[ploek]

> Surely they can transfer data through water efficiently enough?

Actually, no. Water absorbs most of the electromagnetic spectrum pretty well, severely limiting the communication range. So you're limited to low frequencies or acoustic communication. Both have a low bandwidth, so forget live video footage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines

[lb1lf]

Should be within the realm of the possible to use a kevlar-reinforced umbilical with fiber optics in it going to a buoy on the surface, though. Starlink to the rescue!

I am not sure you would need that much bandwidth from down there, though - I really can't see that much happening that quickly at the bottom of the Challenger Deep.

[samstave]

What if you could "stereolitho-encode" a bunch of data in an image, then just send the image and let the receiving sub decode the image for the data, as opposed to a bunch of linear sonic-"packets"?

For example, what if the image was a pic of various graphs and stats of the status of the machine, but at the same time other critical information is encoded in the image of a Status-Page/Dashboard style KPI image?

[bee_rider]

It is likely I’ve missed something because your idea seems clever and mine is dumb, but what about just bundling all the data up together and then letting some compression algorithm take a swing at it. (Which is I’m sure what they do already)

[messe]

> then just send the image

How do you propose sending it?

[samstave]

I am saying that you can likely encapsulate a boat-load more pay-load in a small image, than if youre attempting to send blobs, timesequence, or other info - especially if your image is intercepted and itsa pic of your enemy's leader/flag/whatever and they have no idea what to do with the image...

Better yet, is if the image is of a flase map of current in-situ..

[messe]

> I am saying that you can likely encapsulate a boat-load more pay-load in a small image, than if youre attempting to send blobs, timesequence

What? Why do you believe this?

From an information theory perspective, you’re talking nonsense.

[samstave]

You do not know steganography.

Try a wiki

[daveguy]

Steganography does not increase the information density of a communication medium. It only uses that medium in a different way.

You need to revisit information theory and the physical and data-link layers of networking.

[govg]

Why is it more likely that an image can store more information than just encoding the information directly in some format like binary? You have the added overhead of the actual image itself, now you have to transmit compress(bits(image) + bits(message)) when you could just do compress(bits(message)).

[samstave]

Iamgine the embeddeded encodes?

So an stegano can give you image ..> code ..Def=code.. image.. infor, it may require more itereations... look into it.

[bee_rider]

Originally the topic was undersea exploration. There’s no need for steganography, the issue is signal strength, not obscuring communications. There isn’t an enemy to intercept these messages.

[samstave]

I didnt realize that - I was just trying to convey, that mayhaps ; If a secrete message would be sent via Sonar, an image encoding might be efficient, such that the blok of info one wishes to convey, might be a really long stream, as opposed to encoded into an image which would result in shorter sonic comms...