26 ms·

I thought the app was pretty cool, just super slow to save out the JPEGs. That's one of the reasons I spent a lot of time to make sure SnappyCam could compress

by jpap 13y ago

I thought the app was pretty cool, just super slow to save out the JPEGs. That's one of the reasons I spent a lot of time to make sure SnappyCam could compress these images, thumbnails and Exif metadata included, at a ridiculous speed.

est 13y ago
Yes, SnappyCam has a faster algorithm advantage. Android on the other hand, has more open and better hardware, e.g. larger full-res camera, much larger RAM, faster external storage or even OTG, more CPU/GPU cores. In theory if SnappyCam is full ported to Android you can make it faster than 8M pixels @ 20fps
- jpap 13y ago
  The possibilities are exciting for sure! :-)
lvs 13y ago
I might point out that, depending on the device, you could have many more cores to work with in Android-land.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  We should create a "marketing core" term the same way we have marketing HDD size. I have seen big.little advertised as 8 cores. I think the main advantage of the androids will be the fact that high end devices have generally more RAM than iOS counterparts. So even if the codec cannot be pushed as far as on the iOS the bigger possible buffers can help.
  - jpap 13y ago
    Yes, more RAM definitely helps. On SnappyCam, I had to arbitrarily limit the size of the buffer to a fraction of the system memory because there's no way to know "how much" RAM can be allocated to avoid the dreaded memory warnings until you hit one; and then it's a three strike's out policy: you get two and the third kills the app. The first two are "soft" warnings, but I suspect have a lower threshold than the "hard" one that sends SIGKILL. In setting the limit arbitrarily, I unfortunately have no choice but to select it rather conservatively: it might otherwise be (a lot?) higher.
    - K2h 13y ago
      is there any value in having buffer size selectable for advanced users so they can play with it and see where the sweet spot is on their hardware?

by jpap 13y ago

est 13y ago

Yes, SnappyCam has a faster algorithm advantage. Android on the other hand, has more open and better hardware, e.g. larger full-res camera, much larger RAM, faster external storage or even OTG, more CPU/GPU cores. In theory if SnappyCam is full ported to Android you can make it faster than 8M pixels @ 20fps

jpap 13y ago
The possibilities are exciting for sure! :-)

lvs 13y ago

I might point out that, depending on the device, you could have many more cores to work with in Android-land.

venomsnake 13y ago
We should create a "marketing core" term the same way we have marketing HDD size. I have seen big.little advertised as 8 cores. I think the main advantage of the androids will be the fact that high end devices have generally more RAM than iOS counterparts. So even if the codec cannot be pushed as far as on the iOS the bigger possible buffers can help.
- jpap 13y ago
  Yes, more RAM definitely helps. On SnappyCam, I had to arbitrarily limit the size of the buffer to a fraction of the system memory because there's no way to know "how much" RAM can be allocated to avoid the dreaded memory warnings until you hit one; and then it's a three strike's out policy: you get two and the third kills the app. The first two are "soft" warnings, but I suspect have a lower threshold than the "hard" one that sends SIGKILL. In setting the limit arbitrarily, I unfortunately have no choice but to select it rather conservatively: it might otherwise be (a lot?) higher.
  - K2h 13y ago
    is there any value in having buffer size selectable for advanced users so they can play with it and see where the sweet spot is on their hardware?