this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
103 points (100.0% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14448 readers
448 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

party-sicko

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Kinda makes sense that storing image would be a subset of storing videos.

[–] into_highest_invite@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

it makes sense yeah but most of the space savings is from keeping one frame and then saving the next several frames as a series of just deltas. plus there's stuff you notice when it's moving but not so much when it's still. between that and the jpeg-xl benchmarks i'm comfortable speculating that there's probably maybe something to the idea of having separate lossy image and video codecs.

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You are still storing a key frame every couple of seconds or so

[–] into_highest_invite@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

you're right but even then i kinda think there are different things to optimize for. i found a benchmark i edited into my original post but honestly who the hell knows

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

To me it's honestly a lot of it's the same picture

And the results in data compression aren't different enough to use anything with less wide software support.