Requested feature overview description.
AV1 is a royalty free video codec that compresses 30% more than VP9 at the same quality.
Why would it be useful?
The codec would reduce video file sizes compared to VP9, wich is good for users with slow connections or data caps. It will also allow to upload longer videos within the size limit at a reasonable quality.
What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
Server side scripts (i guess).

Bump.

topic #25642

It's more common than it was 2 years ago. Now you can get hardware decode support cheaply with Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K Max, Tiger Lake laptops, etc.

Useful website thingy

Looks like 75% of the market has support to it. And apple still pretends it doesn't exist.

omegaumbra said:
Useful website thingy

Looks like 75% of the market has support to it. And apple still pretends it doesn't exist.

That is by browser support, not the presence of hardware decode support.

Although if the computer is fast and the video isn't 4K or something, it might be fine.

lance_armstrong said:
That is by browser support, not the presence of hardware decode support.

Although if the computer is fast and the video isn't 4K or something, it might be fine.

Oh yeah, you are right.
By the way, a possible AV1 support would also mean AVIF support?

omegaumbra said:
Oh yeah, you are right.
By the way, a possible AV1 support would also mean AVIF support?

It has been discussed.

topic #23369

I think the real problem is that artists don't use it and have no reason to. Why add support for something on e621 when the sites where most of the artists are don't support it. They should probably be saving all of their work as lossless PNGs anyway. A typical hard drive could fit 1 million or more such images.

AVIF does have a lossless option, but I see some debate about how it works: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/av1-avif/issues/111

omegaumbra said:
Oh yeah, you are right.
By the way, a possible AV1 support would also mean AVIF support?

JPEG XL is faster and has more features. Very few people have taken AVIF seriously.

Will it be implemented?

electricitywolf said:
JPEG XL is faster and has more features. Very few people have taken AVIF seriously.

Name 5 artists using JPEG XL. Same problem as AVIF.

electricitywolf said:
Will it be implemented?

I think AV1 will be supported eventually, since YouTube rips could be AV1 and more videos could be squeezed under the 100 MB limit.

Most video decoding hardware now support AV1 including decoders from Intel, AMD, Nvidia, and various mobile SoCs. Supporting it on E6 would allow higher quality Youtube rips to be uploaded.

giuth43284o said:
Most video decoding hardware now support AV1 including decoders from Intel, AMD, Nvidia, and various mobile SoCs. Supporting it on E6 would allow higher quality Youtube rips to be uploaded.

YT rips suffer from the same problem as Twitter, Tumblr, and so on - they are recompressed very aggressively. Irony: Artists uploading here have to reduce quality to get it within 100MB limit. Some will post a normal resolution here, and then have offsite link to Mega.NZ or the like for a 450MB monster.

AV1 is apparently already supported and that line of code has been there for a year already, interestingly it seems to originate from a commit 5 years ago (obviously that's way older than this thread) so it really leaves me to wonder whether this is actually working or not.

Has anybody posting here actually attempted to upload an AV1 file?

faucet said:
AV1 is apparently already supported and that line of code has been there for a year already, interestingly it seems to originate from a commit 5 years ago (obviously that's way older than this thread) so it really leaves me to wonder whether this is actually working or not.

Has anybody posting here actually attempted to upload an AV1 file?

I'll try it in a bit, if I can find one.

OK, it's still filtered by extension.
Source: https://github.com/SPBTV/video_av1_samples?tab=readme-ov-file
Rating: Safe
Tags: not_furry github animated test_pattern
Description: Testing AV1 functionality using test files from Github - for Faucet. topic #31467

error: ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid - Validation failed: File ext video/mp4 is invalid (only jpg, gif, png, and webm files are allowed)

alphamule said:
OK, it's still filtered by extension.

It needs to be remuxed into a webm container, and the audio converted.

ffmpeg -i spbtv_sample_bipbop_av1_960x540_25fps.mp4  -c:v copy -c:a libopus spbtv_sample_bipbop_av1_960x540_25fps.webm

(FWIW, the video doesn't play in my browser, Pale Moon v33.1)

faucet said:

Has anybody posting here actually attempted to upload an AV1 file?

I think Mairo might've, but it also could've been a joke

I thought I'd add some input. I'm on an 8 year old computer with a Ryzen 1700. I don't have HW accelerated decoding on my GPU, and as a result of Discord allowing AV1 streaming, if a friend choses 1440p, I lose 25% of my CPU. If they stream in 4K, my CPU reaches 50% and my desktop becomes stutter. Until faster decoders are made, resolution limits are in place, or HW decoding is massively widespread, allowing them on E6 could cripple older devices or outright crash older phones.

jonnyawsom3 said:
I thought I'd add some input. I'm on an 8 year old computer with a Ryzen 1700. I don't have HW accelerated decoding on my GPU, and as a result of Discord allowing AV1 streaming, if a friend choses 1440p, I lose 25% of my CPU. If they stream in 4K, my CPU reaches 50% and my desktop becomes stutter. Until faster decoders are made, resolution limits are in place, or HW decoding is massively widespread, allowing them on E6 could cripple older devices or outright crash older phones.

Yeah, this is why a lot of places have downsampled versions.

Bumping this, the extra compression at the same quality would allow fitting higher quality posts into the 100MB limit, which is getting more and more limiting as expectations for quality increase.

It is technically already supported according to e621ng, but the files are not accepted on upload due to a bug that is currently being investigated.

If and when this is fixed, what are the rules going to be when it comes to upload guidelines? Obviously if the source is AV1, that should always be used, but what if it came from a site like YouTube that lossily transcodes everything in the first place and AV1 is just one of the codecs offered?

errorist said:
If and when this is fixed, what are the rules going to be when it comes to upload guidelines? Obviously if the source is AV1, that should always be used, but what if it came from a site like YouTube that lossily transcodes everything in the first place and AV1 is just one of the codecs offered?

I'd assume no difference. Whichever is the best quality, the actual format doesn't matter (some formats may generally lend itself to better quality, but it ultimately depends on the quality of the result and not the format, any format can be made to look worse than another).

Well, that's the thing, it's going to be subjective. If YouTube (or whatever) is doing its job properly, both versions will be too close in quality to make the call. And the objectively best version will be the one still sitting on the creator's hard drive, inaccessible to anyone else unless they decide to sign up here and post it themselves.