4 ms·
Now compare the amount of data it consumes vs h264 for the same resolution/quality... This isn't going to fly. And, WebRTC IS supported on iPhones now, which ki
by anovikov 8y ago
Now compare the amount of data it consumes vs h264 for the same resolution/quality... This isn't going to fly. And, WebRTC IS supported on iPhones now, which kills the main area of use for it.
- vortico 8y agoHow much? Probably only 25-50% more? It's hard to guess, but I imagine it isn't more than a factor of 2.
- ahartmetz 8y agoI'd guess factor 4-10. Most video codec implementations are heavily optimized including use of assembly or SIMD intrinsics. So it's not only that JS is slower for the same code, there are also some optimized constructs that are not possible in JS.
- vortico 8y agoanovikov and I are referring to filesize.
- eyesee 8y agoIt's more like 5-10x better at the same quality vs. h.264. MPEG-1 is 30 years old. The available computational capacity along with the tremendous investment in algorithmic research in that period cannot be understated.
- anovikov 8y agoAt least by a factor of 4 and by a factor of 10 in some conditions. MPEG-2 is very processor efficient but in exchange for very low bandwidth efficiency. Today we watch full movies in 720p and decent quality <1GB size, and in MPEG-2 in late 1990s, 2 video CDs (also ~1GB) were needed for a crappy grainy VHS-style movie. Nobody was much pissed because alternative was VHS itself.