I have not ignored the technical conversation, I have referred you to an organisation that will know more
about the subject than you do
That means I dont have to waste my time arguing with random people on the internet.
tl;dr I don't have any rebuttal for any of the point raised so I'll just post bbc.com while cherrypicking these posts.
Pure comedy.
It absolutely
does.
If you had actually bothered to read the links I posted you would have seen
In addition to this work, the video coding team is also looking into even newer and more advanced solutions to ensure the BBC is future-proof in terms
of delivering content to audiences. BBC
R&D is now researching and testing new and emerging video compression standards, like the royalty free
AV1, and the
VVC standard, which will replace HEVC in the coming years.
In doing so, we are always striving to make our findings public, to share knowledge and to help move the industry in the right direction.
Looking at != supporting. In fact, they already "chose" VVC.
BBC R&D has released the first version of the Turing codec, an open source software HEVC video encoder
that allows highly efficient compression of video content with low computational complexity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2016-09-turing-codec
How does a libre HEVC encoder have anything to do with AV1 support?
Anyway, you are one for the ignore button
Childish but understandable.
That whole exchange reminds me of the TotalDac thread: I raised technical points in quite good faith at the beginning, like the fact that x264 became the
de-facto reference AVC encoder only after completely ignoring PSNR/SSIM tuning, and only got a condescending response via a sham paper.
Anyway, the whole thing was you confusing "PSNR is bad and almost unimportant when aiming for perceptual quality in lossy codecs" with "objective
measurements don't matter LOL!", this doesn't warrant flame like this.
Uh, you are aware that papers are written so that people don't have to repeat themselves, yes?
I thought they were here to present or explain theories to other researchers/interested people? Anyway, if these papers were related with the points I
raised, I would have no complaints; but none of these points were adressed by the paper or March himself.