Video codec strategy has traditionally been additive. H.264/AVC remains widely deployed. HEVC added greater efficiency and support for services such as UHD and HDR. AV1 and VVC are creating further options.
But codecs rarely arrive in a clean swap. The previous generation does not simply disappear.
Every addition can improve compression. It can also add encoding, storage, packaging, device qualification, testing and operational complexity, as well as licensing costs.
MPEG-5 LCEVC creates another option: instead of assuming greater efficiency requires another complete codec path, enhance a codec you already use.
LCEVC still requires integration, validation and compatible decoding capability. But as an ISO-standardized enhancement layer working with H.264, HEVC, AV1 and VVC, it provides an alternative to deploying another standalone codec alongside the existing estate.
That changes the codec decision from what do we migrate to next? to what is the most efficient way to evolve the estate we already have?
Look beyond bitrate
H.264 does not necessarily have to be replaced to deliver the next efficiency gain.
HEVC has provided an established route for operators seeking greater efficiency and services such as UHD and HDR. But H.264 + LCEVC creates another option: extend what H.264 can deliver, improving existing HD services and enabling UHD, while building on established H.264 infrastructure and expertise.
For operators already using HEVC, LCEVC can also provide further efficiency while building on that existing codec investment.
The comparison therefore becomes broader than bitrate. What additional encoding, storage and infrastructure are required? How much of the device base can receive the service? What changes are required operationally? What are the implications for testing and device qualification? And what are the licensing costs?
Licensing is also part of the comparison. HEVC licensing involves multiple patent pools and licensors. LCEVC is also licensed technology, with published licensing programs for video distribution services and consumer devices and a single direct route to the LCEVC license.
LCEVC does not remove the licensing obligations associated with the base codec. The relevant comparison is therefore the wider cost of each codec strategy, including licensing alongside infrastructure, operational costs, testing and device requirements.
What does the service actually need?
The answer will vary by service and business model. The starting point is what an operator already has: the codecs in use, available capacity, deployed devices, infrastructure and the requirements of the services it wants to deliver.
Where operators control the device estate, LCEVC can offer a particularly practical option. If existing hardware is capable, LCEVC support can potentially be introduced through a software or over-the-air update, allowing deployed devices to gain the capability without being replaced.
Where that is not possible, support can be introduced through the normal device procurement cycle. For operators managing large device estates, extending the replacement cycle can be just as important economically as reducing bitrate.
Where operators do not control the device ecosystem, the opportunity depends more heavily on compatible decoding capability across the devices used to receive the service.
The device ecosystem is changing
Compatible decoding capability is also expanding. Brazil’s DTV+ standard makes LCEVC mandatory alongside VVC in the baseline receiver profile, creating a commercial driver for LCEVC support in silicon, software and consumer devices. As those technologies are reused across product families and markets, the underlying LCEVC capability can extend beyond Brazil.
An LCEVC-capable chipset does not automatically make every device or application service ready, but broader underlying device support changes the starting point for operators evaluating LCEVC.
Better compression does not have to mean another codec
Compression performance and quality still matter, but so do infrastructure costs, device reach, operational complexity, licensing and the investment required to change an existing service.
Sometimes introducing another codec will be the right answer. Sometimes improving the codec already deployed will produce better economics.
For video businesses already operating multiple codecs, the next efficiency gain does not automatically have to come from adding another one. It could come from getting more from the codec estate you already have.
