5 ms·
Surely you'd prefer to encode video much faster than real time.
by alayne 13y ago
Surely you'd prefer to encode video much faster than real time.
- deathanatos 13y agoIf it can do it instantly, that would be great. But why does it need to be faster than real-time? You can't capture video any faster. (Though, "real-time" probably needs some sort of framerate qualifier… no doubt 60 fps is harder to encode than 30 fps.) Unless you're thinking of re-encoding … on a phone?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- sp332 13y agoSure, that way you could apply shake-reduction or framerate adjustments (like slow motion) after capture. Or, re-encode to send as MMS or something.
- daemin 13y agoYeah, there's always more processing on a video that can be done. Shake/Jitter reduction, histogram normalisation, hipster-like (instagram) filters, etc. (Just imagine a real time instagram filter for video on your phone.) Edit: Plus it means less power used since the processor doesn't need to be on for as long to process the video (duty throttle / pulse width modulation etc).