5 ms·
Purely for the sake of example, say a fast computer now is 100x faster than one in May 2010. It still takes 3.4 hours to encode 10 seconds of video. That's 100
by dbaupp 14y ago
Purely for the sake of example, say a fast computer now is 100x faster than one in May 2010. It still takes 3.4 hours to encode 10 seconds of video. That's 100 CPU-days for a 2 hour movie.
- nnnnnnnn 14y agoAs long as decoding is fast I don't see a problem. I would love to spend substantially more time encoding to get a better size/quality output, and I'm sure most mass-media distributors feel the same way.
- glhaynes 14y agoIt would be interesting if we ever ended up in a situation where compression is so expensive that only studios/distributors are able to throw the kind of CPU power at the problem that's needed to do it in a reasonable amount of time. I'm sure they wouldn't mind consumers being faced with having to spend 2x as much storage/bandwidth for unauthorized versions (or get less quality in the same file size). Though I'd bet such a state would only serve to spur distributed encoding schemes to ramp up…