免费转换 AV1 文件

为什么我的设备播放瞬间下载的 AV1 视频时会有困难？

AV1 解码需要比 H.264 或甚至 H.265 显著更多的处理能力。AV1 的先进压缩算法使文件大小减少 30-50%，但在播放时增加了计算复杂性。旧设备（2020 年之前的 CPU、预算智能手机、旧款智能电视）缺乏硬件 AV1 解码器，迫使软件解码，这会使 CPU 达到极限，导致卡顿、掉帧和电池耗尽。您的设备快速下载 AV1（小文件），但无法快速解码以实现流畅播放。

Hardware support timeline: Intel 11th gen (2021+), AMD Ryzen 6000+ (2022+), Apple M1+ (2020+), NVIDIA RTX 30 series+ (2020+) include hardware AV1 decoders enabling smooth playback. Phones: iPhone 15+ (2023), Pixel 6+ (2021), Samsung Galaxy S21+ support hardware AV1. Devices older than ~2021 typically lack hardware support. Check your device specs - if no hardware AV1 decoder listed, playback will struggle especially at 4K resolution. Software decoding 1080p AV1 is barely feasible on powerful CPUs; 4K AV1 requires hardware decode.

我应该将我的视频库编码为 AV1 还是坚持使用 H.265？

AV1 和 H.265 之间的权衡：

压缩效率

AV1 在相同感知质量下实现比 H.265 更好的压缩，提升 25-40%。对于存档库而言，这意味着巨大的节省 - 1TB 的 H.265 内容在 AV1 中变为 600-750GB。如果存储数百或数千个视频，空间节省是值得的。然而，改进因内容类型而异 - 动画/CGI 在 AV1 中压缩得更好，实拍镜头则获得适度提升。在承诺进行完整库转换之前，请使用代表性样本进行测试。

编码时间

AV1 编码速度极慢 - 比 H.265 慢 5-10 倍，比 H.264 慢 20-30 倍。将 2 小时的电影编码为 AV1 可能需要在强大 CPU 上花费 20-40 小时，即使使用硬件编码器（Intel QSV、AMD VCE）也会牺牲质量以换取速度。软件编码（libaom、SVT-AV1）产生更好的质量，但需要更长时间。对于大型库，编码时间是一个障碍。考虑：30% 的空间节省是否值得数周的编码时间？通常仅在永久存档的情况下，您只需编码一次并永久保存。

兼容性

H.265 在 2016 年及以后的大多数设备上播放；AV1 需要 2020 年及以后的硬件。如果与他人共享视频或在多个设备上播放，H.265 今天具有更广泛的兼容性。AV1 的兼容性每年都在改善，但尚未普遍。网络浏览器支持 AV1（Chrome、Firefox、Edge），使其适合流媒体，但下载视频播放取决于设备能力。选择 H.265 以获得兼容性，选择 AV1 以获得效率和未来保障。

专利自由

AV1 是免版税的（没有许可费用，没有专利问题）。H.265 具有复杂的专利许可，与 MPEG-LA、HEVC Advance、Velos Media 相关，需要商业使用的费用。对于个人使用，这无关紧要；对于内容创作者或企业，AV1 的专利自由是显著优势。这就是为什么 YouTube、Netflix 和流媒体服务推动 AV1 - 避免专利许可成本。如果您可能会将内容货币化或商业使用，AV1 消除了法律复杂性。

建议：对一般库使用 H.265（兼容性 + 效率平衡）。对珍贵内容的存档副本使用 AV1，在空间节省合理化编码时间的情况下，或在专利自由重要的新内容创作中使用 AV1。除非空间是关键限制，否则不要将整个库重新编码为 AV1。

为什么 YouTube 和 Netflix 提供 AV1 流，但我的下载仍然是 H.264？

{faq_3_intro}

{faq_3_web_title}

{faq_3_web_desc}

{faq_3_photos_title}

{faq_3_photos_desc}

{faq_3_graphics_title}

{faq_3_graphics_desc}

{faq_3_print_title}

{faq_3_print_desc}

{faq_3_social_title}

{faq_3_social_desc}

{faq_3_professional_title}

{faq_3_professional_desc}

{faq_3_mobile_title}

{faq_3_mobile_desc}

{faq_3_outro}

我该如何高效地将现有的 H.264/H.265 库转换为 AV1？

{faq_4_answer_p1}

{faq_4_answer_p2}

{faq_4_answer_p3}

AV1、VP9 和 H.265 在 4K 视频中有什么区别？

All three are 4K-capable codecs with different trade-offs. H.265 (2013): mature, wide hardware support, good compression, patent encumbered. VP9 (2013): Google's royalty-free codec, YouTube standard for years, hardware support in most 2017+ devices, compression similar to H.265. AV1 (2018): newest, best compression (20-30% better than H.265/VP9), royalty-free, limited hardware support but rapidly improving. For 4K content, compression efficiency matters enormously - 50GB 4K movie in H.265 becomes 35-40GB in AV1.

编码时间比较：H.265 是基准。VP9 比 H.265 慢 2-3 倍。AV1 比 H.265 慢 5-10 倍，对于 4K 来说极其缓慢。2 小时的 4K 电影：H.265 编码需要 2-4 小时（快速预设），AV1 需要 20-40 小时（中等预设）。硬件编码器可以减少时间，但会影响质量。对于用户生成的 4K 内容，H.265 仍然是实用的选择。对于专业存档或流媒体服务准备，AV1 的优越压缩使编码时间合理化。

Playback support: H.265 plays on nearly everything modern (2016+ devices). VP9 has good browser support (YouTube uses it) but limited hardware decode in non-Google devices. AV1 requires latest hardware (2020+) for smooth 4K playback. Choose format based on target audience: H.265 for broad compatibility, VP9 for web streaming with YouTube, AV1 for future-proofing and maximum compression. Don't encode family 4K videos in AV1 if relatives have older devices - they won't play. Use H.265 for compatibility, convert AV1 copy for your own archival if desired.

我可以编码 AV1 视频，但保持与旧设备的兼容性吗？

No - AV1 playback requires AV1 decoder. Can't make AV1 file compatible with devices lacking AV1 support. Solution is maintaining multiple versions: AV1 for archival/personal use (smallest file), H.264 for universal sharing/compatibility. Storage is cheap - keeping both versions costs less than frustration of videos that won't play. Workflow: encode once to high-quality AV1, create H.264 derivative when needed for sharing. Cloud storage (Google Drive, Dropbox) can store AV1 archival while serving H.264 for sharing.

容器考虑：MP4 支持 AV1（自 2020 年起），但并非普遍认可。MKV 在播放器中对 AV1 的支持更好。WebM 是 AV1 原生格式。为了最大限度地兼容 AV1 文件，请使用 MKV 容器：`ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -c:v libsvtav1 -crf 30 output.mkv`。带有 AV1 的 MP4 可能会让一些期望 H.264 的播放器感到困惑。现代播放器可以在任何容器中处理 AV1，但 MKV 是最安全的选择。不要将 AV1 放入遗留格式（AVI）中 - 从技术上讲是可能的，但会破坏播放器的假设。

实际方法：确定您实际使用的设备。如果您所有的设备（计算机、手机、电视、平板电脑）都是 2020 年及以后的，支持 AV1，则将所有内容编码为 AV1。如果某些设备较旧，则保留双库，或将关键视频编码为 H.264，较不重要的内容编码为 AV1。不要过于关注通用兼容性 - 为您拥有的设备编码，而不是理论上的最大兼容性。技术在不断进步；在 2025 年支持 2010 年的设备是不必要的负担。

为什么 AV1 被认为是免版税的，而 H.265 不是？

AV1 was developed by Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia) consortium including Google, Mozilla, Cisco, Netflix, Amazon, Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, Apple specifically to avoid patent licensing mess of H.265. Member companies contributed patents to royalty-free pool under open license. Anyone can implement AV1 encoder/decoder without licensing fees or legal risk (defensive patent clause protects users). This openness enables broad adoption - browsers, open source projects, hardware manufacturers implement AV1 freely without negotiations or fees.

H.265 的专利情况复杂：三个竞争的专利池（MPEG-LA、HEVC Advance、Velos Media）各自要求单独的许可费用。商业产品的总许可成本可能相当可观。此外，一些专利不在池外，造成不确定性。这种复杂性使得公司在网络/流媒体中不愿采用 H.265，尽管其技术优秀。VP9 和 AV1 通过清洁室设计避免了这一专利雷区，参与公司确保了自由运营。这种商业模式的差异比技术规格对格式采用更为重要。

For personal use, H.265 patents don't matter - no one sues individuals encoding home videos. Patents affect companies building products/services. But ecosystem effects matter: browser vendors won't implement H.265 universally due to patent costs, limiting web compatibility. Hardware manufacturers need licenses adding costs. These ecosystem frictions explain why AV1 sees rapid adoption despite being newer and more complex. Patent freedom enables unrestricted implementation driving faster hardware support, software integration, and eventual universal compatibility. Open standards win long-term even if initially technically behind.

How does AV1 achieve better compression than H.265?

Technical improvements in AV1:

Larger Block Structures

AV1 supports up to 128x128 pixel superblocks versus H.265's 64x64 maximum. Larger blocks mean better compression for large uniform areas (sky, walls, static backgrounds) common in 4K video. Also supports more flexible partitioning - asymmetric splits, rectangular shapes enabling precise boundary matching. This flexibility lets encoder adapt block structure to content characteristics reducing prediction errors and improving compression.

Advanced Intra Prediction

AV1 has 87 intra prediction modes versus H.265's 35. More prediction angles mean better matching of textures, edges, gradients without sending actual pixel data. Directional prediction modes capture diagonal patterns, texture orientations efficiently. Filter-based prediction (PAETH, smooth) better handles gradients. Compound prediction combines multiple modes. These improvements particularly benefit high-resolution content where prediction accuracy matters more.

Loop Filtering

AV1 uses sophisticated restoration filters (loop filter, CDEF, loop restoration filter) removing blocking artifacts and compression noise while preserving detail. These filters are Adaptive based on content characteristics and viewing distance assumptions. Better filtering allows higher compression (more aggressive quantization) without visible artifacts. H.265 has simpler deblocking filter. AV1's multi-stage filtering is expensive computationally but enables better quality-per-bitrate.

Film Grain Synthesis

AV1 can strip film grain during encoding (grain compresses poorly), store grain parameters as metadata, synthesize grain during playback. This saves massive bitrate on grainy content (film sources, certain cameras) without losing aesthetic quality. H.265 encodes grain inefficiently wasting bits. Film grain synthesis is optional but powerful for appropriate content. Modern displays with grain synthesis support reproduce original look from tiny metadata footprint.

{faq_8_web_title}

{faq_8_web_desc}

AV1's compression improvements come from hundreds of algorithmic refinements across prediction, transform, filtering, entropy coding. Cumulative effect is 25-40% bitrate savings versus H.265 at same perceptual quality. Cost is encoding/decoding complexity requiring more powerful hardware.

Should I convert AV1 back to H.264 for compatibility or keep both versions?

Keep both if storage permits. Converting AV1→H.264 is lossy generation loss (decode AV1, re-encode H.264) degrading quality. If you encoded H.264→AV1, you already have both - keep original H.264. If you received AV1 file and need H.264 for compatibility, convert with high quality settings minimizing loss: `ffmpeg -i video.av1 -c:v libx264 -crf 18 -c:a copy output.mp4`. Use CRF 18-20 for transparent transcode. File size increases 30-50% but quality preserved well.

Strategic approach: maintain high-quality AV1 as archival master. Generate H.264 derivatives as needed for specific devices/sharing. This forward-compatible workflow ensures you have best-quality version for future use while supporting current devices. Storage is cheaper than quality loss from excessive transcoding. Cloud services make this practical - store AV1 originals in unlimited cloud storage, keep H.264 working copies locally on devices with limited space.

Alternative: educate recipients to use modern players. VLC (version 3.0+), MPV, modern Chrome/Firefox play AV1 fine even without hardware decode (if CPU sufficient). Instead of converting video for compatibility, send AV1 file with player recommendation. Many compatibility problems are player limitations not codec issues. Sharing 4K AV1 videos with instruction to use VLC is often better than sharing larger H.264 files. Recipients benefit from smaller downloads; you avoid transcoding quality loss.

What settings should I use for encoding AV1 for YouTube, streaming, or archival?

Recommended AV1 encoding settings by use case:

YouTube Upload

YouTube re-encodes all uploads so don't upload AV1 unless it's your only source. Upload highest quality H.264 or H.265 source, let YouTube create AV1 streams. If uploading AV1: `ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -c:v libsvtav1 -crf 26 -preset 6 -pix_fmt yuv420p -c:a libopus -b:a 128k output.mkv`. CRF 24-28 provides good quality without excessive bitrate. YouTube transcodes anyway so don't waste time on perfect encoding. Focus on good source quality; let platform handle distribution formats.

Streaming Preparation

For self-hosted streaming (Plex, Jellyfin, personal site), encode multiple bitrate ladders: 4K at CRF 28-30, 1080p at CRF 30-32, 720p at CRF 32-34 using SVT-AV1 preset 6-8. Include H.264 fallback versions for clients without AV1 support. Test playback on target devices before committing to full library conversion. Streaming services do this professionally with automated encoding pipelines; individuals should start small and expand based on actual device compatibility.

Archival Master

Archival encoding prioritizes quality over speed: `ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -c:v libsvtav1 -crf 24 -preset 4 -g 240 -pix_fmt yuv420p10le -c:a libopus -b:a 256k output.mkv`. CRF 22-26 for near-lossless quality. Preset 3-5 for best compression (slower encoding acceptable for permanent archive). 10-bit color (yuv420p10le) preserves gradients better. Opus audio at 192-256kbps for transparency. Accept encoding time measured in hours - archival is one-time investment.

Quick Encoding

For fast turnaround (sharing, quick projects), sacrifice quality for speed: hardware encoder if available (`-c:v av1_qsv -preset fast`) or SVT-AV1 preset 10-12 with CRF 32-35. Quality acceptable for casual viewing, encodes much faster. Don't use for permanent archival. Fast AV1 encoding is competitive with medium-speed H.264 encoding in time while producing smaller files. Good for iterative workflows where speed matters.

{faq_10_unix_title}

{faq_10_unix_desc}

{faq_10_portable_title}

{faq_10_portable_desc}

{faq_10_legacy_title}

{faq_10_legacy_desc}

{faq_10_specialized_title}

{faq_10_specialized_desc}

{faq_10_fax_title}

{faq_10_fax_desc}

{faq_10_retro_title}

{faq_10_retro_desc}

Why do some AV1 files play with perfect quality but stuttering while others are smooth?

AV1 complexity varies by encoding settings. Video encoded with complex settings (low-speed preset, many reference frames, advanced features) requires more decoding power than simple AV1 encode. Your hardware decoder has throughput limits - simple AV1 plays smoothly, complex AV1 exceeds decoder capability causing stutter. Software decoding is even more sensitive to encoding complexity. Encoder preset directly impacts decode difficulty: preset 4 (slow) creates complex bitstream hard to decode, preset 10 (fast) creates simple bitstream easier to decode.

Resolution and bitrate matter: 4K AV1 requires 4x decoding bandwidth of 1080p. Higher bitrate (lower CRF) means more data to decode per frame. Your hardware might handle 1080p AV1 at CRF 28 perfectly but stutter on 4K AV1 at CRF 20. If experiencing playback issues, try: reduce resolution, use faster encoder preset (less complex bitstream), or convert to H.264/H.265. VLC and MPV show dropped frame statistics (View → Statistics) revealing if playback can't keep up.

Browser vs native playback: browsers use different AV1 decoders than system players. Video that stutters in Chrome might play fine in VLC using hardware decode, or vice versa. Browser decoders prioritize security/sandboxing over performance. Try different players - MPV often has best AV1 performance, VLC is good general choice, native Chrome/Firefox for web content. Update drivers and player software - AV1 decode performance improves dramatically with updates as implementation matures.

Is AV1 worth using for screen recordings and tutorials?

Maybe - depends on content characteristics. AV1 excels at natural images (camera footage, graphics, animation) but advantage over H.264 is smaller for screen content with sharp text and large static areas. Screen recordings compress well in any modern codec because of static regions. AV1 might save 20-30% over H.264 for screen content versus 40-50% for camera footage. Smaller improvement plus slow encoding and compatibility issues make H.264 often better choice for screen recordings.

Exception: screen recordings with video playback within capture (tutorial showing video editing) benefit more from AV1 because of video content. Pure UI recordings with text/icons compress efficiently in H.264 already. Test with sample: encode 1-minute screen recording in both H.264 (CRF 23) and AV1 (CRF 30), compare file sizes and quality. If AV1 is only 15-20% smaller with much longer encoding time, H.264 is pragmatic choice. If savings are 35%+, AV1 worth consideration especially for large tutorial library.

Practical recommendation: encode screen recordings in H.264 for immediate use and compatibility. If building large tutorial library for long-term hosting (courses, documentation), create AV1 versions for bandwidth savings over years of delivery. Screen recording advantage of AV1 is modest but for high-traffic content, bandwidth savings compound. Personal tutorials shared occasionally: H.264 sufficient. Professional course content served to thousands: AV1 savings justify effort.

How does AV1 perform with animation and CGI versus live action footage?

AV1 shines brightest with animation and CGI - often 40-60% smaller than H.265 at same quality. Animation has characteristics AV1 exploits efficiently: large flat colored areas (superblocks), clean edges (precise prediction), consistent frame-to-frame (temporal compression), no film grain (no wasted bits on noise). Anime, 3D animation, motion graphics compress extraordinarily well in AV1. If encoding animation library, AV1 offers compelling benefits despite slow encoding. Space savings are dramatic and consistent.

Live action benefits less - typically 25-35% savings over H.265. Real camera footage has complex textures, film grain, lighting variations, motion blur, compression-hostile characteristics. AV1 still better than H.265 but difference is smaller. Within live action, genre matters: action movies with complex motion save less than dialogue-heavy dramas with static shots. Test representative samples before committing to full library conversion. Animation/CGI is clear win for AV1; live action is incremental improvement.

Hybrid content (live action with CGI) gets intermediate benefits. Scenes with CGI compress exceptionally, practical footage compresses moderately, averaging to good overall savings. Marvel movies, sci-fi with heavy VFX benefit more from AV1 than pure live action. Encoder doesn't automatically detect content type - compression efficiency differences emerge naturally from content characteristics. Don't encode settings based on genre; results will reflect content automatically. Use consistent high-quality settings and let compression efficiency fall where it may.

Can I losslessly trim or edit AV1 video without re-encoding?

Limited - AV1 like most modern codecs uses complex inter-frame prediction making lossless editing difficult. Can only cut at keyframes without re-encoding. FFmpeg stream copy cuts at nearest keyframe: `ffmpeg -ss 00:01:30 -i input.av1 -to 00:05:00 -c copy trimmed.mkv` copies streams without decode/encode but cuts might not be frame-accurate depending on keyframe locations. For precise frame-accurate editing, re-encoding is necessary introducing quality loss.

Solution: encode with frequent keyframes for easier editing. Default keyframe interval is often 10 seconds (240 frames at 24fps). Encoding with `-g 24` (keyframe every 1 second) increases file size 2-5% but enables frame-accurate cutting without re-encode. Trade-off: slightly larger files for editing flexibility. If creating content meant for editing later, use shorter keyframe intervals. If final delivery only, longer intervals optimize compression.

Video editors (Premiere, DaVinci Resolve, Final Cut) can edit AV1 but performance depends on hardware decode support. Editing 4K AV1 without hardware acceleration is painful - scrubbing lags, playback stutters. Professional workflow: edit in proxy formats (ProRes, DNxHR) optimized for editing, deliver final export in AV1 for compression. Don't try serious editing in AV1 natively unless hardware is very powerful with AV1 support. Separate acquisition/editing/delivery formats is professional standard for good reason.

What does AV1's development and adoption teach about video codec evolution?

Consortium approach wins over single-vendor control - AOMedia's multi-company collaboration created codec that no single company could force on industry. Google, Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, Netflix, Intel, AMD, NVIDIA aligned interests ensuring AV1 gets implemented everywhere. Compare to H.265's MPEG-LA control and patent mess fragmenting adoption. Open collaboration with shared IP pool enabled AV1 to become universal standard rapidly. Lesson: industry-wide problems need industry-wide solutions, not vendor-specific offerings regardless of technical merit.

Patent freedom is competitive advantage - AV1 being royalty-free accelerated adoption despite technical complexity and hardware challenges. Companies implement AV1 freely without licensing negotiations enabling faster deployment than technically-superior-but-encumbered H.265. This demonstrates that business model matters as much as technology. Best codec doesn't win if legal barriers prevent implementation. Future codec development learned this - H.266/VVC attempts better patent clarity, next-generation codecs prioritize freedom-to-operate alongside compression efficiency.

Hardware transition determines real-world adoption pace - AV1 specified 2018 but meaningful adoption waiting until hardware decoders shipped 2020-2022. Codec capabilities matter less than device ecosystem support. Software-only codecs succeed in controlled environments (YouTube servers encoding, powerful desktop decoding) but consumer adoption requires hardware support for battery-efficient mobile playback. AV1 becoming truly mainstream 2023-2025 as device replacement cycle brings hardware support to majority. Technology adoption timelines measured in device generations not specification release dates. Plan migrations understanding hardware refresh cycles not just software capabilities.