Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTubeDrive: Store files as YouTube videos

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 316 posts

Re: YouTubeDrive: Store files as YouTube videos

#281

Post by wanderingmind »

hifikuno wrote: post #226
wanderingmind wrote: post #213

The code looks not too big (a single file). But it requries a paid symbolic language (Mathematica) to be used. Anyone with better Mathematica knowledge explain if it can be ported to another symbolic (Sage, Maxima) or non-symbolic languages (R, Julia, Python)

I remember seeing years ago a python library called BitGlitter which did the same thing. It would convert any file to a image or video. You could then upload the file yourself. https://pypi.org/project/BitGlitter/

Looks like the github page is deleted. Its better not to use it anymore.

Re: YouTubeDrive: Store files as YouTube videos

#282

Post by Dylan16807 »

anyfoo wrote: post #161
ben174 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, 2GB on a standard tape. For the time, that's incredibly efficient and cheap.

Yeah. Video, even old grainy VHS, had a pretty high bandwidth. Even much more so with S-VHS, which did not become super popular though. (I'm actually wondering whether the 2GB figure was for S-VHS, not VHS. Didn't to the math and wouldn't be surprised either way, though.)

A normal VHS encodes about 100 million scan lines over 2 hours. 20 bytes per scan line sounds feasible, since there's somewhere around 200-300 'pixels' of luma available in each scan line.

Re: YouTubeDrive: Store files as YouTube videos

#286

Post by RugnirViking »

javajosh wrote: post #72
throwaway92394 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just gotta add some good 'ol steganography

This brings up an interesting question: what is the upper-bound of hidden data density using video steganography? E.g. how much extra data can you add before noticeable degradation? It's interesting because it requires both a detailed understanding of video encoding and also understanding of human perception of video.

A pretty massive amount I imagine. I attended a lecture on single image steganography and they were able to store almost 25% of the image's size and it was barely visible. Even 50% didn't look too bad.

Extending that into video files and it would likely be pretty massive, although you'd have some interesting time with youtube's compression algorithms

Re: YouTubeDrive: Store files as YouTube videos

#287

Post by dubiousconst281 »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #255
dzhang314 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd estimate that there's an easy order-of-magnitude improvement (~10x) just from implementing a simple error-correction mechanism -- a Reed-Solomon code ought to be good enough that we can take the squares down to 10x10, maybe even 8x8 or 5x5. Then, if we really work at it, we might be able to find another order-of-magnitude win (~100x) by packing more bits into a frequency-domain encoding scheme. This would likely…

> that we can take the squares down to 10x10, maybe even 8x8 or 5x5 16x16, 8x8, or 4x4 would be the way to go. You'd want each RGB block to map to a single H.264 macroblock. Using non order of 2 numbers means that individual blocks don't line up with macroblocks. Having a single macroblock represent 1, 4, or 16 RGB pixels would be ideal. In fact, I bet modifying the original code to use a scaling factor of 16 instead…

There's also the chroma subsampling issue. With the standard 4:2:0 ratios, you'll get half the resolution for the two chroma channels, and if I'm not mistaken, they are more aggressively quantized.

It would be better to use YUV/YCbCr directly instead of RGB.

Re: YouTubeDrive: Store files as YouTube videos

#288

Post by kuschku »

pstrateman wrote: post #235
kuschku wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4K consumer video is 3840x2160, 4K Cinema video is 4096x2160. Just like 2K consumer video is 1920x1080 and 2K Cinema video is 2048x1080

sure, youtube videos are consumer though

Not necessarily — YouTube supports DCI 4K as well and videographers sometimes upload in DCI 4K.

Re: YouTubeDrive: Store files as YouTube videos

#289

Post by hnbad »

danachow wrote: post #257
freedomben wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I'm pretty sure you're right on the timing. I was a teenager in the mid to late 90s and britney tapes were extremely common then, to the point that it was often used as a joke (much like in your story!)

WinMX was release 21 years ago, and Britney Spears definitely didn’t break out until around 1999 around the same time as Napster. The difference between 1994 and 1999 is quite a bit in show biz/pop culture and an absolutely huge difference in public uptake of the internet.

That's right, 1999 was the release of her first album (Baby One More Time). I think the reason some feel like it must have been the mid-90s is that she went from that to the first major scandals (marriage, divorce and a shift in her musical style) as well as her first Greatest Hits album by 2004.

Her next album after that (along with the head shaving incident and being placed under the custody of her manager-dad) was 2007, so most people's memories of her as a "sexy teen idol" are likely from her 1999-2003 period, which in retrospect probably felt a lot longer, especially with the overlap of other young women pop stars in the same period (e.g. Christina Aguilera started in 1998).

Re: YouTubeDrive: Store files as YouTube videos

#290

Post by semi-extrinsic »

hiq wrote: post #196
babanin wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On my first job (in the beginning of the millennium) there was a limit on files you could download, something around 5Mb. If you wanted to download something bigger, you had to ask sysadmins to do that and wait... That was really annoying. So I and my colleague end up writing a service, that could download a file to local storage and chop it into multiple 5Mb attachments and send multiple emails to requestor. After s…

I couldn't download .exe files at some $CORPORATION. They had to be whitelisted or something, and the download just wouldn't work otherwise. But once you had the .exe you could run it just fine. You just had to ping some IT person to be able to retrieve your .exe. Of course it was still possible to browse the internet and visualize arbitrary text, so splitting the .exe into base64-encoded chunks and uploading them on…

We still cannot email each other .py files where I work. But .py.txt is of course fine...
Post reply on HN