zlacker

>>Charle+(OP)
I understand that sometimes the HN titles get edited to be less descriptive and more generic in order to match the actual article title.

What’s the logic with changing the title here from the actual article title it was originally submitted with “AV1 — Now Powering 30% of Netflix Streaming” to the generic and not at all representative title it currently has “AV1: a modern open codec”? That is neither the article title nor representative of the article content.

>>notato+ik
Also, it’s not the whole picture. AV1 is open because it didn’t have the good stuff (newly patented things) and as such I also wouldn’t say it’s the most modern.

>>7e+Sk
Just because something is patented doesn't necessarily mean its good. I think head to head comparisons matter more. (Admittedly i dont know how av1 holds up)

>>bawolf+zl
Yes, but in this case, it does.

AV1 is good enough that the cost of not licensing might outweigh the cost of higher bandwidth. And it sounds like Netflix agrees with that.

>>parl_m+Kn
I don't like newer codecs like AV1. I find them blurrier. Perhaps the bitrate is too low, but they do seem blurrier compared to h264. Even VP09 has often seemed better.

h264 is a very good codec.