News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC). Parent comment

Re:H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC) by yjftsjthsd-h on Monday July 06, 2020 @10:59AM (#23748614)
Are those different? If I chop up a video file into chunks, I'm streaming it, and if I save a stream I have a file. With a buffer, I would expect the sizes involved to be identical. (Although without a buffer I'd expect streaming to be worse)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC) by Sebb767 on Monday July 06, 2020 @12:00PM (#23749249)
Yes. For the most part, you need to be able to encode to a low and constant bandwidth at 30/60/+ fps, possibly even with limited latency. Then there are also some lesser, but also important aspects, such as the need to be able to start in the middle of a stream, handle lost packages etc.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC) by occamrazor on Monday July 06, 2020 @04:02PM (#23752099)
Latency will become more important with video conferencing (already now) and AR/VR.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC) by gsich on Monday July 06, 2020 @11:17AM (#23748813)
>Are those different?

No. In the end you transmitted a file that has a certain size. It doesn't really matter if you save that file or just use a volatile buffer.

[ Parent | on HN ]