>I suppose if Cisco switches to h.265 for video conferencing, this will be all >me a moot point.
They are a founding member of AOM and already use a software version of AV1 in Webex: https://blog.webex.com/engineering/the-av1-video-codec-comes-to-webex/ If MPAA-LA had actually worked with them on a realistic patent license fee then they might have not funded AOM and be using H.265. AV1 compresses more than H.265 so there is zero point to switch to it. Cisco probably pays for the super powerful AV1 transcoding servers from the savings on reduced network infrastructure needed because the AV1 streams require less network bandwidth than H.265 streams would. Webex like all of those apps use streams sent to the Cisco Webex server. So for now, H.264 streams go from a Webex participant to the Webex server, and are likely transcoded to AV1 with super powerful servers, then sent back out to all participants. If the Webex client is on a mobile phone with a CPU that has an AV1 encoder chip then Cisco encodes it to AV1 from the participant. >https://www.videolan.org/developers/x265.html >can be linked to vlc and ffmpeg, and anything linked to them. Ffmpeg binaries are a patent violation and distributing them is a violation. It is small enough that MPAA-LA is not going after them. But it makes it impossible to use ffmpeg with libxh265 in anything corporate. MPAA-LA does not care about you viewing your security cam in your house, LOL. In any case the corporate types use CPU's that have H.265 hardware codecs. Reolink uses the Novatek NT98562 hardware encoder chip for example: https://serhack.me/articles/introduction-firmware-analysis-ip-camera-reolink/ AV1 is designed to use a lot less CPU and power for decoding than encoding. You can use ffmpeg compiled with libdav1d and get all the fast AV1 decoding you want on any platform you want. But to encode with ffmpeg needs libaom and it's an extraordinarily painful process. We are talking hours for just a short few minute video. Microsoft hands out an AV1 decoder for free as well. Firefox also uses libdav1d and they also added support for hardware AV1 decoding recently. AV1 decoding is NOT the issue with ffmpeg or web browsers and with transcoding an incoming AV1 stream, so viewing AV1 in a browser is NOT the problem. ENCODING is the problem and that will have to take hardware encoders and support for them. The reason that cams like the Reolink cams use H.265 to encode is because right now the hardware AV1 encoders are way more expensive (Nvidia ADA Lovelace for example) Even with Novatek having to pay the MPAA-LA patent their H.265 hardware encoder chip is cheaper than a hardware AV1 encoder. Now. That will change in the future, though. >https://www.libde265.org/blog/2014/02/22/gstreamer-4k-h265-hevc-plugin/ >Anything that uses gstreamer can play h.265 with this gst plugin and >libde265 library.. None of this hodgepodge of programs is going to be able to keep up with encoding a video stream using A low power CPU like the ARM A9 in a camera. That's why they use hardware encoders. >Whether a plugin/extension/HTML5/js/nodejs can be massaged so as to display in >a web browser is another exercise. Once more it's pointless since Chrome supports the hardware decoders in Kaby Lake and later CPUs that have them. >H.265 is a topic on the Zoneminder forums, so they are aware: >https://forums.zoneminder.com/viewtopic.php?t=31787 Actually, everything on that above link is wrong. The first post says: "the issue is, once enabled, zoneminder no longer allows you to watch saved events or scrub multiple events." Which is completely wrong since I'm staring at a Zoneminder saved event that is saved in H.265 right this second with no problems! There's also a post in that thread about decoding H.265 in Javascript which is nuts because because Chrome/Edge on modern hardware can already display native H.265. The whole javascript idea would only benefit Firefox, and Chrome running on older hardware. It would be a lot less work to just write a patch for Firefox to use the hardware decoder. Mozilla did this for the hardware AV1 decoders already, they can do it for the hardware H.265 decoders easily. I think the posters in that thread really were unclear on the issue. Of course, that thread is older than the fix that Google made to Chrome to support hardware decoders. >https://forums.zoneminder.com/viewtopic.php?p=129677&hilit=H.265#p129677 This link is accurate. ZM transcodes incoming H.265 or any other video codec a camera might use into H.264 for the live view. The initial poster of that thread very likely had some other issue in his configuration. >Unfortunately, I missed your Zoneminder talk. I have it running here with 2 >cellphones [1] and just added a Reolink E1 >Pro [2]. Once I figured out that I >needed their windows app (WINE FTW!) to activate rtsp and ONVIF I was able to >find >the h264 streams. why were these disabled by default and no web console! You don't need their windows app to activate rtsp in most Reolink cams. You can access the camera admin interface with a web browser and go to network settings and there's a tickbox that is buried there that turns on the protocol. It is interesting to find out you enabled rtsp on an E1. According to the following from Reolink the E1 does not support rtsp: https://support.reolink.com/hc/en-us/articles/900000617826-Which-Reolink-Products-Support-CGI-RTSP-ONVIF RTSP All Reolink cameras and NVRs except for battery-powered cameras, cameras in the NVR kits, E1 and Lumus But personally I'm not much interested in wifi security cameras like the E1. In Oregon the law says it's illegal to record someone where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and most indoor homes have that expectation implied so as a rule I refuse to assist or install video cameras inside of a home. If someone wants to record their cat while they are away, that's fine, but a DIY set-and forget wifi cam like the E1 is what they use, and they won't be calling me to help them. Retail businesses are public places so I do those, and wifi cams are just not reliable enough plus most businesses doing indoor cams have drop ceilings so it's easy to run ethernet cables to cams. >https://www.linuxgalaxy.org/kingbeowulf/repurpose-cellphones-as-home-security-cameras/ Yeah that one has banging around for a while. Most people in homes want to use security cams outside and weatherproofing a cell phone is not easy. It might be fun for making cat videos of your cats when you aren't home, though. But the big issue is you still have to run a charging cable to the phone. So if you are going to run a cable to it then dispense with it and just run an ethernet cable to a real cam. The idea of using an indoor wifi cam or phone for security is ridiculous, if they can get inside of your house to be able to be seen by the indoor camera you have already lost. >If you happen to know how to get the Zoneminder camera motion control working >on E1 pro, ping me offlist! Call Reolink support! Seriously - makers like Reolink depend on tech support to know what additions they need to make to their products. Ted
