this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
21 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37705 readers
334 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know if this is in fact the case for you, but often codecs can provide better compression if they can spend more CPU time trying to find an optimal encoding.
Cameras have to do real-time encoding on a limited-power device. YouTube doesn't have those constraints and may spend more computation time on encoding.
Here's the FFmpeg documentation for x264, an open source h.264 encoder: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/H.264
So the encoding strategy is tunable for an encoder, but also there are different implementations that might perform differently. They all produce a h.264 video stream that's decodable by any standard player.