 lacking hardware acceleration.
ReplyDeleteЖдем VP10
ReplyDeleteIf you're using Firefox, go into about:config search for webm and make sure all 4 booleans are true (2 are that way be default) so that you get hardware acceleration
ReplyDeleteWhy do Youtube's VP9 streams STILL look so incredibly crap on animated/cartoon content? Horrible flashing artifacts have been plaguing them for MONTHS. I use a different browser specifically to avoid being served VP9 streams. This is not acceptable: https://imgur.com/4z27DdY
ReplyDeleteThey look fine to me.
DeleteI'm not sure what's going on with your setup (bad codec? poor hardware decoder?) but those artifacts aren't inherent to vp9 on YouTube. Here's my screenshot of the same video:
Deletehttp://i60.tinypic.com/1zx5ead.png
Does the YouTube Android app make use of this VP9 codec ❔
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, mobile devices are still only being served h.264 streams, because only h.264 can be reliably hardware decoded on modern hardware, and hardware decoding is necessary for acceptable battery life. For desktops, they figure it's okay to use CPU-only decoding and be wasteful on the power consumption in exchange for lower data usage.
DeleteGoogle has been pushing mobile chip manufacturers to add dedicated VP9 decoders to their chips, but because of poorly-defined specifications, undocumented and unannounced algorithm changes, parallel-computing unfriendly decoder stages, high silicon area requirements, and the limited adoption of VP9 so far, manufacturers are apprehensive about putting in the effort. Hopefully Google learns from their mistakes when pushing for wider adoption of VP10.
Appreciate :)
DeleteGreat news ! Thanks for the insight
ReplyDeleteYouTube must not reduce the volume because it will not be what people need
ReplyDeleteIs Google really committed to this in the long run? My guestimates:
ReplyDelete2 years for hardware vendors to get VP9 decode/encode into their new flagship chips
3 years for stocks of "old/cheap non-VP9 capable" hardware to end.
3 years consumer refresh cycle.
We're only about 1.5 years in now. So that's 2020 before you'll have VP9 generally available - although these timelines apply to HEVC as well.
Can Google actually go that long without releasing another version and wasting everyone's time?
How can i know if i am viewing using new codec
ReplyDeleteGo mobile and put your content on your own free branded app!
ReplyDeleteMy Video App For Android And iOS:
http://kck.st/1MYVr3S
Stay at same bitrates like with the h.264 encodes.
ReplyDeleteYour videos have way too hard compression at 720p and 1080p.
And if you reduce the bitrate to half we dont gain any or very very small advantage over better video quality - but thats the main problem: Your videos are way too hard compressed. No High quality at all and especially not HD.
I would be happy if you use VP9 with same bitrates like h.264 - that would improve quality then.
Using better encoding at h.264 side would improve it a lot too.
faster buffer yeah kudutau : www.kudutau.com/
ReplyDeletex265 encodes faster and produces better quality videos. Too bad for VP9.
ReplyDeletedoesnt matter. Youtube wont give us better quality. They react with reducing the bitrates further. unfortunately.
DeleteI'm almost 99.99% sure that your issues have nothing to do with the actual quality and resolution of the various formats YouTube has considering that the lowest 144p with a VP9 encode is almost a low enough bitrate to watch on dial-up (56.3Kbps for just the video stream, but the audio pushes it just over the dial-up limit)
DeleteFor all we know it may have more to do with your browser - without flash or MSE support, the lowest quality available is 360p with a bitrate of 822Kbps, which is considerably more bitrate than YouTube's old 240p format from ~10 years ago.
who cares about NLE software? Vegas and co support nothing. They even dont support nearly all of the h.264 features. No 10bit, no high 444 profile and the list goes on.
ReplyDeleteNLE programs are bad at decoding and even more bad at encoding. Just bitrate fixed encoding, only very very limited settings to encoder and the list goes on..
NLE are just good for editing
decoding and encoding are awful there though. And thats not VP9's fault if they're so damn limited that they even dont support mkv container and full h.264 support. Thats sad.
I am certainly biased, but I think having VP9 (WebM) support via a Premiere plug-in is even better than having Adobe do it directly. This way we can grab the latest updates from Google without having to wait for them to trickle through the Adobe pipeline. The plug-in is open source, so knowledgeable users can make any changes they want. You'd get no such flexibility if WebM support was built-in.
ReplyDeleteAnimated YouTube Video increase the traffic and viewers more than of simple text.It,s really awesome technique to engaged viewers in what we wants to describe.
ReplyDeleteOften there is a product decision for adaptive bitrate players of 'start faster not better', this means they start the video at a medium or low bitrate they can be sure will load and that will load quickly then they use the time to load the next segment at higher quality. This is very obvious when watching Amazon Prime with Smooth Streaming adaptive streaming.
ReplyDeleteDo you know how Google enables android mobiles to use VP9 decoding in YouTube? I noticed that Note5 and S6 Edge Plus that have the same chipset as the S6 do not play VP9 videos.
ReplyDeletePlaying with libvpx-vp9 via ffmpeg on windows (current Zeranoe build) is there a way to get it to run on more than one core? Does it scale to multiple processors?
ReplyDelete