Christian Feldmann - VVC - the Next-Next Gen Codec 

@z3 I'm not talking about resolutions, I'm talking about quality overall. At high bitrates(say, 6000 kbps) there isn't much difference between h264 and h265. While at 500-1000 kbps there is a huge difference, but that bitrate is not good enough for saving the things you really care about, whether it's a movie you love or your own recording.

I don't believe, that is possible to save bitrate if keep access time on acceptable level.

@@tomburg2 by access time you mean decoding speed esources required for decoding? Because HEVC is outstanding at low bitrates compared to h264. I have been converting same files to both lately at low bitrates(1080p resolution) and hevc looks incredible in there given the bitrate. Even at 600 kbps tv shows and movies look watchable and in h264 it doesn't. Can't wait for h266(VVC) which comes out in a year from now. I wonder if in the future it'll be possible to have a whole movie in a tiny(under 10 mb) file. Cause if you do it right, theoretically it's possible. Check out the 94kb kkrieger shooter game that came out in 2004. That's what I'd like for movies in the future - generation of pre-made textures from a text code.

@@TabalugaDragon By access time i mean time, in which video starts to play after jumping. When codec h264 came to market access time was very bad, many videos had very big key frame interval (10 seconds) and access time was even few seconds. Now hardware is more powerfull, but still access time is not enough good. I have 4 core skylake and full HD tv and full HD youtube access time is still far from ideal. Why is nowadays need to save in bitrate? Internet traffik is very cheap nowadays. It is better to pay few cents for bigger bitrate and better access time. About having big video archive at home: nowadays hard disks are cheap. If you want to have hundreds movies and you do not care about access time in this case it is possibly to reencode video on to heavy codec with asic. I don't have big video collection, my whole video collection is just 400 gb. And i did not re encode videos to lower bitrate. Almost all my video collection is from youtube and TV and from youtube i always download in highest resolution and from TV i re encode only part of videos. Reason why my video collection is so small it that it is very hard to find quality content in high resolution, internet is full low quality garbage (also paid/commercial sites).

@@tomburg2 well I do store a huge movie collection(several terabytes) and storing all of that in external hdd-s is just not practical nor very reliable, hence why I want my movie\video recording collection to take as little space as possible. HEVC almost allows to do that, hopefully VVC will. The reason why I store everything is because where I live now(China) I have unreliable and slow internet to say the least, so I need to download movies all the time.

at scale 20% - 40% is a huge difference

​@@seangalloway8669 You forgot, that waste of time for bad access time will cost huge in square. It is same as to try to save using cheap toothpaste. I would say "why try to use cheapest toothpaste if good quality toothpaste costs only few cents per day". You will say "using cheapest toothpaste at scale (whole world in 10 years) will give huge savings. But price of damaged teeth (caused by cheap toothpaste) will cost huge in square. At scale time saving by good access time is huge, in 10 years may be hundreds of billions dollars, so it is not worth to try save few billions dollars for traffic, if bad access time will cost hundreds of billions dollars.

love aom