Re: Astonishing technological achievement
From: Travers Naran (tnaran_at_no-more-virii-please.direct.ca)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:56:46 GMT
Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> Travers Naran wrote:
>> But that doesn't tell me what its place was. Was it the price of the
>> codec hardware or the CPU horsepower required? I suspect it was the
>> hardware because I can't imagine JPEG requiring less CPU power than
>> MPEG, but MPEG compressors requires more on-board memory, no?
> You need to imagine harder. MPEG encoding is much more CPU and memory
> intensive than Motion JPEG. The decoding is roughly equivalent. We had a
> more expensive box as a result, and the network technology made it
> difficult to take advantage of the bandwidth savings.
That's understandable. I figured JPEG was just as computationally hard as
MPEG to compress, but then again, MPEG has a temporal component JPEG
doesn't have to care about.