|
|
|
|
|
by web007
779 days ago
|
|
Why would someone ever take a 40Mbps (compressed) video and downsample it so it can be encoded at 400Kbps (compressed) but played back with nearly the same fidelity / with similar artifacts to the same process at 50x data volume? The world will never know. You're also ignoring the part where all lossy codecs throw away those same details and then fake-recreate them with enough fidelity that people are satisfied. Same concept, different mechanism. Look up what 4:2:0 means vs 4:4:4 in a video codec and tell me you still think it's "pure insanity" to rescale. Or, you know, maybe some people have reasons for doing things that aren't the same as the narrow scope of use-cases you considered, and this would work perfectly well for them. |
|
Because you can just not downscale them and compress them in the frequency domain and encode them in 200Kbps? This is pretty obvious, seriously do you not understand what JPEG does? And why it doesn't do down sampling?
Do you seriously believe downscaling outperforms compressing in the frequency domain?