Support AV1 Video Encoding and Decoding

[Eccentric Locust]

AV1 has been becoming a more and more popular codec for not just streamers, but also content creators and filmmakers. Video hosting platforms, such as YouTube, are now implementing AV1 as a way to easily stream video content to audiences at lower bandwidths. Filmmakers, and especially content creators, are asking for AV1 for creating high quality content without too much compromise for file sizes and ease of use when viewing.

Having the benefit of AV1 video will help with preserving the best image quality at a much smaller and efficient file size than codecs like H.264. HEVC/H.265 is supported in Premiere Pro and it's a very nice codec. In fact, both HEVC and AV1 perform very similarly. However, it would be wonderful to have the flexibility of additional codecs that are gaining traction in modern media.

HEVC isn't supported everywhere, largely due to their licensing slowing down adoption. Meanwhile, AV1 is open source, so it would be easier to adopt without the concern for licensing; thus, making it more popular with platforms than HEVC.

Competing video editing platforms have also supported AV1 encoding and decoding for some time and I have been wanting Adobe to look into it for a while.

Overall, I highly recommend Adobe include AV1 encoding and decoding support for Premiere Pro. I strongly believe it will heavily encourage more people to create the best content with a codec that is extremely efficient as it is excellent at preserving image quality.

[BGlasthal]

Have you tested that to say why its bad for repeat usage or realistic editing? You seem to be just denouncing it as bad for that, then asking those posting for it to prove your opinion. 

The fact of the matter is that it is a mature codec at this point, with lots of support from major tech firms for the hardware of encoding and decoding, and for a large market for video content. It may not be used as the primary for TV stations or film studios at this time, but online media production is still a major industry. It's odd many are trying to act like Premiere Pro exists only for those industries, and downlplaying a codec that is used for another large subsect. 

[RjL190365]

The reason is multiple-generation degradation of image quality, not that it's necessarily bad. If you export in AV1 or any other lossy compressed code for a client, who then makes another re-encoded copy of that copy for somebody else, then yes, it will degrade more than if you exported in a less-lossy codec such as ProRes 422 to a client who then re-encodes a new copy of that into a lossy delivery codec.

[R Neil Haugen]

RJL made my point. AV1 is fine as long as you recognize it is an end-use encoding. A deliverable encoding. To be used to deliver content.

I would personally never consider it of a quality for any content I would expect to ever reuse. Or archive with it.

At which point it is one of several potential codecs. 

I don't question the usefulness as a deliverable at all. 

[RjL190365]

With that said, if that's all the editor receives from a client, then it's not so bad, as long as the editor transcodes it back to a less-compressed intermediate codec before manipulating it further in order to minimize the image-quality degradation.

Remember, when Premiere Pro was conceived (not to be confused with the original Premiere), it was designed primarily for the big studio-camera high-bitrate (relatively speaking) acquisition codecs then in use, while support for the currently popular lossy-compressed codecs added on later as editing became more popular.

[charlie_3794]

I'm just adding my voice that I also want AV1 support. My reasons are similar to many who have replied in this thread. Adobe is losing subscriptions for not supporting this popular codec that its competitors have supported years ago.

[R Neil Haugen]

Out of curiousity, what specifically do you use that for? And what are the specific reasons it's better than any of the other codecs?

[RjL190365]

I cannot say anything specifically regarding Adobe, but it has been known that some tech companies have a grudge against open-source—that is, those companies officially support only pay-to-use commercially licensed codecs, just like Blackmagic Design (Davinci Resolve) has a grudge against Dolby Laboratories regarding AC-3 support.

[2001bc]

Specifically, websites. AV1 is ideal for website video as more browsers support it and load speed is vital for web. Many websites are incorporating video now and that trend will only increase. PLEASE, add AV1 support.

[R Neil Haugen]

THAT is a great post for something like this, as it gives a solid reason for a needed use. Thank you!

And adding data about differences between that and H.265/HEIC codec performance for that use would be another thing to do. Data always is better than "I want x." when asking for changes to an app.

[Anicca2321]

As someone who edits doc-style educational videos for YouTube, I find a lot of my b-roll on YouTube. Sometimes it's a requirement for me to pull one of my client's old YouTube videos to use in a new edit. More often than not when I download from YouTube it's encoded with AV01. I have to re-encode every one of those videos with Shuttle Encoder before I can use it in my project. It's a huge waste of time and I have to do it up to 30+ times on every edit.

Considering the first reply on this thread is almost 8 years old, I'm starting to think that, depressingly, Premiere will never add AV1 support.

[R Neil Haugen]

Thanks for posting. As your information is precisely the kind of comment that can elicit informed support.

I do trust that when using Handbrake or ShutterEncoder to do transcodes, you are doing batch transcoding, not one at a time?

[Anicca2321]

Yes, I batch them whenever I can. For multiple 10+ minute YouTube videos it can take hours for Shutter Encoder to re-compress them as H264. It's difficult to edit while this is happening because it's a system-heavy process, which makes things all the more stressful on a tight deadline. (Sometimes I'll re-encode as ProRes 422 which is faster, but it's not always feasible with remote editing because the resulting files are enormous; a single 20-minute 4K YouTube video can be 50GB+ as ProRes.)

[R Neil Haugen]

Excellent data points to add.