Live Photos format: .JPG mixed with 960x720 .MOV at 12-15 fps --- Now HEIC image + 1080p HEVC h.265

[Eug]

So, as an experiment, I downloaded a few HEVC clips and tried to play them on a few pieces of older hardware. Higher bitrate 60 fps HEVC was a problem for sure, as it stuttered and pixelated like mad on both my Core 2 Duo 2.26 GHz MacBook Pro in vlc, and on my iPhone 5s in nPlayer. (vlc and Infuse Pro were lost causes on the iPhone 5s.)

However, then I downloaded some 24 fps 1080p clips from this site:

http://www.divx.com/en/hevc-showcase

Specifically, Tears of Steel 1080p and Sintel 1080p.

Both clips play perfectly on both my MacBook Pro (vlc) and my iPhone 5s (nPlayer). This is pretty impressive considering this is entirely software playback on both machines. On the MBP, the player was using around 75-90% CPU (out of 200%). Dunno how much CPU it was using on the iPhone 5s, but it didn't seem stressed at all. Menu access in the player was still responsive, and this was with a networked-stream file no less, not local playback. Now, the same can't be said for Infuse Pro, because the files still didn't play properly in Infuse Pro, but obviously that's a problem with the decoding software, not the CPU, since nPlayer was smooth as butter on the same CPU.

BTW, these clips look very good, and are actually lower bitrates than the H.264 files in my Live Photos. So, given the right encoder, there may not even be a need to double the file size of Live Photos to get 1080p 24 fps HEVC h.265 support.

Although I didn't test it, I'm sure these files would not work properly on an iPhone 5. But then again, in 2016, an iPhone 5 would be 4 years old already. And in 2017, the iPhone 5 would be 5 years old. I could see Apple terminating support for the iPhone 5 for sure by 2017 with iOS 11, and maybe even by 2016 with the release of iOS 10.

Whenever they terminate iOS support for the iPad 4 and the iPhone 5 is when they can implement Live Photos 2 with 24 fps 1080p HEVC h.265. Based on these findings, I predict 2017, with the release of iOS 11. A little later than I hoped, but way, way earlier than 10 years from now.

 

[Rakehellion]

Your post here is at best very misleading.

1. One reason it is misleading is because of the way you used the percentages. Even if your 30% number is correct, it's not 400% - 30% = 370%. It's 400% - 30%(400%) = 400% - 120% = 280%.

The numbers are obviously going to be approximate because the implementation doesn't exist yet.

Apple claimed it "won't increase file size by much" while you're still trying to triple it.

The point is, Live Photos is supposed to be a nice bonus, not the main attraction that sucks up the majority of your storage space.

 

[Eug]

The numbers are obviously going to be approximate because the implementation doesn't exist yet.

Apple claimed it "won't increase file size by much" while you're still trying to triple it.

The point is, Live Photos is supposed to be a nice bonus, not the main attraction that sucks up the majority of your storage space.

You keep ignoring the numbers. By actual calculations, the numbers say it'd be less than twice the size, but for a cushion let's say 2X, not 3X.

You also keep ignoring the fact that I'm advocating for different settings. Default as current, but with the option of higher quality.

Basically, your arguments are like "You shouldn't allow 4K video recording in a phone, because it uses up too much storage, even though 1080p recording is the default setting". In other words, your argument makes no sense at all.

 

[Rakehellion]

You keep ignoring the numbers. By actual calculations, the numbers say it'd be less than twice the size, but for a cushion let's say 2X, not 3X.

Live Photos already doubles the filesize. Your suggestion would double the pixels and double the framerate, making the metadata 4x the size, meaning 5x the size of a standard photo. 3x is considering h265 and rounding down.

You also keep ignoring the fact that I'm advocating for different settings. Default as current, but with the option of higher quality.

Higher quality won't work on many devices or will drain excessive energy. Your recipient can't change the quality settings. Also, the iPhone 6s already has less battery life than the 6, so I think they squeezed as much content in there as they can.

 

[Rakehellion]

This one more than tripled my filesize. D:

Honestly, I just want this disabled for about 80% of the pictures I take.

 

[Eug]

9to5mac: iPhone 6s Plus: Living with Live Photos

The video captured during a Live Photo is both low-resolution and low in frame rate (12fps), so the footage plays back with a murky but somewhat dreamy look. It’s noticeable on 4.7-inch and 5.5-inch screens, and it’s just not pretty on even larger displays like iPads and Macs. The 12MP still photo dramatically contrasts with the dated, stuttering video footage wrapped around it. It’s like pairing an iPhone 6s photo with an iPhone 3GS video. I would love to see the 12fps frame rate increase, or at least provide an option if storage is the issue.

 

[Rakehellion]

I just got one that was 1440x1080 at 15fps and 3.6MB. Apparently the actual format can vary wildly.

 

[Eug]

I just got one that was 1440x1080 at 15fps and 3.6MB. Apparently the actual format can vary wildly.

Hmmm... Interesting. Did you change a setting or something?

 

[Rakehellion]

Hmmm... Interesting. Did you change a setting or something?

What settings? I think it just changes automatically depending on lighting and other conditions.

 

[Rakehellion]

I just went through my photos. All of them are 1440x1080 and hover closer to 12fps in bad lighting or 15fps in good lighting. They average about 1.5x the filesize of the JPEG. Front facing Live Photos are 1280x960 and are about 2.25x the size of the JPEG.

 

[Rakehellion]

Also, live Photos are pretty great. I'll be glad when there's more software support.

 

[hmijail]

I just went through my photos. All of them are 1440x1080 and hover closer to 12fps in bad lighting or 15fps in good lighting. They average about 1.5x the filesize of the JPEG. Front facing Live Photos are 1280x960 and are about 2.25x the size of the JPEG.

The different fps are interesting. I guess it's better to take less frames if that improves the image quality… MOV files have always had the capability of variable frame rates; I wonder if that might be used here.

 

[Ichigo]

I'm confused why one guy who's going to disable an optional feature anyway is so adamantly arguing against someone else who wants the feature to be expanded.

 

[Ns1]

so...I just got a 6s and I gotta say LivePhoto is pretty fucking amazing. If you have kids or dogs this feature is going to kill your storage space.

 

[suklee]

so...I just got a 6s and I gotta say LivePhoto is pretty fucking amazing. If you have kids or dogs this feature is going to kill your storage space.

I agree, Live Photos are quite fun - everyone I've showed them to loves them.

Anyone found a good app on Mac or iOS to export these for our non-iOS friends?

 

[Eug]

There are a couple out there that either turn them into gifs (without audio) or to a video. Just do a search.

BTW, even on iOS and OS X, the implementation of Live Photos really needs to mature. They still don't work in a lot of places, and it's annoying.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I just wanted to say that I enjoy Live Photos even though I thought they were pretty gimmicky when they were introduced. They're basically just .gifs, but .gifs have always been fun but pretty much a pain in the ass to make them. It's funny how nobody ever thought to make .gifs "easy" before. Many of them don't turn out that great, but the success rate is more than worth it.

And to the "why don't you just take a video?" crowd... it's actually liberating to have choice removed. When you're shooting a video, you've got to decide a lot of things, perhaps most importantly, how long you want to make it. This captures 1.5 seconds before and 1.5 seconds after something that you wanted to capture as a still photo, so it tends to get some action that you might have wanted to see. It's fun to see people smile or get themselves positioned for a photo. And of course if you are just taking still photos of still objects for documentary purposes then you can disable Live Photos. But if you're taking photos of people then it's better to leave it on IMO.

 

[Eug]

iOS 9.3 allows you to export or send just the image out of a Live Photo, when you want to share the image. ie. It strips away the video if you want.

 

[ManifoldSky]

They're basically just .gifs….

No, they aren't.

 

[Ns1]

No, they aren't.

okay so they're basically just gifs with sound.

 

[Eug]

okay so they're basically just gifs with sound.

Nah. They are full resolution JPEGs, with real video files attached. So not really anything like GIFs.

P.S. Welcome to AnandTech, ManifoldSky!

 

[Ns1]

Nah. They are full resolution JPEGs, with real video files attached. So not really anything like GIFs.

P.S. Welcome to AnandTech, ManifoldSky!

To the person actually watching the live photo, it's basically a GIF. With sound.

 

[Eug]

But that's just it. You don't "watch" a Live Photo until you want to. Normally it's a full resolution JPEG.

 

[Tegeril]

To the person actually watching the live photo, it's basically a GIF. With sound.

The video is limited to 256 colors? It's really not like a gif, I don't understand why you're so intent on this.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

The video is limited to 256 colors? It's really not like a gif, I don't understand why you're so intent on this.

What's the big deal? I fully understand the distinction between the formats (believe me, I started in web design in '01, I made a lot of .GIF/.JPG decisions, usually using a 4-up in PhotoShop to judge the size vs. quality limitations of both -- and of course choosing .GIF when transparency was needed -- and choosing my color palette carefully when I knew I needed .GIFs) but for the last decade or so when CPUs started being fast enough to easily deal with compressed images, and continuous upgrades in Internet bandwidth and local storage removed the need for the size benefits of .GIFs, and .PNGs gained widespread adoption and use when transparency is needed; .GIFs have basically persisted solely as a format for short, embeddable, usually looping animations, to the extent where ".GIF" pretty much stands as a shorthand for such animations, and the term ".GIF" is reasonably well known among average web and social media users even if they don't technically know the difference between one image format and another.

Your pedantry over this is kind of like an IT guy telling a user "You're not saving it to the hard drive! You've got an SSD, not a hard drive!" as if the user really cares about the technical implementation underlying the abstraction that he thinks of as a "hard drive". The Internet as a whole has abstracted ".GIF" and most people have no idea, nor do they care, about the underlying implementation. It's just a short, looping, animated picture. That's a .GIF to 90% of the world.