[jauntywundrkind]

This feels like an absurd ask. Who cares how big the codec is? If you watch a 480p video for 10 minutes, won't that have overwhelmingly dwarfed 20MB or whatever of savings?

This feels like a gross gross misoptimization that is actively harmful to 99.999999999% of user experiences.

[userbinator]

Just because DVDs are several GB doesn't mean it's acceptable for the decoder to be a few hundred MB.

...and in fact it doesn't need to be, as I can say so from having written an MPEG-2 (+MPEG-1) decoder myself, whose binary turned out to be less than 16KB.

When one hears about a codec being dozens of MB, the natural instinct should be "for what?" and not "who cares?" The latter attitude is responsible for why software has gotten so much more inefficient, and serves only to line the pockets of hardware manufacturers.

[jdietrich]

The size of the codec is so unimportant as to be essentially irrelevant within reason outside of a few extremely niche cases. We care about video file size, we care about subjective quality, we care about power efficiency in compression and decompression, in many applications we care about latency; on all these metrics, modern codecs are stunningly well-optimised. Modern codecs are extremely complex, but that complexity is absolutely necessary for them to perform well on the dimensions that actually matter to users.

Nobody uses Theora, because it's a bad codec. It was worse than H.264 back in 2009 and it hasn't been updated since. Removing support for dead formats is generally a very good idea, particularly in a web browser, because it reduces the attack surface; we have recently seen a number of major vulnerabilities caused by archaic, neglected file formats and codecs that provided almost no value to users.

[toast0]

> The size of the codec is so unimportant as to be essentially irrelevant within reason outside of a few extremely niche cases.

Codec size matters if you're going to include the codec in a phone app, which is a huge niche.

You can try to rely on system codecs, but then you're at the mercy of system codec availability and system codec security.

[jdietrich]

If you're including a video codec in a phone app, you are almost certainly making a terrible mistake. Android and iOS have very comprehensive media APIs.

[toast0]

Is there one codec that's universally available on all supported versions of iOS and all versions of Android with significant use? With an encoder and a decoder? If not, something has to make up the difference, and that something is probably a server that can see all the content.

Is it space efficient? (Compared to whatever you're prepared to license and run on the cpu) Not shipping a codec to save app size but sending larger media doesn't help the user much.

Are all implementations secure? If you have to predecode to verify the file won't trigger buffer overruns etc, you've written half of a safe decoder, and maybe you should just include the rest of the owl. Media decoding is a bountiful area of security vulnerabilities... which brings risks to both using the system apis and using your own, but at least you have some control over your own.

[jdietrich]

H.264 and VP8 are available essentially everywhere. Reasonably recent versions of Android and iOS (5.0 and 11, IIRC) include support for H.265 and VP9. The APIs on both platforms make it very easy to query available media formats, including hardware acceleration capabilities. Hardware acceleration is particularly important on mobile for power consumption reasons, so you should use it wherever possible.

If any app developer believes that they are better able to implement a secure codec than Apple or Google, I have a bridge to sell them.

[tenebrisalietum]

VLC is a mistake?

[jdietrich]

I said almost certainly making a terrible mistake. VLC has an extremely specific niche as "that one media app that plays literally anything in any format ever". You are almost certainly not developing that app. The overwhelming majority of apps have lots of very good reasons to rely on the platform APIs and no good reasons to eschew them.

[photonbeam]

> Removing support for dead formats is generally a very good idea, particularly in a web browser, because it reduces the attack surface;

This seems unfortunate, surely they could sufficiently sandbox the decoder

[ReactiveJelly]

They do, but it's defense in depth

[account42]

Yet websites can run arbitrary JS?

[doctor_radium]

"I apologize for such a long letter - I didn't have time to write a short one." - Mark Twain, et al.

A codec bloated by megabytes to me is a little too close to a web site bloated by megabytes. It works...but isn't it also a little embarrassing?

[oezi]

Just because you can't fanthom a legitimate case for needing a small codec lib doesn't mean there isn't one.

Typical engineering myopia.

[cuu508]

> Who cares how big the codec is?

Small inefficiencies add up and in the end you have the janky laggy mess that is modern software.

[Cyphase]

A larger codec doesn't mean it's more inefficient in other areas than a smaller codec. A 400KB codec is not necessarily less laggy or janky than a 4MB codec.

Otherwise, why use a bunch of larger algorithms for map routing when BFS/DFS are so simple and small?

[hnav]

it does contribute to software bloat, I’m always impressed when I install an app and it weighs in at 20MB

[ur-whale]

esp32 with encoded video being streamed out to Wifi?

[rasz]

You wont be encoding any video with algorithm more computationally intensive than jpeg on esp32, and even mjpeg will be excruciatingly slow.

[ta988]

mpeg1 seems possible https://github.com/rossumur/espflix

[rasz]

this is decoding

[jauntywundrkind]

There's mjpeg for that. Is there any evidence anyone has streamed to such a platform over real video codecs? No there's not. People just make up endless shit to justify anti use cases.