People store large quantities of data in their electronic devices and transfer some of this data to others, whether for professional or personal reasons. Data compression methods are thus of the utmost importance, as they can boost the efficiency of devices and communications, making users less reliant on cloud data services and external storage devices.
I found the article to be rather confusing.
One thing to point out is that the video codec used in this research (but for which results weren’t published for some reason), H264, is not at all state of the art.
H265 is far newer and they are already working on H266. There are also other much higher quality codecs such as AV1. For what it’s worth, they do reference H265, but I don’t have access to the source research paper, so it’s difficult to say what they are comparing against.
The performance relative to FLAC is interesting though.
Vvc is h266, the spec is ready it’s just not in a lot of hardware, or even decent software yet, that often takes a few years. The reference implementation encodes at like 1fps or less, but reference software is usually slow as hell in favor of correctness and code comprehension.
Av1 isn’t much better than hevc (h265), it’s just open and patent free and Google is pushing it like crazy.
It has iirc 1 major feature over hevc, non-square subpictures, beyond that it has some extensions for animation and slideshows basically.
I wonder what the practical reasons for starting with h.264 are.
Low/no patent issues, much simpler complexity