3 ms·
Most videos are only going to be viewed a tiny number of times, often just on the devices they were taken on. It’s probably not worth spending too much effort o
by bradleyjg 4y ago
Most videos are only going to be viewed a tiny number of times, often just on the devices they were taken on. It’s probably not worth spending too much effort on compressing these.
A small number of videos are going to be viewed millions of times. For these few videos it’s worth the compute to do the best possible compression.
There’s no reason the same video formats and decoding hardware can’t be used for both. The high compute version can use an ML model to figure out how to optimize the bandwidth budget across every scene while the cheap version uses some easy heuristics.
- 2h 4y ago> best possible compression This is a common incorrect assumption. You have to balance ratio with speed, otherwise you end up with something that spends more time decompressing than actually downloading, as is literally the case today with XZ. this is why alternatives like Zstandard are getting popular. 9 times faster decompressing for 10% worse ratio.
- bradleyjg 4y agoApples and oranges. The video standards constrain the encode to something that can be decoded in real time by specified decoders.