Comment by djrogers
9 years ago
> if a mobile device can't hardware-decode it (which saves precious power!), that's going to be a significant blocker.
A mobile device needs to be able to hardware-encode it as well - countless hours of 4k/60 video are taken on phones.
I'm not sure that you need mobile hardware encoding to drive initial adoption. As long as streaming services and the like can start using it to save bandwidth, you have a clear win for a big segment of the market. Older codecs can serve just fine for mobile encoding until the hardware catches up. But if most existing phones can't decode it efficiently, it's going to be pretty stuck until that situation changes.
I'd argue that it's more important to get encoders working, since re-encoding lossy->lossy is always a bad idea.
There isn’t really a video hosting site that doesnt do a lossy transcode of all uploads, unless you count Dropbox.
The bitrate used to encode real-time captures is generally two or more times greater than the bitrate you want to distribute.
Lossless 4K is 12 gigabit a second (even then there's chroma compression)
Nobody edits at that bitrate, compression is concattenated multiple times. How a codec copes with real world multi-compression is key.
4 replies →
And yet, you'll be astonished to learn how many times each video is lossy-lossy re-encoded on its way from camera to end viewer.
1 reply →