4 ms·
yup, from the example I remember(I read it through link on HN but cannot find it in quick search, I wish I could link it), if you film(still film no movement)
by jitendrac 6y ago
yup, from the example I remember(I read it through link on HN but cannot find it in quick search, I wish I could link it),
if you film(still film no movement) the macbook pro top to bottom in h264/MP4 at 1024 p resolution and again you take a picture from your camera.
the results will be shocking,
the video of 5-10 seconds will have lower storage size than the size of single Image. but when you inspect video carefully you will see the tiny details are missing, like the edges are not as sharp for metal body, the gloss of metal is bit different, the tiny speaker holes on top of keyboard are clear in Images and can be individually examined while in video they are fuzzy pixelated and so on.
so, The end results: A 5 second video with 10s of frames per second is smaller in size than single Image taken from same camera.
- dylan604 6y agoLet's also be clear, the still image will be the full resolution of the sensor. The video taken on the same camera is usually a cropped section of the sensor. You're also comparing a spatial compression (still image) vs a temporal compression (video), and at what compression levels are each image taken?
- the_pwner224 6y agoAdditionally the images are not very compressed (edit: you mentioned that in your comment, sorry). While the RAW files can be a couple dozen megabytes and the losslessly compressed PNGs are still 5-15 mb, good cameras normally set the JPEG quality factor to a high amount and so even with a JPEG you're getting pretty close to a lossless image. Whereas in video you can often plainly notice the compression artifacts & softness. A more fair comparison would be the video file to a JPEG with equivalent visual quality.
- jitendrac 6y agosee more details, https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/ https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/ I know that's not fair comparison, but imaging clever compressions were not invented and you would download terabytes of data to view a small movie.
- dylan604 6y agoWhat question are you trying to answer? Nobody asked what is compression and why do we use it. I have been encoding videos since VideoCDs were a thing, so I have a pretty good understanding of how compression works. The fact that I differentiated between spatial and temporal compression should have been a clue. All I was pointing out was that compressing a postage stamp sized video and comparing its filesize to a large megapixel image isn't a fair comparison. (yes, I'm jaded by calling 1080p frame size a postage stamp. I work in 4K and 8K resolutions all day.)
- cheeze 6y agoYou're thinking of "h264 is magic" https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/ https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/ GREAT article
- jitendrac 6y agoyes,that is the article I was referring.