What makes you sure that the video will not be compressed by RUclips? videos with the av1 codec will still have the av1 codec on RUclips after uploading, isn't it av1 on RUclips for high resolutions like 8K. I'm just curious.
It would be impressive if they could make encoding and decoding faster. Of course, you can compress as much as you want. The problem is the speed. H.264 was considered "impressive" when it was released as well.
@@godnyx117 H.264 is still pretty impressive compared to MPEG-2. Just imagine a SD video needing at least 3.6mbps worth of bitrate to look decent, below that it would start to fall apart.
@@godnyx117Give it some time, Hardware Acceleration is now enabled to decode/encode AV1. With newer and more powerful CPUs coming, the time will only decrease.
1:11 VP9 looks sharper than AV1, look at the purple checkerboard floor near the center left of the video (to the left of the character wearing a tan hat), in VP9 it looks clear then it changes to AV1 and gets blurry. i think VP9 is best for quality because small details are kept clear/sharp while AV1 makes them blurry.
but AV1 looks much better than VP9 at 2:48 except for the purple hair on the character with the blue shirt. I wish AV1 was better than VP9 in every way instead of blurring certain details like that, but for now it's a bit of a mixed bag although it's better overall AV1 also appears clearer than VP9 at 4:57 where you can see branches and dirt particles more clearly, as well as a rock above the center of the screen that you just can't see with VP9
It's because the video is misleading. It makes you think this is how the videos will look on RUclips, but its more like "Here's codecs RUclips uses but encoded completely differently than RUclips". So it's completely useless to mention RUclips. Also, the video targets the same bitrate for all codecs, so it looks massively different. I think most people are watching this are expecting how the codecs compare "when trying to achieve the same picture quality". But it isn't, it's how they compare "when trying to achieve the same file size". So AV1 achieves better results for the same file size. But that's not how RUclips works. They have a baseline quality they try to maintain regardless of codec use. For example (making up numbers): - AV1 supported, they stream to you @ 300 kbps - No AV1? then they choose VP9 @ 400 kbps - Can't do that either, then let's say h264 @ 600 kbps So you end up with more or less the same quality. So this video shows for the same bandwidth/size/bitrate for bitrate, AV1 is slightly better than VP9. But again, you won't see this difference on most streaming platforms because they will prioritize saving money (it's pretty huge) over slightly better quality.
@@hchc111 the settings as far as i could tell are all equivalent to each other including the bitrate though, so i'd say it is a pretty fair stack up, no?
@@amulet6 Oh! Every time I come across these codec comparison videos I'm always puzzled how they make H264 look so crappy. Medium wouldn't look worse than VP9 and still would render faster. There's also an issue with crappy enconders such as mainconcept which is a good one but the version that come with adobe products is screwed up big time and you never get any decetn quality ever even with 100k bitrate. I mostly use CRF that is not really affect by presets and if you use 30 which is the top ceiling of 6k bitrate allowance it would look way better than what we see in this video
@Thomas Ye It's a myth, already debunked for a while :/ also some people with less than 150 subs and 1000 views already get this codec, which do not make sense if it was depending of popularity.
AVC1 is not the same as AV1. If you mean RUclips served this video to you encoded in the AVC1 codec (H264/MPEG4) then that is based on what your device supports in terms of hardware accelerated decoding. For me the video is in VP9. Most videos I watch now though are AV1, at least when I watch on my PC since it has a RTX 3080 which has AV1 hardware decode.
You can't? I can see it quite clearly, and my corneas are literally broken. They warped so badly that they're permanently scarred and unfixable. Light distorts like crazy. I can't imagine what your vision must be like if you look at those trees and can't see the blockiness on the VP9 side.
This is kind of pointless isn't it? I'm on my desktop PC with a RTX 3080 which means AV1 hardware decode which is why most of the videos I watch on here are in AV1 format. This one hasn't been encoded in AV1 yet though. It's still VP9 (right click the video window, click "stats for nerds" to see codec). So how are you going to see the difference when the entire video its self is encoded in VP9?
He encoded a local file to all 3 codecs using software encoders, and when uploading the comparison to youtube, it got re-encoded again, in this case you're seeing the VP9 re-encode. The difference between the original encodes is still pretty visible, though not perfectly represented of course. The usefulness of the comparison for understanding youtube quality with different codecs is further reduced by the facts that: youtube uses less bitrate for more efficient codecs, but the comparison uses the same bitrate for all of them, and youtube uses significantly worse encoders than those used to create the samples for the comparisons, meaning lower quality at any given bitrate for all 3 codecs.
How did you manage to murder h264/AVC1 so badly? It should not look like that. Looks like you encoded it with the "fastest" preset, geez. VP9 often loses out to it in modern comparisons (e.g. x264 vs libvpx-vp9).
because h265 royalty suck. No big streaming company gonna risk their life using h265 for streaming or video encoding or decoding. Before typing or writing sarcastic comment plz search and learn first so you dont look stupid :)
@@firdausaziz8651 I'm not a company, and I'm pretty sure no company is using this video to make decisions. Also many companies are using HEVC now. An ordinary user or even a streamer can "risk" using hevc. Especially if you don't have the latest card or are considering buying one.
uhhh how so? AV1 can deliver higher picture quality at the same or even lower bitrates than older codecs. As for "god tier hardware". I'd hardly consider the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 in Android phones a god like SOC.All RTX 3000 cards and newer, RDNA 3 and newer, and Intel arc all support AV1 decode at least (some like ARC even do AV1 encode). And obviously going forward AV1 hardware decode is going to be a standard thing in hardware. Most videos I watch on my PC are in AV1 now since I have a RTX 3080 which dose AV1 hardware decode, and AV1 videos in 4K look quite nice to me. The lower bandwidth usage and data usage (though thankfully my ISP has no data caps) is a bonus.
The point of better compression of video within their respectable at lower bitrates is saving on cost of running such resources allowing for more room for others to take advantage of especially on live streaming platforms. Sure h264 is great at high bitrates but its such a waste
AV1 is open source so it's good, but for my home library I will continue to use hevc software. hevc encoding: 22 FPS (cq26, preset slow), AV1: 5 FPS (cq36, preset 4). The size is similar (AV1 slightly smaller), the quality is similar, the encoding is several times faster when I use hevc. AV1 preset 7 is cleary worse than hevc preset medium.
No false information... I see better quality in h264 codec in many RUclips videos... But only problem is only with larger size than both of two.. So I think h264 is better than others two
Looking for videos without RUclips compression (and FFMPEG commands)? Check here: mega.nz/folder/SRVFwCJQ#BA4uu7jZ6sIHzVQPCTI3Rw
Entre el VP9 y el Nvenc cual crees queda mejor en RUclips?
How to use?
What makes you sure that the video will not be compressed by RUclips? videos with the av1 codec will still have the av1 codec on RUclips after uploading, isn't it av1 on RUclips for high resolutions like 8K. I'm just curious.
it’s really impressive what av1 can do at low bitrates
It would be impressive if they could make encoding and decoding faster. Of course, you can compress as much as you want. The problem is the speed. H.264 was considered "impressive" when it was released as well.
@@godnyx117 H.264 is still pretty impressive compared to MPEG-2. Just imagine a SD video needing at least 3.6mbps worth of bitrate to look decent, below that it would start to fall apart.
@@godnyx117Give it some time, Hardware Acceleration is now enabled to decode/encode AV1. With newer and more powerful CPUs coming, the time will only decrease.
this is a great comparison video. not only does it have split screens, but also freeze frames so we can see detailed changes. Good Video!
1:11 VP9 looks sharper than AV1, look at the purple checkerboard floor near the center left of the video (to the left of the character wearing a tan hat), in VP9 it looks clear then it changes to AV1 and gets blurry.
i think VP9 is best for quality because small details are kept clear/sharp while AV1 makes them blurry.
but AV1 looks much better than VP9 at 2:48 except for the purple hair on the character with the blue shirt. I wish AV1 was better than VP9 in every way instead of blurring certain details like that, but for now it's a bit of a mixed bag although it's better overall
AV1 also appears clearer than VP9 at 4:57 where you can see branches and dirt particles more clearly, as well as a rock above the center of the screen that you just can't see with VP9
Av1 is significantly better than vp9 overall, incredibly obvious in nature scenes
VP9 does better in freeze frames but AV1 seems to hold up better with motion
1:57 VP9 looks kinda blurry in comparison to AV1
Now that RUclips is starting to support AV1 ingestion, we need them to playback AV1 to the people who can decode it.
Awesome video! Great comparison of the codecs. Including split screen and identical videos
I don't buy it that h264 would be so pixelated compared to the other codecs.
It's because the video is misleading. It makes you think this is how the videos will look on RUclips, but its more like "Here's codecs RUclips uses but encoded completely differently than RUclips".
So it's completely useless to mention RUclips. Also, the video targets the same bitrate for all codecs, so it looks massively different.
I think most people are watching this are expecting how the codecs compare "when trying to achieve the same picture quality". But it isn't, it's how they compare "when trying to achieve the same file size".
So AV1 achieves better results for the same file size. But that's not how RUclips works. They have a baseline quality they try to maintain regardless of codec use.
For example (making up numbers):
- AV1 supported, they stream to you @ 300 kbps
- No AV1? then they choose VP9 @ 400 kbps
- Can't do that either, then let's say h264 @ 600 kbps
So you end up with more or less the same quality. So this video shows for the same bandwidth/size/bitrate for bitrate, AV1 is slightly better than VP9. But again, you won't see this difference on most streaming platforms because they will prioritize saving money (it's pretty huge) over slightly better quality.
@@hchc111 the settings as far as i could tell are all equivalent to each other including the bitrate though, so i'd say it is a pretty fair stack up, no?
@@hchc111 it's not misleading it's useful to compare file size efficiency and networking use
Thanks for the video. Excellent comparision
Great work good editing keep doing what your doing
Very well put together video! Kudos
Nice comparison.
RUclips uses a shtty H264 or they dont know how to set it up right. At 6k bitrate it can put a very good quality, not the mash YT turns it into
The problem is they use the faster settings. If they used a slower encoding speed the definitions would look better at the same bitrate.
@@amulet6 Oh! Every time I come across these codec comparison videos I'm always puzzled how they make H264 look so crappy. Medium wouldn't look worse than VP9 and still would render faster. There's also an issue with crappy enconders such as mainconcept which is a good one but the version that come with adobe products is screwed up big time and you never get any decetn quality ever even with 100k bitrate.
I mostly use CRF that is not really affect by presets and if you use 30 which is the top ceiling of 6k bitrate allowance it would look way better than what we see in this video
This video is VP9 for 1080p, explain how you do it please? I don't wanna upload 2k or 4k but 1080p VP9 like this video.
@Thomas Ye It's a myth, already debunked for a while :/ also some people with less than 150 subs and 1000 views already get this codec, which do not make sense if it was depending of popularity.
Good job thank you for the video
What if the video codec for this video is AV1 instead of youtube VP9.
H.264 = avc1, H.265 = HEVC, VP9 = VP9, AV1 = New Era! 😊
No VP9 is not HEVC (h265)
VP9 is a google codec
@@MaykThewessen , corrected, thanks.
Time to re-upload this video with AV1 support (Now that YT supports it fully) to truly see the difference.
Thank you
Was the av1 video encoded with libaom, rav1e or svt-av1?
Best YT channel haha
You're using the "AVC1" codec!
AVC1 is not the same as AV1. If you mean RUclips served this video to you encoded in the AVC1 codec (H264/MPEG4) then that is based on what your device supports in terms of hardware accelerated decoding. For me the video is in VP9. Most videos I watch now though are AV1, at least when I watch on my PC since it has a RTX 3080 which has AV1 hardware decode.
Talk about misleading thumbnail, because I literally cannot tell any difference between AV1 and VP9, except AV1 is extremely less efficient
You can't? I can see it quite clearly, and my corneas are literally broken. They warped so badly that they're permanently scarred and unfixable. Light distorts like crazy. I can't imagine what your vision must be like if you look at those trees and can't see the blockiness on the VP9 side.
How can i see AV1 videos if my graphic card doesn't even support it ?
If your graphics card doesn't support it, then it's gonna be decoded using your CPU :)
@@CodecsBenchmarkedsuch you need for example RTX series 30 for playback only, or series 40 for rendering/encoding
This is kind of pointless isn't it? I'm on my desktop PC with a RTX 3080 which means AV1 hardware decode which is why most of the videos I watch on here are in AV1 format. This one hasn't been encoded in AV1 yet though. It's still VP9 (right click the video window, click "stats for nerds" to see codec). So how are you going to see the difference when the entire video its self is encoded in VP9?
He encoded a local file to all 3 codecs using software encoders, and when uploading the comparison to youtube, it got re-encoded again, in this case you're seeing the VP9 re-encode. The difference between the original encodes is still pretty visible, though not perfectly represented of course. The usefulness of the comparison for understanding youtube quality with different codecs is further reduced by the facts that: youtube uses less bitrate for more efficient codecs, but the comparison uses the same bitrate for all of them, and youtube uses significantly worse encoders than those used to create the samples for the comparisons, meaning lower quality at any given bitrate for all 3 codecs.
How did you manage to murder h264/AVC1 so badly? It should not look like that. Looks like you encoded it with the "fastest" preset, geez. VP9 often loses out to it in modern comparisons (e.g. x264 vs libvpx-vp9).
oh wow
VP9 looks great.
I see that AV1 generates a worse image than VP9. And I don't know why it is compared with h264 and not h265. Why not old h262?
because h265 royalty suck. No big streaming company gonna risk their life using h265 for streaming or video encoding or decoding. Before typing or writing sarcastic comment plz search and learn first so you dont look stupid :)
@@firdausaziz8651 I'm not a company, and I'm pretty sure no company is using this video to make decisions. Also many companies are using HEVC now. An ordinary user or even a streamer can "risk" using hevc. Especially if you don't have the latest card or are considering buying one.
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 на жаль, як і 3 роки тому, кодек досі не популярний.
Av1 is the best for people with god systems but traah internet
uhhh how so? AV1 can deliver higher picture quality at the same or even lower bitrates than older codecs. As for "god tier hardware". I'd hardly consider the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 in Android phones a god like SOC.All RTX 3000 cards and newer, RDNA 3 and newer, and Intel arc all support AV1 decode at least (some like ARC even do AV1 encode). And obviously going forward AV1 hardware decode is going to be a standard thing in hardware. Most videos I watch on my PC are in AV1 now since I have a RTX 3080 which dose AV1 hardware decode, and AV1 videos in 4K look quite nice to me. The lower bandwidth usage and data usage (though thankfully my ISP has no data caps) is a bonus.
@@sean8102 didn't you literally just prove my point
@@Baconator20000 this hhhhh
@@sean8102 You don't need hardware decoding to decode av1.
@@Baconator20000 He needs to say the thing first and be right. You can't say his thoughts first. That's not allowed.
Best is best plz Tell me Anyone
meanwhile h264 at 100mbps
can destroy both xD
youtube compression is the problem
The point of better compression of video within their respectable at lower bitrates is saving on cost of running such resources allowing for more room for others to take advantage of especially on live streaming platforms. Sure h264 is great at high bitrates but its such a waste
so VP9 is the best?
So AV1 is the best
But how much bitrate we can see clear quality??
AV1 is open source so it's good, but for my home library I will continue to use hevc software. hevc encoding: 22 FPS (cq26, preset slow), AV1: 5 FPS (cq36, preset 4). The size is similar (AV1 slightly smaller), the quality is similar, the encoding is several times faster when I use hevc. AV1 preset 7 is cleary worse than hevc preset medium.
@@Dobaspluh 7 preset is like fast to hevc 1 is slower and 3 is slow and 4 is medium in av1
@@Dobaspl the SVT-AV1 encoder is so fast! i recommend you give it a try
No false information...
I see better quality in h264 codec in many RUclips videos...
But only problem is only with larger size than both of two..
So I think h264 is better than others two
66
t un forceur