New Video Encoding, VVC, Promises 50pct Compression Without Loss of Quality

[engine]

A new video compression, VVC (Versatile Video Coding), has been announced by one of the world's leading developers, which is claimed around 50% compression without compromising video quality. VVC has also been dubbed H.266.
The developers, Fraunhofer, are digital compression pioneers, having created MPEG-3, and developing the video formats H.264 (AVC) and H.265 (HEVC).

As was the case with each prior protocol, H.266/VVC will require new encoding and decoding chips, which Fraunhofer says “are currently being designed.” Major chip and technology companies including Apple, Ericsson, Intel, Huawei, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and Sony are all industry partners, virtually guaranteeing widespread adoption from an early date.

[venturebeat.com...]

[not2easy]

Good to know that there is work being done to assist the efficiency of video delivery. Sometimes it seems that there are folks who believe that everyone has high speed broadband everywhere, always. ;)

[engine]

This'll be great, especially for the inevitable higher resolution files being used. Some of the really high resolution commercial files are truly monstrous, compared to home use. Not only will transmission be improved, but imagine the storage savings.

[RedBar]

It always surprises me the difference with similar length films their mkv file sizes, some can be 3GB yet another 10+GB and yes, I have 2,000+ films and fortunately my storage is relatively inexpensive however my friend who is the projectionist at the local cinema has huge files and special download connections.

[tangor]

Yay! Another format to keep track of!

Reducing transmission with no loss is ALWAYS something desired. :)

[thecoalman]

It always surprises me the difference with similar length films their mkv file sizes

mkv is not a format, it's container file and can contain many type of differently encoded video. .avi an .mov are same way. An uncompressed 1 hour 720*480 .avi might be 100GB, 50GB using lossleess codec like Huffy, 14GB using DV with light compression, 1 to 2 GB using modern efficient codec.

The file size of video is calculated by the bitrate and length of time, there are no other considerations. Some have set bitrate like DV and others are variable like most modern codecs. Higher resolution and more action require more bitrate and of course the efficiency of the codec plays a factor.

If you want to see the difference between high quality HD and low quality "HD" slap a 30 year old OTA antenna on your TV and flip between the antenna and the cable channel for same content. OTA has no concern for bandwidth....

[tangor]

Chuckles ... 480*270 x264 compresses to what...220mb-330mb?

Know your market ... and user screen size and go from there. Properly done with compression rates well calibrated it is very difficult to visually see the difference. (There IS a difference ... but most folks can't SEE it.)

ON THE OTHER HAND, if one can get similar results with a new encoding scheme what's not to love?

OTA is a stronger/better signal than cable ... but is fraught with atmospheric anomalies that can interfere with both audio/visual. Sigh.

[JorgeV]

Hello,

This format seems promising, however, I am awaiting to see how it performs without dedicated hardware components.

[thecoalman]

OTA is a stronger/better signal than cable ... but is fraught with atmospheric anomalies that can interfere with both audio/visual. Sigh.

OTA and cable are almost entirely digital now because they can have much more content in same bandwidth. It's all or nothing, there is no in between. Interference or poor signal strength results in dropped audio/video.

OTA may be somewhere around 20mbps, same content on cable might be 6.

[RedBar]

@thecoalman - excellent info

[nbgroup]

Very good news, feeling great to hear new video encoding and compression techniques is developed.

[Robert Charlton]

To several posters here, this sounds great, but the devil is in the details.

For one,. I'm not seeing this format or compression method mentioned in any of the pro video zines or journals I see, or on forums like Creative Cow or Adobe. There are so many codecs at this point that most of the post production houses I've dealt with are throwing up their hands and saying, as we all know, that there are way too many codecs, and most of them have problems.

And some of the software you follow with great hopes eventually gets some reviews that suggest it might be good for news editing but not much else.

So, I'm not sure this is real yet. As for 50pct compression without loss of quality, I don't believe it. At that degree of compression , you've got to be losing something... and you discover also that certain codecs work in certain software, but not others. If you ask an editor what format he wants, he is always going to say he wants the format his software supports, which may or not be easily transcoded to or from what you've been using. The idea of editing in natrive 4K in real time is also a nice idea, but I don't necessarily want to pipe liquid sodium as a coolant into my spare bedroom that I use for editing. Forgive slight exaggeration that I couldn't resist ;).

I can also imagine editing software being developed without any editor input or thorough overview of industry requirements, because Apple has already done that several times. These "improvements", if not right, can break workflows and wreck ongoing projects, and, as I note, they have done so.

Horror sories of burned out graphic cards with certain software continue on promnent forums for a year and a half, and no one has fessed up to the problem. And, what's the new codec good for... shooting, editing,.compsiting, outputting to what flavor of, say, mp4, etc?

All of which is to say that this not coming tomorrow, and I don't know whether I'm happy to hear about yet another possibility even if it were true.