> You can't compare reference WIP codec with optimized one. The premise of the entire paragraph is just wrong.
AOM dev here.
Currently, aomenc takes ~100s to encode a single 4K frame.
Which means to encode live 4K 60 FPS, you need to multiply the encoding speed by 6000 (!).
Indeed, the codec isn't fully optimized yet, and the required performance improvement is huge.
Of course this freaks people out!
On the other hand, reference video encoders are famous for being ridiculously slow. The JM (H.264 ref encoder) had similar encoding times, and this didn't stop H.264 from being encoded live.
This was exactly my point. I remember when the JM encoder was so slow, that it encoded 3 or 4 frames per hour. That's why 100 sec/frame for the reference says nothing about the final performance and putting out articles creating the "general knowledge of what everybody knows" that AV1 is slow is at best disingenuous, at worst malicious.
AOM dev here. Currently, aomenc takes ~100s to encode a single 4K frame. Which means to encode live 4K 60 FPS, you need to multiply the encoding speed by 6000 (!). Indeed, the codec isn't fully optimized yet, and the required performance improvement is huge. Of course this freaks people out!
On the other hand, reference video encoders are famous for being ridiculously slow. The JM (H.264 ref encoder) had similar encoding times, and this didn't stop H.264 from being encoded live.