But equally x265 likes to refer to MSU comparisons when the results make x265 look good: http://www.x265.org/
An x265 post referencing another paper which says HEVC outperforms AV1. The post insinuates AV1 might not be royalty-free. Reads like an attempt to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt: http://www.x265.org/excited-av1-closing-doors/
MSU actually in the meantime updated their description. According to them they used a more recent version – see the Facebook comment thread below the streamingmedia.com link you shared.
But indeed it's a little bit ironic for someone advocating for HEVC to be concerned about patent royalties and licensing.
Thanks for the heads up. I didn't see those Facebook comments because Firefox's tracking protection blocked it (which in general is what I want). The x265 team really should add an update to their blog post to explain that MSU corrected the version number error.
x264 or x265 was basically never tuned for PSNR or SSIM what ever metrics. Basically the 30-40% AV1 claimed to be better in those value. And in that case, the x265 developer isn't wrong, it is very much the picture, not the values that matters.
VMAF should hopefully bring much more useful numbers. But we will have to see and put some time in since it is very new.
MSU's comparison: http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/Online-Video-New...
x265 complained about the recent MSU test: http://www.x265.org/x265-incorrectly-represented-msus-2017-c...
But equally x265 likes to refer to MSU comparisons when the results make x265 look good: http://www.x265.org/
An x265 post referencing another paper which says HEVC outperforms AV1. The post insinuates AV1 might not be royalty-free. Reads like an attempt to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt: http://www.x265.org/excited-av1-closing-doors/