4 ms·

Compression Sucks

6 points by bhauer 14y ago

sounds 14y ago
Off-topic but I found this website unusable on Firefox/Mac. :)
- justinlloyd 14y ago
  Worked on Firefox/Windows but I had to enable scripts and then enable cookies and then got stuck with a stupidly annoying animating background that totally distracted from whatever the author was trying to say. I got about a half-sentence in and then said to myself "F this, I've got better things to be doing than screwing with my eyesight at one-thirty in the morning."
georgemcbay 14y ago
Kind of a useless rant, IMO. Even Bluray movies are lossy compressed, so you can't paint with a brush so large that it encompasses all "lossy compression". Be more specific. Lossless compression is not a realistic option for video over networks given current technology. Not today, not 5 years from now, probably not 10 years from now, especially if we keep bumping the resolution of video streams up (eg from 1080p to 4K formats, etc).
nemothekid 14y ago
A raw 1080p movie at 24fps would require a 1.5 Gb/s connection, and I am pretty sure there aren't any lossless video codecs out there. Low-bitrate HD content sucks.
- gizmo686 14y ago
  Not nessarilly. The majority of possible videos are highly improbable, so from an information theory standpoint, it should be possible to have lossless video compression.
- rb2k_ 14y ago
  > I am pretty sure there aren't any lossless video codecs out there Oh, there are a lot. Back when I still recorded TV from an analog capture card I e.g. used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffyuv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffyuv I also recall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSU_Lossless_Video_Codec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSU_Lossless_Video_Codec and http://lags.leetcode.net/codec.html http://lags.leetcode.net/codec.html having a userbase. When looking at newer codecs, Dirac has a "pro" mode that is lossless (http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/dirac/diracpro.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/dirac/diracpro.shtml) and so do x264 and SNOW (http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=SNOW http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=SNOW)
DanBC 14y ago
> We tolerate it today because we've grown accustomed to it and we accept low-bandwidth distribution channels such as today's "broadband" Internet connectivity. Many people do not accept this unless "accept" means "have no power to do anything but use the lines provided to them by companies; while complaining and campaigning for more bandwidth to be delivered". > Connectivity is considered by many as "good enough" because you can shove a lossy-compressed 1080 video down without worry over a connection measured in the paltry few megabits per second. When I'm watching movies or TV I almost never care about the resolution. I wish the plots were not so obvious or the characters were not so cardboard-cutout or with silly motivations or that the film was a bit morally braver. I might wonder why a lighting decision was made, or I might wonder whether it'd be better without that music. But I hardly ever think "This movie would be a better movie if it looked better". See, for example, Clerks. That's a lo-fi movie which is significantly enhanced by being lo-fi. All the slightly wonky acting is excused because the movie reminds us that it was shot on a personal credit-card budget. See also the discussion about "The Hobbit" with some people saying the double framerate has made some things "too realistic", thus de-immersing them from the experience. > Even the most avid technophiles (broadbandophiles?) among us chuckle to ourselves when we upgrade our connection from 25Mbps to 35Mbps. We know it's in large part for ego, so we can post screen caps of bandwidth meters. Well, this is a good point. Consumers appear to buy big (or small) numbers. "Megapixels? MORE IS BETTER!!" even though it's not true. Thus, we've ended up with a "Bandwidth? Bigger number is better! Price? Lower is better!" even though that says nothing about contention or reliability or fair-use allowances. We end up with odd situations where a user buys an "unlimited" account, manages to get full speed for 8 minutes, and then has their connection throttled for the rest of the month because they've gone over their fair use allowance. That's a rant worth having. I'd be interested to see if there are any competitions for "compression of video" - these could go alongside the Hutter Prize.
bartl 14y ago
You're just fooling yourself if you believe that a photograph that is not lossily compressed would be sharp in every single detail. That's not how lenses (or our eyes) work.
mullr 14y ago
Please fix your website so there aren't things moving in the background while I try to read what appeared to be some well-written text. I lasted about 5 seconds, and it's a shame.
tuananh 14y ago
wow this website can be used as a CPU stress test.

Compression Sucks

6 points by bhauer 14y ago

sounds 14y ago

Off-topic but I found this website unusable on Firefox/Mac. :)

justinlloyd 14y ago
Worked on Firefox/Windows but I had to enable scripts and then enable cookies and then got stuck with a stupidly annoying animating background that totally distracted from whatever the author was trying to say. I got about a half-sentence in and then said to myself "F this, I've got better things to be doing than screwing with my eyesight at one-thirty in the morning."

georgemcbay 14y ago

Kind of a useless rant, IMO. Even Bluray movies are lossy compressed, so you can't paint with a brush so large that it encompasses all "lossy compression". Be more specific. Lossless compression is not a realistic option for video over networks given current technology. Not today, not 5 years from now, probably not 10 years from now, especially if we keep bumping the resolution of video streams up (eg from 1080p to 4K formats, etc).

nemothekid 14y ago

A raw 1080p movie at 24fps would require a 1.5 Gb/s connection, and I am pretty sure there aren't any lossless video codecs out there. Low-bitrate HD content sucks.

gizmo686 14y ago
Not nessarilly. The majority of possible videos are highly improbable, so from an information theory standpoint, it should be possible to have lossless video compression.
rb2k_ 14y ago
> I am pretty sure there aren't any lossless video codecs out there Oh, there are a lot. Back when I still recorded TV from an analog capture card I e.g. used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffyuv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffyuv I also recall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSU_Lossless_Video_Codec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSU_Lossless_Video_Codec and http://lags.leetcode.net/codec.html http://lags.leetcode.net/codec.html having a userbase. When looking at newer codecs, Dirac has a "pro" mode that is lossless (http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/dirac/diracpro.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/dirac/diracpro.shtml) and so do x264 and SNOW (http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=SNOW http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=SNOW)

DanBC 14y ago

> We tolerate it today because we've grown accustomed to it and we accept low-bandwidth distribution channels such as today's "broadband" Internet connectivity. Many people do not accept this unless "accept" means "have no power to do anything but use the lines provided to them by companies; while complaining and campaigning for more bandwidth to be delivered". > Connectivity is considered by many as "good enough" because you can shove a lossy-compressed 1080 video down without worry over a connection measured in the paltry few megabits per second. When I'm watching movies or TV I almost never care about the resolution. I wish the plots were not so obvious or the characters were not so cardboard-cutout or with silly motivations or that the film was a bit morally braver. I might wonder why a lighting decision was made, or I might wonder whether it'd be better without that music. But I hardly ever think "This movie would be a better movie if it looked better". See, for example, Clerks. That's a lo-fi movie which is significantly enhanced by being lo-fi. All the slightly wonky acting is excused because the movie reminds us that it was shot on a personal credit-card budget. See also the discussion about "The Hobbit" with some people saying the double framerate has made some things "too realistic", thus de-immersing them from the experience. > Even the most avid technophiles (broadbandophiles?) among us chuckle to ourselves when we upgrade our connection from 25Mbps to 35Mbps. We know it's in large part for ego, so we can post screen caps of bandwidth meters. Well, this is a good point. Consumers appear to buy big (or small) numbers. "Megapixels? MORE IS BETTER!!" even though it's not true. Thus, we've ended up with a "Bandwidth? Bigger number is better! Price? Lower is better!" even though that says nothing about contention or reliability or fair-use allowances. We end up with odd situations where a user buys an "unlimited" account, manages to get full speed for 8 minutes, and then has their connection throttled for the rest of the month because they've gone over their fair use allowance. That's a rant worth having. I'd be interested to see if there are any competitions for "compression of video" - these could go alongside the Hutter Prize.

bartl 14y ago

You're just fooling yourself if you believe that a photograph that is not lossily compressed would be sharp in every single detail. That's not how lenses (or our eyes) work.

mullr 14y ago

Please fix your website so there aren't things moving in the background while I try to read what appeared to be some well-written text. I lasted about 5 seconds, and it's a shame.

tuananh 14y ago

wow this website can be used as a CPU stress test.