4 ms·
It's kind of similar to audio vs video. Although audio requires less data and processing than video, it's much more difficult to get the audio good than the vid
by flakeoil 4y ago
It's kind of similar to audio vs video. Although audio requires less data and processing than video, it's much more difficult to get the audio good than the video and if the audio is bad or even missing for some time, it's useless, while if the video is bad, stuck or missing, it's not that big of a deal most of the time.
This is particularly true in a video conferencing situation. If the audio is bad, you miss out a lot. If the video is bad, it's not a big deal.
- devenvdev 4y agoDeaf people would disagree :) if you talk in sign language on zoom missing video parts would ruin the conversation. I don't think it's about precision, in the case of audio vs video - if you remove all the even columns from a video it would be similar to reducing quality, the same can be done with audio - removing half of the frequencies uniformly will just lower the quality.
- kelipso 4y agoThat's a pretty specific case. You can get really good performance for a ton of tasks in video (video question answering, object identification and tracking, action recognition, etc) by just sampling a frame per second or even less frequently. Definitely can't do that with audio.