When the US government has become erratic, unreliable, untrustworthy, and aligned with your enemies then it's necessarily time to de-risk your infrastructure and supply chains by removing America products and services from them.
It's the same reason you don't want Chinese equipment in your telecommunications infrastructure. You can't trust what the Chinese government will do to it or with it.
"Poland provoked occupation by Germany" (1939)? Germany "liberated Czechoslovakia Germans" by occupation and annexation (1938)? How occupation and annexation of neighbors ended for WW2 Germany (1938-1945)?
In 2014 Moscow invaded Ukraine, occupied Crimea, Donetsk, Luhanks. In 2022 Moscow invaded again. No NATO forces in Ukraine. No Moscow forces on NATO members territory. Trump officials unable to answer who started war, you blame NATO, both you and Trump aligned with Moscow.
> I'm calling out the absurdity of adding it, analyzing it, removing it, and putting yet another approximation of it back in
Why is it absurd? The entire encoding process is an approximation of the original image. Lossy compression inevitably throws away information to make the file size smaller. And the creation of the original video is entirely separated from the distribution of it. It'll be stored losslessly for one thing.
The only question that matters is does the image look good enough after encoding. If it doesn't look good enough then no one will watch it. If it does look good enough then you've got a viable video distribution service that minimizes its bandwidth costs.
No, the source material is stored losslessly. Many different effects will be applied to the source material to make the moving images look the way the director wants them to look.
The creation of the original video is separate from the distribution of the video. In distribution the video will be encoded to many formats and many bitrates to support playback on as many devices at as many network speeds as possible.
The distributed video will never exactly match the original. There simply isn't the bandwidth. The goal of video encoding is always just to make it look good enough.
Right click on a YouTube video and select "Stats for Nerds" to see which format it's using in your browser. AV1 will be something like "av01.0.09M.08".
You've probably watched a lot of AV1 video without realising it.
It's not just great. It's so good that even on much older android phones than the ones tested in those links the brightness of the screen has a larger impact.
This is by design, so that even extremely dated smart tvs and etc can also benefit from the bandwidth savings.
Fun fact: I can't say which, but some of the oldest devices (smart tvs, home security products, etc) work around their dated hardware decoders by buzzsawing 4k video in half, running each piece through the decoder at a resolution it supports, then stitching them back together.
> Encoding AV1 to an archival quality takes too long
With the SVT-AV1 encoder you can achieve better quality in less time versus the x265 encoder. You just have to use the right presets. See the encoding results section:
Yeah, is there any good(and simple)guide for SVT-AV1 settings? I tried to convert many of my stuff to it but you really need to put a lot of time to figure out the correct settings for your media, and it becomes more difficult if your media is in mixed formats, encodings etc.
They never thought America would go ahead and do it for them.
reply