← Back to context

Comment by adzm

2 years ago

I really like HEVC/h265. It's pretty much on par with VP9. but licensing trouble has made it difficult to get adopted everywhere even now. VVC/h266 seems to be having the same issues; AV1 is pretty much just as good and already seeing much more adoption.

What’s the tldr of the licensing problems?

I’ve started reading this article which list the various H.26x proposals - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Coding_Experts_Group

Seems like the group that comes with these is eventually part of the UN ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicat...

Is it because they come with the codecs “jointly” with the MPEG organization, which is for profit? If the group is part of a standards organization that’s part of the UN, I feel like they should come up with non-patent-encumbered “recommendations”.

  • > What’s the tldr of the licensing problems?

    There are multiple patent pools for H.265 wanting to be paid licensing fees (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, Velos Media). HEVC Advance and Velos Media even want content distribution licensing fees.

    And there are patent holders not in any pool who also want to be paid (Technicolor, Motorola, Nokia, etc.).

    It's a mess.

    • >HEVC Advance and Velos Media even want content distribution licensing fees.

      That is not correct. Unless you meant they once "suggested" to ask for content distribution licensing.

      15 replies →

iPhone, DJI, Cameras etc all use H.265 or RAW.

It's really like H.264 all over again where everyone claims the patent pools make a big difference but only on the periphery.

  • "Cameras all use H.265", curious , what cameras are you referring to?

    While some cameras do support it, it's much more common to use ProRes, DNxHD/DNxHR or h264 in all-intra mode (as e.g. in XAVC-I and XAVC-S-I).

    h265, or long-GOP codecs in general, are only really used for long talking head shots or lectures.