Talk:Essential Video Coding

Both Parts of MPEG-5
French wiki writes:

Mpeg5 part 1 = Essential Video Coding = EVC

The codec will be composed of the base profil free of rights and paid (that is with Rights according to some jurisdictions) main profil.

The Main Profile will contain 21 tools that can be independently activated or not and offer increased compression Rate.

MPEG-5 Part 2 = Low Compression Enhanced Video Coding = LC EVC

This standard will improve the compression of any video stream regardless of the basic codec used.

And this info is from me:

Or more precisely is based on about 1h long official lecture - presentation on YouTube (with less the 100 views):

It will have backward compatibility mode.

For example mpeg2 or mpeg4 broadcast with additional Data Frame for Mpeg5 in Transport Stream in order to increase quality, without adding fully paid additional stream with repeated every redundant information just from beginning once more.

It can definitely increase much quality.

But I do not know if it can be used for SD broadcast in mpeg4 in order to increase resolution to HD by Mpeg5 video data frames.

I suppose someone could check that.

I would like to encourage to rename Article, change Title and reorganize

And most of all, to include information from French wiki into English wiki.

If anyone would be asking Both Parts of MPEG-5 are as much notable:

One - 1st one exactly as notable as the other - 2nd one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.221.231.106 (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As you have seen (you added the link – thanks for that) LCEVC has a separate page. It is not that it doesn't matter or anything, just that they are in separate articles. As for whether they should be in separate articles, I think the technical standpoint must be that EVC and LC EVC are completely unrelated. LC EVC is a rebranding of V-Nova Perseus, that did something innovative, whereas EVC is this defensive distillation of 20 year old tech. As such, the common "MPEG-5" label is just a label in this case (and labels don't count as ground truth for what something is and does). If this is what matters, then the two video formats demand separate treatment, unless they can be assumed to be too small topics of their own.Anordal (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

2021
As it is now 2021 the first sentence needs to be rewritten. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC) I did.

XxBradMacxX (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "True to its word, MPEG has delivered the first milestone, announcing the completion of EVC, also known as ISO/IEC 23094-1 standard. As a result, EVC has now been promoted to Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) status.


 * The decision by MPEG WG11 was reached at its →130← meeting, held virtually for the first time last month in April."


 * Previous data are from MPEG →125← meeting and are referencing to future which has been now past.
 * You did it without new reference.
 * I do not mean you did it wrong, you have respelled grammar to current date.
 * with no new reference available to you.
 * But now is new reference point.
 * I suppose there is better website to reference from that CSImagazine
 * That is why I leave this information on Talk Page, and do not incorporate it within main article.
 * Although I have checked german wiki, and there are using and quoting the same exact reference.
 * OK I have edited, since the same reference is within German Language wiki.

REVC deleteted
REVC - The One and The Only One reference to working Open Source Software was deleted.

It is strange to call that not notable enough.

I suppose a lot of software needs to be deleted: Lists_of_software

How can be that:

The One and The Only One objectivly and objectivly working open source software be not notable enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.202.138 (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

EVC Licensing Compatibility with AVC, HEVC or even VVC
EVC Licensing Overlap with AVC, HEVC or even VVC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.190.185.137 (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

EVC main profile is paid.

it consist of payable 21 independent tools, which are independently switchable.

Number 21 is in: French, Spanish and Polish wikipedia.

Since the tools are patented, and patent is not much ascribed to EVC as to company which is a patent holder.

I would like to ask how many of this tools share payment or patent together with payable H264 / AVC - MPEG-4 or HEVC????????

And since EVC baseprofile is free of cost however can be implemented on physical devices sharing patents with H264 / AVC - MPEG-4 or HEVC:

How many of these 21 patented technological tools are allowed to be used by device which already paid License for the usage of full patents of H264 / AVC - MPEG-4 or HEVC???

I would like to ask also how many Patents of HEVC are there within 21 technological patented tools of EVC or within 4 fully independently switchable patent pools of VVC ????

I suppose such Licencing Fee Answers are very much expected and longed for

and They are even more vital for adoption speed than Technological Questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.193.238 (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Picture Quality Effectiveness for the same bitrate of MPEG Codecs
Picture Quality Effectiveness for the same bitrate of MPEG Codecs (for best and slowest quality settings)

it is not a mystery, and it is not debatable, as its Limits are based in math,

and are not disputable by neither MPEG nor ITU-T nor ISO

0)obsolete: MPEG-1, then MPEG-2 with expired patents and royalty free

1)royalty free EVC base profile - Part 1st of Mpeg5 the same as MPEG4 or H.264 - AVC

2)HEVC ↔ mpegH ↔ H265 the same as: (MPEG4 or H.264 - AVC with LC EVC)

3)payable EVC main profile better than HEVC ↔ mpegH ↔ H265, and worst from VVC ↔ MPEGi ↔ H266

4)VVC ↔ MPEGi ↔ H266 - the same quality as both parts of Mpeg5 used simultaneously at once: EVC+LC EVC  (or royalty free AV1 + LC EVC)

5)Best Picture Quality:) VVC + LC EVC ↔ MPEG i+5part 2nd

Of course it can be debatable how much precise ±technical psnr toleration it can be true for.

It is general human readable format for humans, not for ±∞ of infinite precision of every codec usage case.

Disputable can be only that if picture quality for the given bitrate for nonMPEG royalty free Open source AV1 is in technical competition for maximal image quality for given bitrate with HEVC ↔ mpegH ↔ H265 or payable version of EVC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.193.238 (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

21 payable Tools Patent Expiration Dates    please
I would like to read in wikipedia patent expiration dates for each of 21 payable Tools.

I hope someone make some effort to develop article and add some additional information.

The information already exist and should be verifiable.

It is not original research, as it is not creating new information into ∃ existence just describing already existing information in patent offices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.221.231.106 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

License
I suppose there would be need for more detailed License sections: Player / decoder / encoder software / hardware device private person / personal usage vs Juridical person / Legal person like: Broadcaster / WebSite / OTT Service / Cable Network / VOD Provider commercial non directly publishing person: Video Editor

Patent
I'm not sure if this overlaps sufficiently with the "License" section, but the one sentence on patents has no sources, is poorly written, and doesn't clearly explain the patent advantages that MPAI seems to claim over competing standards organizations. Some of this information is on the following page of their website (which frankly goes over my head; it would be great to have someone knowledgable on patent law to translate it into layman's terms): [Https://mpai.community/about/the-mpai-patent-policy/ https://mpai.community/about/the-mpai-patent-policy/] ThePlug111 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * intellectual property core
 * Generaly advantege is that each group of pantents can be turned off, or on from the beginning.
 * A lot of other codecs does not have that advantage, although, some codec could have advantage added.
 * But such later addition cost, as one would need hire own programmers to identify and rewrite a lot of code.
 * This codec has it from beginning.
 * it gives Leverage in (negotiation) and single patent holder can not halt adoption of whole video codec.
 * If one can not acquire License for each patent, and codec is not written, whole codecs becomes unusable unlicensed.
 * MPEG-i - H266 VVC is written similary, however it may have only 4 independent and switchable patent pools,
 * Maybe a littlebit more however main point of VVC is coding efficiency,
 * and main point of EVC is patent colisionproofability of Licensability
 * (Sorry, but it is explained in layman's terms,
 * and I do not have spelling dictionary on this device).
 * MPAI builts on top of Base profile, so it can be Patents free codec Like AV1,
 * however even AV1 has some patent claims, and AV1 does not include AI or Machine Lerning which is main focus of MPAI.
 * If one would tray to build AI/ML into some codec, which already has problems with Licensability,
 * pending patent claims/ law suits one would only add to problems of negotiating terms of final Licesne.
 * It is dependency hell, but in Law domain.
 * So it is good to start on really no patent, however one can argue it was what AV1 was meant to achieve, but failed in some jurisdictions.
 * It may be because corrupt law system or law reallity, or because real patent infringement.
 * Using EVC base profile free of patents is some solution to these problems.
 * But there may be some patents for AI/ML. 79.187.34.81 (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

MPAI-EVC
It is not the Same as title:

Enhanced ≠ Essential

MPAI-E nhanced V ideo C oding

MPEG-5 E ssential V ideo C oding

as claimed by Edition by @ThePlug111

However I must confess that:

I have encountered that a lot of person are confusing the distinction in that case. 46.187.193.217 (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I can't believe a) that I hadn't noticed that and b) that they would choose such a confusing set of names. It might be valuable to inset a sentence somewhere in hte article saying something like "not to be confused with Enhanced Video Coding". ThePlug111 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think avoiding of such confusion is important for people using Layman's terms.
 * Because there is NO MPAI-EVC without MPEG-5 Part1: EVC.
 * So Laymans are allowed to be a little confused.
 * MPAI is just next Generation of MPEG.
 * It is something like MPEG v2.0 (and that's a Layman's term).
 * Therefore one can say MPEG-5 EVC v2.0 is MPAI-EVC (and that's a Layman's term).
 * Laymans looking at world in low resolution do not need to distinguish such thinks.
 * What I have tried to say by all of that ↑ is:
 * That name is carefully choosen to intuitively Replace and to point on certain Level of sameness or continuation and correlation.
 * -) 46.187.193.217 (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What I have tried to say by all of that ↑ is:
 * That name is carefully choosen to intuitively Replace and to point on certain Level of sameness or continuation and correlation.
 * -) 46.187.193.217 (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)