I always wondered why TV didn't support certain video/audio codec? My LG OLED for example only plays AVI files..but the TV itself converts them into a certain type of file to only play on the TV. Obviously you can stream to it via a PC, but if you just use its storage, or plug in USB devices it converts stuff.
I didn't think licencing mattered since most those are open now?
Besides, AVI is a container not a codec, and an ancient one at that. I don't think any legal video is released in this format anymore; even pirates seem to have stopped.
This comment area is not the best method of learning, but I'll give you a few tips. I encourage you to Google for more information.
1. AVI is not a codec. It is a container. You put video and audio files inside of an AVI container (file). It is also an old, now pathetic, container. 2. Licensing is *required* on all but 4 video codecs and all but 4 audio codecs.
The only free video codecs are MPEG-2, VP8, VP9, and AV1 (A-V-one). The only free audio codecs are MP3, Opus, Vorbis, and FLAC.
H.264, H.265, MPEG-4, AAC all require a license. When you purchase an iPhone or an Android device you may not realize it but Apple and Google (or the OEM partner) paid for your license.
Opus... if only everyone and everything used it... It's compression quality in the latest version (1.3.1) dances all around MP3 and Vorbis in all bitrates (high, medium, low and ultra-low) while having adaptive bitrates, using very little CPU and having an extremely low delay.
Quality differences are easier to distinguish in ultra-low bitrates, were Opus manages to maintain wideband even at 9 Kbps (that's REALLY impressive), but low and medium bitrates also are pretty distinguishable from MP3 and Vorbis.
As for high bitrates of Opus, they are virtually indistinguishable from lossless codes such as FLAC at a portion of its size.
And now that it started to support ambisonics... hopefully it'll get more and more popular, so more brands will support it!
VLC uses ffmpeg, which is an open source implementation of just about every codec that exists. The catch is that neither VLC or ffmpeg have paid for a license. If VLC or ffmpeg were to charge money or distribute binaries in the USA they would be sued. They get around it by hosting in countries that don't prosecute for license / patent violations on software.
But a TV is going to need a 265 license anyway if it supports ATSC3, no? So why not make that visible to streaming users if they want to utilize it? Is an ATSC3-limited license cheaper than a “general” license?
That's hard to believe tbh. Does your manual specifically says that it can only play AVI? How old is your OLED? Because even low to mid range tvs support H265 in some of it's flavors.
I believe an LG monitor was already announced to arrive this year with the same tech. Exiting to finally get rid of the two stage bezel (or does my monitor already use an oxide one? the LG gl850 has a VERY tiny bezel). Too bad it isn't available in cheaper sets though.
If AV1 turns out to offer a mere ~25% better compression rate than H.265/AVC, as I hear it does, will the much higher encoding complexity and times, along with the higher decoding complexity, be really worth it? The fact that it requires no licensing fees is certainly quite attractive (though still not fully guaranteed). H.265 ended up with no less than three patent pools, which is frankly a licensing disaster.
Nevertheless, I believe its creators learnt their lesson and will not repeat the same fiasco with H.266/VVC. If H.266 has a single patent pool, the fees are reasonable, and it manages to reach a 40 - 50% higher compression rate over H.265, it might just win the next round of "codec wars". AV1 is unfortunately limited to encoding techniques that are not employed by the H.26x family of codecs and other proprietary codecs. H.266 will have no such limitation and will also be able to employ techniques used by the "free" codecs if desired. So it will have an edge.
We should have more VVC news this year. Many companies are putting AV1 testing support in non-mobile area. I read that as basically Industry is saying we are ready, make VVC works or we will leave.
Depends on the usage. For video files you expect to be downloaded thousands of times? Probably. But maybe not for the average YouTube upload. Given how the cost of CPU cores has been tumbling, and the performance of the encoder improving, it should be far more viable once hardware is in people's hands.
As far as I've read, Samsungs TVs this year come with HDMI 2.1, but do not support eARC...Probably could be added via fw update in theory, but wouldn't bet on that. Dead on arrival in my opinion.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
22 Comments
Back to Article
Amandtec - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link
Glad they finally found a use for quantum computers.imaheadcase - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link
I always wondered why TV didn't support certain video/audio codec? My LG OLED for example only plays AVI files..but the TV itself converts them into a certain type of file to only play on the TV. Obviously you can stream to it via a PC, but if you just use its storage, or plug in USB devices it converts stuff.I didn't think licencing mattered since most those are open now?
eddman - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link
AV1 (one), not AVI (eye).Besides, AVI is a container not a codec, and an ancient one at that. I don't think any legal video is released in this format anymore; even pirates seem to have stopped.
imaheadcase - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link
I know that, but the question is still the same. AVI is still widely used in security cameras fyi.mooninite - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link
This comment area is not the best method of learning, but I'll give you a few tips. I encourage you to Google for more information.1. AVI is not a codec. It is a container. You put video and audio files inside of an AVI container (file). It is also an old, now pathetic, container.
2. Licensing is *required* on all but 4 video codecs and all but 4 audio codecs.
The only free video codecs are MPEG-2, VP8, VP9, and AV1 (A-V-one). The only free audio codecs are MP3, Opus, Vorbis, and FLAC.
H.264, H.265, MPEG-4, AAC all require a license. When you purchase an iPhone or an Android device you may not realize it but Apple and Google (or the OEM partner) paid for your license.
We need non-free codecs to go away.
heffeque - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link
Opus... if only everyone and everything used it... It's compression quality in the latest version (1.3.1) dances all around MP3 and Vorbis in all bitrates (high, medium, low and ultra-low) while having adaptive bitrates, using very little CPU and having an extremely low delay.Quality differences are easier to distinguish in ultra-low bitrates, were Opus manages to maintain wideband even at 9 Kbps (that's REALLY impressive), but low and medium bitrates also are pretty distinguishable from MP3 and Vorbis.
As for high bitrates of Opus, they are virtually indistinguishable from lossless codes such as FLAC at a portion of its size.
And now that it started to support ambisonics... hopefully it'll get more and more popular, so more brands will support it!
imaheadcase - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link
They how does VLC use all those codec when windows does not?mooninite - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link
VLC uses ffmpeg, which is an open source implementation of just about every codec that exists. The catch is that neither VLC or ffmpeg have paid for a license. If VLC or ffmpeg were to charge money or distribute binaries in the USA they would be sued. They get around it by hosting in countries that don't prosecute for license / patent violations on software.vladx - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link
They received a free license for all these codecs because it's a university-backed project.name99 - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link
But a TV is going to need a 265 license anyway if it supports ATSC3, no?So why not make that visible to streaming users if they want to utilize it? Is an ATSC3-limited license cheaper than a “general” license?
dudedud - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link
That's hard to believe tbh.Does your manual specifically says that it can only play AVI? How old is your OLED?
Because even low to mid range tvs support H265 in some of it's flavors.
Alistair - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link
Looks like oxide bezels have finally arrived in the TV industry. I remember LG showing this off 6 years ago can't remember where like this:http://blog.gsmarena.com/lg-unveils-5-inch-hd-oxid...
I believe an LG monitor was already announced to arrive this year with the same tech. Exiting to finally get rid of the two stage bezel (or does my monitor already use an oxide one? the LG gl850 has a VERY tiny bezel). Too bad it isn't available in cheaper sets though.
zakkdawe - Thursday, February 25, 2021 - link
Great, with this TV, you can comfortably watch anime movies by crunchyroll app, free download right now at https://techtodown.com/crunchyroll-mod-apk/Santoval - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link
If AV1 turns out to offer a mere ~25% better compression rate than H.265/AVC, as I hear it does, will the much higher encoding complexity and times, along with the higher decoding complexity, be really worth it? The fact that it requires no licensing fees is certainly quite attractive (though still not fully guaranteed). H.265 ended up with no less than three patent pools, which is frankly a licensing disaster.Nevertheless, I believe its creators learnt their lesson and will not repeat the same fiasco with H.266/VVC. If H.266 has a single patent pool, the fees are reasonable, and it manages to reach a 40 - 50% higher compression rate over H.265, it might just win the next round of "codec wars". AV1 is unfortunately limited to encoding techniques that are not employed by the H.26x family of codecs and other proprietary codecs. H.266 will have no such limitation and will also be able to employ techniques used by the "free" codecs if desired. So it will have an edge.
Santoval - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link
correction : It is "H.265/HEVC" rather than H.265/AVC. "AVC" is another name for the older H.264 codec.ksec - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link
We should have more VVC news this year. Many companies are putting AV1 testing support in non-mobile area. I read that as basically Industry is saying we are ready, make VVC works or we will leave.GreenReaper - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link
Depends on the usage. For video files you expect to be downloaded thousands of times? Probably. But maybe not for the average YouTube upload. Given how the cost of CPU cores has been tumbling, and the performance of the encoder improving, it should be far more viable once hardware is in people's hands.oRAirwolf - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link
So do these TV's come with HDMI 2.1? How does one even play 8K content on them unless you use the built in players like YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, etc?khanikun - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link
HDMI 2.0 supports 8k @ 24 or 30 fpsbeisat - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link
As far as I've read, Samsungs TVs this year come with HDMI 2.1, but do not support eARC...Probably could be added via fw update in theory, but wouldn't bet on that. Dead on arrival in my opinion.lilkwarrior - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link
Kudos to Samsung adding AV1 video support, wow!jey957 - Wednesday, September 9, 2020 - link
Nice, cool videos at https://jsvidos.com/