3 ms·

This is just MJPEG in disguise and then worse again. And MJPEG is already near the bottom of the list of things I would ever send over the web. Better or 'good'

by quink 12y ago

This is just MJPEG in disguise and then worse again. And MJPEG is already near the bottom of the list of things I would ever send over the web. Better or 'good' XNG encoder is an oxymoron. Also, it's JPEG so there's no transparency so you'd be using clipping masks in SVG. And that wouldn't give you motion estimation. For that you might want to subdivide the JPEG and... But then you're already trying to put lipstick on a horse that's been beaten to death. It doesn't have potential. Unless you have a slideshow of a low integer number of photographs and no access to JavaScript or a scroll wheel. Good encoder? It's just JPEG, any good encoding is already figured out and this is the wrong tool for the job. gifv or even just silent webm for the win. Also, nice that video played smoothly on your few month old device. Does it still have a battery left now? It's neat to see this as a can be done exercise. But now it's time to set fire to it. As it probably has done to quite a few devices already.

nacs 12y ago
iPhone 5s came out over a year ago. And yes it had plenty of battery left. Also, transparency is possible because it's not limited to jpeg. PNG frames could just as easily be used where needed. The point is the technique can be improved. Whether it can be shaped into anything useful is yet to be seen. In the meantime, cool down and take a deep breath.
- Vendan 12y ago
  meh, it boils down to whatever image format you use, you take a 33% increase in file size cause it's base64 encoded, and then a huge hit cause you can't do frame to frame encoding, like true motion estimation. It's trying (poorly) to solve an already solved problem with bad tech. Different platforms support it horribly differently, it burns cpu power on some (on Firefox, cpu hits 100% when normal web browsing, including youtube, is 10%). The true way to do it is to use modern html5 video tags, which are gonna work anywhere that svg would. Video tags are supported back to IE9, and SVG is only marginally supported in IE9. So the only thing you could gain is not having to use 3 video formats to hit all the browsers, and that's a pitiful excuse.
- quink 12y ago
  > PNG frames could just as easily be used where needed. Oh goodie, let's do a lossless sub-format. Why? Because motion prediction trickling through alpha transparency. http://xkcd.com/463/ http://xkcd.com/463/

by quink 12y ago

nacs 12y ago

iPhone 5s came out over a year ago. And yes it had plenty of battery left. Also, transparency is possible because it's not limited to jpeg. PNG frames could just as easily be used where needed. The point is the technique can be improved. Whether it can be shaped into anything useful is yet to be seen. In the meantime, cool down and take a deep breath.

Vendan 12y ago
meh, it boils down to whatever image format you use, you take a 33% increase in file size cause it's base64 encoded, and then a huge hit cause you can't do frame to frame encoding, like true motion estimation. It's trying (poorly) to solve an already solved problem with bad tech. Different platforms support it horribly differently, it burns cpu power on some (on Firefox, cpu hits 100% when normal web browsing, including youtube, is 10%). The true way to do it is to use modern html5 video tags, which are gonna work anywhere that svg would. Video tags are supported back to IE9, and SVG is only marginally supported in IE9. So the only thing you could gain is not having to use 3 video formats to hit all the browsers, and that's a pitiful excuse.
quink 12y ago
> PNG frames could just as easily be used where needed. Oh goodie, let's do a lossless sub-format. Why? Because motion prediction trickling through alpha transparency. http://xkcd.com/463/ http://xkcd.com/463/