Talk:Versatile Video Coding
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Decoder Computing Power for the same PSNR
editI would like humbly and politely ask is it true that Vvc = H266 = MPEGi has the same decoding computational processing power as:
HEvc = H265 = mpegH for the Same Digital Picture Signal to Noise Ratio?
I have heard that Vvc = H266 = MPEGi has double computational power demands for the same bitrate, however since the same bitrate has double Digital Picture Signal to Noise Ratio, so for the same Digital Picture Signal to Noise Ratio the bitrate is 2x lower = 50% and I could suppose it could be the same decoding processing power requirements.
What is more I have heard that for certain setting VVC decoding processing power is only 80% that of HEvc = H265 = mpegH for the same bitrate.
If that setting could generate double Digital Picture Signal to Noise Ratio, that would even mean that Vvc = H266 = MPEGi could have only 40% processing power of HEvc = H265 = mpegH for the same: Digital Picture Signal to Noise Ratio.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.202.138 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
4 Licensing Patent Pools
editInside artile:
- Four companies are vying to be the patent pool administrator for VVC, in a situation similar to the previous AVC and HEVC codecs.
I've seen on about 1h Youtube lecture that there will be 4 switchable patent pools, in similar ways to 21 switchable tools in EVC.
That in itself is positive as it gives trading leverage, because no single patent holder could render VVC encoder software unusable due to inability to acquire license in agreement with law.
I would like someone to find texted reference or link to this video, and incorporate that with Reference into article.
And The number of Companies who hold patent pools are much more than just 4, it is even much more than 16, it may be closer to 46 companies.[1]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.202.138 (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Ozer, Jan. "How to Think About VVC". streamingmedia. streamingmedia.com.
Physical or Mathematical Law Patent Issues
editI would like to read, maybe in See Also Section:
How it is possible that Video Codecs are subject of Patent:
as It is NOT Legal to patent physical or mathematical Law itself
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.193.238 (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
MP4Box GPAC
editDoes somebody know it GPAC player Android Development Version also handles VVC = H266 = MPEGi Playback too?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.193.238 (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Licensing cost for Broadcast in Free To Air
editI would like to ask about License price for Broadcast in Free To Air business mode.
Is it Free as it were (at least in practice for some time) for its predecessors (H264, H265)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.201.79 (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
RPR inessential?
editRPR is literally a standard essential feature. Palette is discussable, I can live with marking it inessential. Stop this propaganda. It's pathetic. 91.66.115.62 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've not found a single VVC file on the web using the feature. E.g. the anime community has been doing encodes for over a year (over a dozen of encodes), there are websites with VVC samples - nothing, nada, zilch. There's no need to call something "propaganda" just because you have strong opinions about something. WP is a source of factual data. Unless you can prove that RPR is widely used (it's not), it will remain under that moniker. If we change the wording to "essential" or remove the word "inessential" people might get the wrong idea that the built-in decoder is "broken" and does not support VVC. That's not the case. It works for 100% of my samples and encodes. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
H.267 Ehanced Coding Model
editTo the additional wiki deletion vandalism: Article about VVC H.266 existed before VVC existed:
21st January 2019 when VVC finalisation took place on: 6th July 2020.
At that time point VVC/H.266 had name: Future Video Codec (FVC)
So why would you prevent info of it successor: H.267/Ehanced Coding Model,
while it successor is still being developed by the same body as Future Video Codec : VVC/H266 was! 95.193.158.2 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think you are confusing exploratory and standardisation activities of JVET. During standardisation, the ITU and ISO will have approved the project and given it a number like H.266. It might have a placeholder name, but it is likely to result in a future standard. During exploration, however, there has been no project approved by the ITU and ISO, thus there is no number assigned to the work and no guarantee a standard will be produced. H.267 does not yet exist, you are just extrapolating from H.261–H.266. The future standard may just as well be called H.270 or something else. It is true that the number may be assigned and the project may exist before publication, as was the case for H.266 as you point out, but this has not happened yet. Also, the Enhanced Compression Model term does not play the same role in the project as Future Video Coding, rather it is the post-VVC equivalent of the Joint Exploratory Model (JEM). I don't think there is no place to describe JVET's efforts beyond VVC on ECM in this page, but it should be described in the paragraph where JEM is mentioned, rather than as a successor, and the term "H.267" should not be used anywhere.
- These edits are not vandalism. 2A02:6B6F:E7A1:9200:A8B3:72E5:8CF:9C25 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Hardware Adoption: Intel
editAs of right now (August 2025), the table with Hardware adoption lists Intel Xe2, but its reference is marked as "failed verification".
I followed the link, which is meanwhile on archive.org, and landed on an article from June 2024, saying that Intel Xe2 (Battlemage) is expected to have H.266 decoding. (The page in question uses those annoying drop-down menus with section titles to advance to the next page but the page "New Graphics: Intel Xe2, 2nd Gen Arc Xe Core For Mobile" (link) does in fact talk about the VVC decoding in the Intel Xe2 GPUs.) This information is also available from other sources published around this time, for example this guru3D article.
Searching through the Intel website, it appears that this is not the case for all the Xe2 GPUs. For example, it appears that the dedicated Xe2 GPUs for desktop PCs do not support H.266 decoding (link).
However, others officially do: for example, the specification page for the Intel 226V CPU lists that its Arc 130V GPU does support H.266 decoding.
That is, Intel Xe2 should be included in this table (albeit perhaps with some remarks). Valentyn235 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Xe2 only on Lunar lake supports VVC decoding and that's it. No other Intel GPU product offers it. You're free to edit the article to reflect that. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Right. You are right. I've updated the article (the Hardware table, specifically) to better reflect that with references. But since Lunar Lake does use Xe2-LPG (while Battlemage uses Xe2-HPG), the exiting table listing (Xe2-LPG) was correct. Valentyn235 (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)