So cant really go full HEVC, a lot of embedded devices in old TVs etc cant cope. But if it can take HEVC then do it for 60% for the same visual quality, so they need to start creating HEVC encoded versions as well as better H264.
Then comes the 1 pass with 'constant quality' versus 2 pass with 'constant bitrate' (typically).
If you use the 1st pass to work out where to apply savings, and encode on the 2nd pass to work at a variable bitrate that lowers space when it can, then its more than feasible to nail down 20%.
I of course could strip down to my Mankini. The women would be distracted I am sure.
Or them ladies might 'put on' some clothing. Amazing Cardigan or Scarf....
I'm not allowed to be naked... I tried.
Will take more than the flacid platitudes. The teaching staff need a good degree of training, not 'rote', and oh how nice it would be that they loved this subject as I do. One can only hope that they hit the nail on the head with this back in my day (remember Logo?), and there are enough good Birtish heads to come up with an idea or two - the BBC of old perhaps. But please god - not BIG business and BIG Marketing crap.
And back to staff - they can barely scrape out Maths teachers these days.. decent skilled computing people are so thin on the ground, a classroom of moaning scrotes will never seem appealing.
Soooo - we learn little, and see all. MSchlop breaks all with its monopoly in the OS/Apps area and is then allowed to use that power to stamp all over other industries.
Thus, it can subsidise its XBox and kill off the Sony/ Ninetendo et al by slowly strangling rather than producing the games/technology. Skinning us for cash when its got a grip that cant be shaken loose.
Of course, in a country where the Presidents brother can 'gerrymander' an election, and the President cowtows to the OilCorp - where the judiciary is too scared to tackle this behmoth, well, we shouldnt be amazed. We arent, are we?
Oh dear - that famously MASSIVE flaw called digital decision destruction.
It even costs less, since I only print the good
Ive been taking pictures for 20+ years, and recently bought a film scanner (10MP) to archive, make available to friends etc. Looking back, there are thousands of absolute classic images that I would have instantly wiped as they werent perfect for the time - I have some fairly out of focus beauties of a prominent TV presenter from her uni days - oh, and yes, Ive got a few 'duds' - but I was young...
The major flaw with digital (at the consumer level) is the ability to dump what we dont like. Every woman I ever knew (actaully - everyone) would have demanded deletions - weddings, parties, life!
And when we look back 100 years from now - when film is long forgotten - we will see a period of 'perfect' smiles, perfect scenes, perfect focus, the perfect embodiment of an age where...
sigh, I do hope you keep the image files of all those images you dont consider good. Some time later you might change your mind.
bert
I ran into the same problem a few years (1996) ago with respect to my collection (9000 35mm pics covering 15 years - family and friends stuff that is emotionally important). I wanted to archive them for protection, and started off with Kodak PhotoCD. I moved to a scanner quickly thereafter.
Basically, it comes down to making a good record of your work - Date/ Subject/ Names/ Where/ Extra info, as well as an archival backup, and readily viewable 'smaller' portable versions.
I scan a 35mm frame at:
3600x2700 for archive (PNG - lossless compression)
1400xAAA for large copy (VGood JPG - print quality)
800xBBB for browser (Med JPEG viewable)
100xCCC for indexing (JPG)
I get about 50 images stored in PNG/JPG combos on one 700 meg CD. And I make two copies of this. I can fit about 1800 pictures in the JPG only format on one CD. If I remove the large copy JPG from this, I can fit 5000 on one CD.
You can scan yourself and get through maybe 50 photos in 3 hours. Retouching can be reduced with a scanner that has an auto fixing mechanism (very effective), and scanners can really dig out images you may have thought useless. When Im on a roll I can cut through maybe 100 in 3 hours.
I wrote my own HTML/web based software to catalogue etc, as well as organise the images, but there are packages that do this for you. Similarly, companies will host your images - but I trust only myself with my stuff.
Its a daunting task at the start, but all new films go straight in digital format - and when cameras can get 20 Megapixels then I might be going direct from digital to archive.
Dont think of it as wasted time either, as its a wonderful thing when you can let friends/family see some very lovely memories with ease. I have relatives worldwide who have looked, and contributed comments to my collection. A great way of bringing the people together.
Im now starting on my mothers 'boxes' of prints dating back 80 years using a flatbed scanner. Dont think of paper as being the 'best' solution, as devices and technology will move to make a digital collection an accessible one. On HDTV, flat panels, mobile devices. And your not throwing out the paper ones. Just protecting the memories.
bert
Slashdot Mirror
Burned by data costs, not playing anymore.
So cant really go full HEVC, a lot of embedded devices in old TVs etc cant cope. But if it can take HEVC then do it for 60% for the same visual quality, so they need to start creating HEVC encoded versions as well as better H264. Then comes the 1 pass with 'constant quality' versus 2 pass with 'constant bitrate' (typically). If you use the 1st pass to work out where to apply savings, and encode on the 2nd pass to work at a variable bitrate that lowers space when it can, then its more than feasible to nail down 20%.
I of course could strip down to my Mankini. The women would be distracted I am sure. Or them ladies might 'put on' some clothing. Amazing Cardigan or Scarf ....
I'm not allowed to be naked ... I tried.
Will take more than the flacid platitudes. The teaching staff need a good degree of training, not 'rote', and oh how nice it would be that they loved this subject as I do. One can only hope that they hit the nail on the head with this back in my day (remember Logo?), and there are enough good Birtish heads to come up with an idea or two - the BBC of old perhaps. But please god - not BIG business and BIG Marketing crap. And back to staff - they can barely scrape out Maths teachers these days .. decent skilled computing people are so thin on the ground, a classroom of moaning scrotes will never seem appealing.
Thus, it can subsidise its XBox and kill off the Sony/ Ninetendo et al by slowly strangling rather than producing the games/technology. Skinning us for cash when its got a grip that cant be shaken loose.
Of course, in a country where the Presidents brother can 'gerrymander' an election, and the President cowtows to the OilCorp - where the judiciary is too scared to tackle this behmoth, well, we shouldnt be amazed. We arent, are we?
Oh dear - that famously MASSIVE flaw called digital decision destruction. It even costs less, since I only print the good Ive been taking pictures for 20+ years, and recently bought a film scanner (10MP) to archive, make available to friends etc. Looking back, there are thousands of absolute classic images that I would have instantly wiped as they werent perfect for the time - I have some fairly out of focus beauties of a prominent TV presenter from her uni days - oh, and yes, Ive got a few 'duds' - but I was young ...
The major flaw with digital (at the consumer level) is the ability to dump what we dont like. Every woman I ever knew (actaully - everyone) would have demanded deletions - weddings, parties, life!
And when we look back 100 years from now - when film is long forgotten - we will see a period of 'perfect' smiles, perfect scenes, perfect focus, the perfect embodiment of an age where ...
sigh, I do hope you keep the image files of all those images you dont consider good. Some time later you might change your mind.
bert
I ran into the same problem a few years (1996) ago with respect to my collection (9000 35mm pics covering 15 years - family and friends stuff that is emotionally important). I wanted to archive them for protection, and started off with Kodak PhotoCD. I moved to a scanner quickly thereafter. Basically, it comes down to making a good record of your work - Date/ Subject/ Names/ Where/ Extra info, as well as an archival backup, and readily viewable 'smaller' portable versions. I scan a 35mm frame at: 3600x2700 for archive (PNG - lossless compression) 1400xAAA for large copy (VGood JPG - print quality) 800xBBB for browser (Med JPEG viewable) 100xCCC for indexing (JPG) I get about 50 images stored in PNG/JPG combos on one 700 meg CD. And I make two copies of this. I can fit about 1800 pictures in the JPG only format on one CD. If I remove the large copy JPG from this, I can fit 5000 on one CD. You can scan yourself and get through maybe 50 photos in 3 hours. Retouching can be reduced with a scanner that has an auto fixing mechanism (very effective), and scanners can really dig out images you may have thought useless. When Im on a roll I can cut through maybe 100 in 3 hours. I wrote my own HTML/web based software to catalogue etc, as well as organise the images, but there are packages that do this for you. Similarly, companies will host your images - but I trust only myself with my stuff. Its a daunting task at the start, but all new films go straight in digital format - and when cameras can get 20 Megapixels then I might be going direct from digital to archive. Dont think of it as wasted time either, as its a wonderful thing when you can let friends/family see some very lovely memories with ease. I have relatives worldwide who have looked, and contributed comments to my collection. A great way of bringing the people together. Im now starting on my mothers 'boxes' of prints dating back 80 years using a flatbed scanner. Dont think of paper as being the 'best' solution, as devices and technology will move to make a digital collection an accessible one. On HDTV, flat panels, mobile devices. And your not throwing out the paper ones. Just protecting the memories. bert