Ask / Submit

Bad codec - video recording filesize, codec support

Tracked by Jolla (In progress)

asked 2014-01-13 17:50:37 +0300

chemist gravatar image

updated 2017-01-25 14:54:02 +0300

The video recording file-size is exorbitantly high - 25MB for 17sec of video is way to much. I know that you need G/CPU power for real-time conversion but what do you do besides recording a video when you actually record a video? Give the camera-app and the conversion some more system-juice and let it convert to a suitable file-size and of course a format that is widely recognized (there is a bug-report about not being able to play it back or upload it to YouTube - this is not about this bug, this is solely about file-size)!

According to you can lower the bitrate by 45-65% without loosing device performance or reducing quality.

Just another TJC popped up requesting hardware support for HEVC how about we get some better multimedia support?

EDIT: In 2016 already, TV manufacturers adapt to HEVC (h.265) for streaming, recording and playback. New dvb will be hevc and old stuff will vanish till end of 2018. So how does it look for us 3 years after the initial request?

edit retag flag offensive close delete


isn't this fixed in Close?

ApB ( 2015-09-27 23:35:43 +0300 )edit

@ApB did not have time to check yet, is it? Do we have HEVC?

chemist ( 2015-10-06 15:32:03 +0300 )edit

We have h.264. It used to record h.263. I don't know if the HW or gstreamer supports HEVC (for the phone).

ApB ( 2015-10-06 16:21:27 +0300 )edit

3 years later, the world adapted to HEVC as new streaming standard for TVs (as said 3 years ago, less CPU, with even higher quality) - so how about we move on to h.265 for recording and support playback - streaming h265 does also reduce data usage on-the-go!

chemist ( 2017-01-25 14:49:56 +0300 )edit

H.265 is patent encumbered and you must pay royalties. Maybe for a new device, but the existing devices should not expect such support in my opinion.

alloj ( 2017-01-25 15:04:49 +0300 )edit

1 Answer

Sort by » oldest newest most voted

answered 2014-01-13 18:11:10 +0300

rainisto gravatar image

updated 2015-04-27 17:56:02 +0300

Thats the normal filesize for HD video. So is your entry more about requesting option for taking videos in lower quality? Or to post-process videos with some application into lower quality and more packed formats?

Or are you saying that MPEG-4 part 2 (H.263) is a bad coded, as that one is quite widely used?

edit flag offensive delete publish link more


Process same resolution in smaller file-size? - I am not expecting 200KB/sec (1080p movie with stereo sound properly converted) but like 1MB/sec

chemist ( 2014-01-13 23:56:11 +0300 )edit

Well if you compere some unnamed fruit 4S taking 1080p video for a minute it takes 178MB, and we take under 90MB, I would say that coded which is used is pretty good. You are more talking about wanting to have 720p videos which have lower bitrates.

rainisto ( 2014-01-14 00:30:08 +0300 )edit

But probably one could be able to compile common linux post processing tools to do 2-pass post processing to decrease the filesizes, but that goes beyound what can be done in live recording.

rainisto ( 2014-01-14 00:32:54 +0300 )edit

I am not asking for lower resolution! And for what do we have all that numbercrunchers (G/CPU) on board?

chemist ( 2014-01-14 22:33:26 +0300 )edit

@rainisto how about a codec not 10years old? According to you can lower the bitrate by 45-65% with same PSNR on 1080p@24Hz, interesting is that the 12Mbit set in the Jolla are so low end that you may tripple the SNR even without reducing the bitrate! tells that with 20Mbit you get a good picture with the codec in use so how about being unlike?

chemist ( 2014-03-26 17:40:05 +0300 )edit
Login/Signup to Answer

Question tools



Asked: 2014-01-13 17:50:37 +0300

Seen: 756 times

Last updated: Jan 25 '17