Granted, an assumedly overlit ballroom is not ideal, but any time there is 700:1 compression and it's even "hard" to see the difference, I'd say you're on to something.
But I am a little confused by the math in the article. Somebody should check this: 1.3GB/s ~ 10,700 Mb/s 10,700Mb/s / 700:1 ≠ 10Mb/s
So, if the first numbers are correct its more like 1100:1 compression. Right?
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Granted, an assumedly overlit ballroom is not ideal, but any time there is 700:1 compression and it's even "hard" to see the difference, I'd say you're on to something.
But I am a little confused by the math in the article. Somebody should check this:
1.3GB/s ~ 10,700 Mb/s
10,700Mb/s / 700:1 ≠ 10Mb/s
So, if the first numbers are correct its more like 1100:1 compression. Right?
The ratio of 770:1 seems right, if you use the correct original bitrate, Paul didn't in the piece.
Read the linked forum post for the details.
or 700:1 without the typing FAIL.