This reminded me to go over to slashdot and see how the open source Stasi at slashdot reacted to Apple's HEVC announcement. Predictable, but entertaining none the less. You will be pleased to know that AV1 will be the best when its bitstream is finally sorted, and Apple has made a huge mistake. Just you wait! i remember the same slashdot arguments about codecs when the iPod first came out, then when Apple adopted H.264.
Slashot used to be a site I frequented often (if not daily) way back during the days of Commander Taco when groups from all walks of life and tech could gather to discuss a top in a productive fashion. Now, it's a cesspool of basement dwellers and iHaters similar to MacRumors that will shoot their mouths off at anyone that doesn't agree with their nonsense. Slashdot is not even a glimmer of the site it used to be.
It is not clear who Apple has chosen to license HEVC from -- but it is likely around $25 million annually, given MPEG LA's terms for using the technology.
How does this actually work? Why can't they buy the rights and open source it, to promote availability and compatibility?
Fun fact: V9 (that codec everyone is complaining about the AppleTV not supporting for 4K Youtube) is open and exists as the decedent of a direct response to all the problems that happened last time we went around this bush with x264. Essentially what you're suggesting is exactly what Google did at the time. They bought a competing codec to x264 from On2 and worked to improve it so we would have a codec that isn't patent encumbered. Unfortunately they were too slow, and the addition of hardware decoders in devices (like the iPhone) ultimately drove VP8 into obscurity.
We're doing the same dance all over again now. Apple doesn't want to include hardware decoders for VP9 (despite being available this time), so they are going to continue to push x265 (which, fwiw, does have the film/television industry backing because it's MPEG group). So to directly answer the question -- they don't care about the fees. They probably have deals in place.
Handbrake doesn’t have H.264 and H.265, but x264 and x265 which are open source. I always wanted to know to what extent H.264 and H.265 are implemented in those x counterparts but I could’t find any info. Must go deep into the open source code. So a comparison made with Handbrake is actually a comparison of x264 and x265, not of H.264 and H.265. True H.264 and H.265 comparison can only be done using Apple’s own tools or any other application that implements licensed H.264 and H.265.
The article says: "Cutting back on the processor demand of coding and decoding HEVC video, Apple is implementing hardware acceleration of HEVC in the late 2015 27-inch iMac, the early 2016 MacBook, and the 2016 MacBook Pro and newer."
Is that correct - that a late-2015, 27-inch iMac (with Skylake processor) has hardware acceleration of HEVC? I thought this acceleration capability was built-in beginning only with the mid-2017 iMac (with its Kaby Lake processor).
It is not clear who Apple has chosen to license HEVC from -- but it is likely around $25 million annually, given MPEG LA's terms for using the technology.
How does this actually work? Why can't they buy the rights and open source it, to promote availability and compatibility?
Fun fact: V9 (that codec everyone is complaining about the AppleTV not supporting for 4K Youtube) is open and exists as the decedent of a direct response to all the problems that happened last time we went around this bush with x264. Essentially what you're suggesting is exactly what Google did at the time. They bought a competing codec to x264 from On2 and worked to improve it so we would have a codec that isn't patent encumbered. Unfortunately they were too slow, and the addition of hardware decoders in devices (like the iPhone) ultimately drove VP8 into obscurity.
We're doing the same dance all over again now. Apple doesn't want to include hardware decoders for VP9 (despite being available this time), so they are going to continue to push x265 (which, fwiw, does have the film/television industry backing because it's MPEG group). So to directly answer the question -- they don't care about the fees. They probably have deals in place.
Good god, what nonsense, non patent uncumbered, you mean like the sac of crap pseudo open source thing google unleashed called android.. actually there is a great chance that they in fact not in the clear except maybe if you are google.
Related to video, I just found a RAID 0 of mine is running around 300% faster under High Sierra that it was under Sierra. Has anyone else seen any speed increase? I tested two 3 TB Seagate Barracuda HDs both 7200 RMP and each with its own dedicated Thunderbolt 2 connection to a Mac Pro. I was getting around 250 MB/s write and about 300 MB/s read now I am seeing 750 MB/s write and around 1GB/s read. I couldn't believe my eyes. The RAID was made with Apple Disk Utilities and I've tested with both SofRAID drivers and Apple's, both same speed. I booted back into Sierra to retest and was immediately back to the previous speeds. The internal SSD in the Mac Pro is around 700 MB/s read and write by comparison. I should add the internal boot is APFS but the RAID is still HFS+. I never saw this under the developer betas of 10.13 but I could have missed it.
I was very excited at the prospect of shooting 4K 60 fps videos on my iPhone 8, but there turned out to be a few gotchas. You can edit 60 fps videos in the iMovie app, but it exports them at 30 fps. I then exported them to my Late 2014 5K iMac. Since "Apple is implementing hardware acceleration of HEVC in the late 2015 27-inch iMac," they won't play in Photos, but Photos will let you export them at the full 60 fps. Amazingly, these will play in QuickTime. I was also able to import my 4K 60 fps clips into iMovie 10.1.6. Editing was easy, but playback within the program was very choppy. As with the app, I could export them only at 30 fps. The exported movie was very sharp and smooth. It would be nice to be able to retain the 60 fps ability, but in the meantime 4K at 30 fps still looks pretty amazing.
Good god, what nonsense, non patent uncumbered, you mean like the sac of crap pseudo open source thing google unleashed called android.. actually there is a great chance that they in fact not in the clear except maybe if you are google.
Good god, what nonsense, non patent uncumbered, you mean like the sac of crap pseudo open source thing google unleashed called android.. actually there is a great chance that they in fact not in the clear except maybe if you are google.
What year iMac and MBPs can run a HEVC Photos Library?
Everywhere talks about 6th generation core processors... which is 2016 right?
I’m wanting to conserve space if feasible. Can an older iMac run the HEIC still Photos?
Yes. The decoding is just in software and not hardware.
The AppleInsider article says: "Cutting back on the processor demand of coding and decoding HEVC video, Apple is implementing hardware acceleration of HEVC in the late 2015 27-inch iMac...."
Which implies hardware acceleration is the method of handling HEVC in the 2015, 27-inch iMac. So is the article incorrect?
Good god, what nonsense, non patent uncumbered, you mean like the sac of crap pseudo open source thing google unleashed called android.. actually there is a great chance that they in fact not in the clear except maybe if you are google.
Comments
We're doing the same dance all over again now. Apple doesn't want to include hardware decoders for VP9 (despite being available this time), so they are going to continue to push x265 (which, fwiw, does have the film/television industry backing because it's MPEG group). So to directly answer the question -- they don't care about the fees. They probably have deals in place.
Everywhere talks about 6th generation core processors... which is 2016 right?
I’m wanting to conserve space if feasible. Can an older iMac run the HEIC still Photos?
Changes to the Apple Intermediate Codec?
Which implies hardware acceleration is the method of handling HEVC in the 2015, 27-inch iMac. So is the article incorrect?