4 ms·

To be fair the article does that. The above URL just links to an anchor in the middle where it talks about codec implementation. For instance this quote from th

To be fair the article does that. The above URL just links to an anchor in the middle where it talks about codec implementation. For instance this quote from the article "We learned that it's not feasible to use video without any compression; a single one hour video at 720p resolution with 30fps would require 278GB*. Since using solely lossless data compression algorithms like DEFLATE (used in PKZIP, Gzip, and PNG), won't decrease the required bandwidth sufficiently we need to find other ways to compress the video. ... In order to do this, we can exploit how our vision works. We're better at distinguishing brightness than colors, the repetitions in time, a video contains a lot of images with few changes, and the repetitions within the image, each frame also contains many areas using the same or similar color." https://github.com/leandromoreira/digital_video_introduction#redundancy-removal https://github.com/leandromoreira/digital_video_introduction...

lightedman 7y ago
278GB is a bit off. The real number is higher than that, but not by too much more, but they definitely messed up on their math somewhere. 1280 horizontal pixels times 720 vertical pixels times 8 bits per pixel color channel times 3 color channels (RGB) times 30 FPS times 60 SPM (sec per min) times 60 MPH (min per hour) divided by 8 bits to convert bits to bytes and finally divided by 1,024 bytes per kilobyte gives 291,600,000KB, exactly 291.6GB. And now days, that kind of uncompressed video is more than feasible, at least in countries with developed gigabit internet capability, as you'd need just 634mbit of bandwidth to handle an uncompressed 720p stream at 30 FPS. Local storage on even first-gen SATA drives can hit double+ that. Storage itself? Well, we've got the cloud, right? /s
- EvanAnderson 7y ago
  You're mixing Si units and IEC units[1]. The article's measurement of 278 GB (sic) is really 278 GiB. 1280 horizontal resolution x 720 vertical resolution x 3 8-bit bytes per pixel x 30 frames per second x 3600 seconds per hour is 298,598,400,000 bytes per hour. 1GiB (1,024 bytes x 1,024 KiB x 1,024 MiB) is 1,073,741,824 bytes. Dividing that out gives ~278.09 GiB. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
  - lightedman 7y ago
    I'm responding directly to the GB claim. I'm very well-aware of binary prefix (in fact several of my other online names are those very words) and the general industry-wide mix-up that is used on the common consumer is to start with KiB and then just run that in plain units of 1,000 for MB and GB, which is what I went with.

lightedman 7y ago

278GB is a bit off. The real number is higher than that, but not by too much more, but they definitely messed up on their math somewhere. 1280 horizontal pixels times 720 vertical pixels times 8 bits per pixel color channel times 3 color channels (RGB) times 30 FPS times 60 SPM (sec per min) times 60 MPH (min per hour) divided by 8 bits to convert bits to bytes and finally divided by 1,024 bytes per kilobyte gives 291,600,000KB, exactly 291.6GB. And now days, that kind of uncompressed video is more than feasible, at least in countries with developed gigabit internet capability, as you'd need just 634mbit of bandwidth to handle an uncompressed 720p stream at 30 FPS. Local storage on even first-gen SATA drives can hit double+ that. Storage itself? Well, we've got the cloud, right? /s

EvanAnderson 7y ago
You're mixing Si units and IEC units[1]. The article's measurement of 278 GB (sic) is really 278 GiB. 1280 horizontal resolution x 720 vertical resolution x 3 8-bit bytes per pixel x 30 frames per second x 3600 seconds per hour is 298,598,400,000 bytes per hour. 1GiB (1,024 bytes x 1,024 KiB x 1,024 MiB) is 1,073,741,824 bytes. Dividing that out gives ~278.09 GiB. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
- lightedman 7y ago
  I'm responding directly to the GB claim. I'm very well-aware of binary prefix (in fact several of my other online names are those very words) and the general industry-wide mix-up that is used on the common consumer is to start with KiB and then just run that in plain units of 1,000 for MB and GB, which is what I went with.