this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
199 points (100.0% liked)

196

16309 readers
32 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
199
Peak Content [Rule] (i.ebayimg.com)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
 

And if Wikipedia is to be believed it's presented in a eye wateringly high resolution of 112p.

This high of res.

Edit: Of course the bit rate was pretty damn low as well. Here's a comparison video I found. This comparison uses the higher bit rate version from the Shrek GBA video cart not the Shrek+Shark Tale video cart though so keep in mind, this is the better version.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not gonna lie, 112p video is actually kinda amazing for a gameboy advanced cartridge. I dunno how much space that'd take up, but I'd bet it's more than your typical GBA cart.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

They also ran at a much lower frame rate and compressed the audio quite a bit

Basically they had to fit both movies in less than 64MB.

[–] prayer@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, we still do a similar thing with movies today when we want to send them on discord, crunching it down to 25-50MB

[–] Raxiel@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I wasn't expecting to watch Tremors while sitting on the toilet this evening but here we are.

[–] SternburgExport@feddit.de 5 points 11 months ago

That makes two of us

[–] Raxiel@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Careful, they can sense movement

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

64 MB... including the player and codec! The GBA cannot decode video natively so a lot of trickery was required to get a decent performance.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Exactly

It's honestly impressive they even were able to do it

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yes, there were way more efficient ways to store video on the go in the 2000s, like MiniDVD players with tiny screens. The codec is in firmware and the video format and medium is standardized. It’s the easiest way to sell small, cheap gigabytes of storage if you need no quick random access. And the family might already have the more useful laptop-like portable DVD player with a full-sized drive and almost every home video title was available on those.