4 ms·
I guess I'd rather have less photo quality and less space requirements. For this specific use case, I guess 3 Megapixel would be sufficient, and then save it no
by terhechte 14y ago
I guess I'd rather have less photo quality and less space requirements. For this specific use case, I guess 3 Megapixel would be sufficient, and then save it not as jpeg but in jpeg2000 or another wavelet compression, at best with a solid compression rate.
- mike-cardwell 14y agoThe images could naturally degrade over time too. Ie, older photos are compressed more. Although the process of fetching an image, compressing it, and replacing it, might be more trouble than the storage saving is worth. Could keep every nth photo as full resolution maybe.
- jonmrodriguez 14y agoYou probably just re-invented what the brain may be doing as our "memories fade": re-compressing (and culling) to free up space, with storage surprisingly expensive. :)
- joesb 14y agoI guess their killer algorithm is going to be on determining the "relevant" picture to be kept in full resolution.
- megablast 14y agoA lot of photos will be the same or very similar.