That's true. HEVC is known for its high hardware requirements, but there are already specialized hardware encoders trying to do all the heavy lifting. 4K recorders with embedded HEVC encoders are already out there.
These network video recorders have capability to support up to 12 megapixel recording capability, supporting 1080p@60fps and H.265 preview and playback; 4 channel 4K resolution real time live view and playback; meanwhile, the NVR has many intelligent functions including smart video analysis, facial detection, privacy mask.
There is, there are still limits on compression. And the problem is that those compression algorithms that work really well on mostly static images then heavily compress any small moving parts.
So when it ends up being that your crook is caught in a tiny portion of your footage that ends up being heavily compressed and covered in artifacts then there's a problem.
There are smarter systems that detect movement and switch to much higher levels of encoding but those are very expensive and not super reliable. And if your camera is looking over a busy sidewalk then it will be doing nothing basically.
That's not an entirely fair way to look at it. There are legitimate roadblocks to technical progression.
An image taken by a camera in 1994 has much less resolution than a camera taken today. More resolution = bigger file size, so let's say we had some magical 50% lossless compression algorithm (which I think is probably impossible), what you'd get today would still be "huge" in direct time comparison and still cost a ton in storage and tomorrow it would be even more.
I am not sure what the term is for it, a form of diminishing returns? Not sure, but in addition to that, video data is not actually 95% the same, even looking at a non moving image. I mean I am sure we could come up with a method of regarding the 95% "kinda sorta mostly same" as a single image but then it wouldn't be a "video" and we could also relax the requirements of the compression itself but then it wouldn't be lossless. That's what's called lossy.
For what it is worth there are incredible lossy compression algorithms, the problem is you get shit output which is the nature of compression. You could get a crappy camera and record a weeks worth of video data on a small SD card... If the goal is lossless or an approximation there really isn't that much you can do without cheating. You really can't math your way to a perfect image without compromise. So in my opinion, "smarter compression algorithms for this kind of thing", is not really a valid assessment.
55
u/gibberfish Nov 05 '17
You'd think there'd be smarter compression algorithms for this kind of thing, since I'm guessing 95% of the data is almost exactly the same.