5 ms·

What if we want to rather use that increase in disk space, bandwidth, computation power to show 8K (high resolution) 3D (more than 2D data) 360 (different viewp

What if we want to rather use that increase in disk space, bandwidth, computation power to show 8K (high resolution) 3D (more than 2D data) 360 (different viewpoints / interactivity) videos (animated in time) instead of little 2D static images ? I think we'll care more about increase in quality vs. those little cost : disk space is on shared servers / cloud computing, bandwidth is getting better and better, computation power is also increasing all the time and with new methods of doing computation like GPU, Chiplet / SoC / one-task-chip or simply more efficient CPUs etc.

dougall 4y ago
Then do that. It's not a video codec. The problem is computation power is increasing much more slowly than bandwidth, and is likely to continue to. 8K PNGs (by my napkin calculations) already take around 1 second of CPU time to decode. There are other solutions, and certainly better options today, but it's plausible that in the next 10-15 years, this will become the best option for fast-loading, high-resolution, 2D images. (Or texture data for 3D graphics. Or 360, I guess - not sure why that'd be different.)
- ttoinou 4y ago
  PNG isnt good at multi threading or GPU decoding, thats the issue
  - goalieca 4y ago
    If that was the only issue, they could tile the images up into 4 or 9 images in many cases.
  - dougall 4y ago
    It's a huge issue, but multi-threading only helps with latency, not energy.
andrepd 4y ago
I don't get it, you're complaining that an image codex is not a video codec? Well... duh. 2D images are used for their own sake, not as a compromise because you'd rather show a moving 3D object rendered at 8K but you can't. So obviously this is about the problem of compressing 2D images, it's off-topic to argue that it can't do video or whatever.
- ttoinou 4y ago
  Websites could show videos instead of images. Videos can do more
  - joshspankit 4y ago
    Meh. We went through that when flash first got popular. There were some good use-cases for sure, but pages that substituted video for images just ended up being far too busy while also being harder to maintain.
- astrange 4y ago
  Well, an image codec is a video codec and vice versa. Specifically, it's a good codec for editing because you can instantly seek to every frame.
jayd16 4y ago
Wouldn't fast decompression become very relevant for viewing lightfield data? If these media assets are indeed very big as you suggest, then doesn't it make sense to stream the relevant view data based on view orientation? For something like that you'd low latency and thus fast decompression.

dougall 4y ago

Then do that. It's not a video codec. The problem is computation power is increasing much more slowly than bandwidth, and is likely to continue to. 8K PNGs (by my napkin calculations) already take around 1 second of CPU time to decode. There are other solutions, and certainly better options today, but it's plausible that in the next 10-15 years, this will become the best option for fast-loading, high-resolution, 2D images. (Or texture data for 3D graphics. Or 360, I guess - not sure why that'd be different.)

ttoinou 4y ago
PNG isnt good at multi threading or GPU decoding, thats the issue
- goalieca 4y ago
  If that was the only issue, they could tile the images up into 4 or 9 images in many cases.
- dougall 4y ago
  It's a huge issue, but multi-threading only helps with latency, not energy.

andrepd 4y ago

I don't get it, you're complaining that an image codex is not a video codec? Well... duh. 2D images are used for their own sake, not as a compromise because you'd rather show a moving 3D object rendered at 8K but you can't. So obviously this is about the problem of compressing 2D images, it's off-topic to argue that it can't do video or whatever.

ttoinou 4y ago
Websites could show videos instead of images. Videos can do more
- joshspankit 4y ago
  Meh. We went through that when flash first got popular. There were some good use-cases for sure, but pages that substituted video for images just ended up being far too busy while also being harder to maintain.
astrange 4y ago
Well, an image codec is a video codec and vice versa. Specifically, it's a good codec for editing because you can instantly seek to every frame.

jayd16 4y ago

Wouldn't fast decompression become very relevant for viewing lightfield data? If these media assets are indeed very big as you suggest, then doesn't it make sense to stream the relevant view data based on view orientation? For something like that you'd low latency and thus fast decompression.