Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by clouddrover | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

clouddrover

Here are some measured results. rav1e is worse than libaom and SVT-AV1:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AV1/comments/f1h2u1/aom_vs_rav1e_vs...

https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1893776#post1893776

View on HN

In numbers, yes, but, quoting from reddit:

``` I agree AOM is the best quality now. But between Rav1e and SVT-AV1 it's not so clear for me. When you look metrics, SVT-AV1 is clearly the winner. But when I do side to side comparison ( e.g with online comparison tool like https://svt.github.io/vivict/ ) for me SVT-AV1 blur too much and don't have the same details retention than rav1e and I found rav1e much more pleasant ( my opinion) . I hope at some point there will be some real human a/b testing study. ```

Perhaps things have improved for libaom since the last time I tried it but my issue wasn’t overall quality so much as sections of videos that had way too many very much visible artifacts (to me it looked like there were likely bugs rather than a poor design).

YouTube is using libaom for its many, many AV1 encodes. Without knowing the version you used or the settings you used there isn't much that can be usefully talked about. What we can say is that libaom is good enough to be used on the world's biggest video website.

A personal use and a company with massive computing power is so different.

I agree with the OP’s assessment - as recently as two weeks ago, Libaom was too slow to even do quality testing on real footage. And that’s with forty modern Xeon cores.

The fact that YouTube uses it only proves the increasingly obvious business model they use in the space, namely the monopolization of the encoding ecosystem by literally throwing away money to steer people clear of rav1e.

The practical reality is that libaom is benchmarked against routinely. It is the benchmark.

See some benchmarks here:

https://videocodectracker.dev/

https://arewecompressedyet.com/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com