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 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

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.