Data get destroyed thru compression, so you waste like 1M video for 10KB of data

>>109533355
What would be the purpose?

>>109533355
Why wouldnt you just show the video and the other person can record the video with their camera?

>>109533355
>rapes video encoding
>140KB/s

>>109533401
>>109533424
he's not talking about encoding the qr codes as video you retards

>>109533442
but the webm shows that

>>109533410
How do you do that with a binary file?

>>109533453
no it doesn't

>>109533461
it is, the webm shows file transfer progress bit by bit

I do this to transfer files from my virtual desktop work environment to my personal computer to work without the stupid latency and with full access to Claude.

>>109533410
>>109533442
literal retards

>>109533442
Doesn't matter, if it doesn't make it though compression it's not gonna make it through a camera.

You're so naive too, on android the image data is already compressed half the time before it makes it to your app.

>>109533424
This is it, it's too slow

>>109533355
what for? this just seems to have lower data rate and vastly more additional encoding/decoding than wifi7 or usb-c cabling or w/e

all of which are simpler than matching up more or less high resolution cameras and displays and doing some visual encoding

maybe engraving series of BIGGER codes into glass-stone slabs (fill the engrave stone with glass you now have a positive and a negative copy on robust materials and it's cheaper than gold-glass or w/e) can do long-term storage... but that's not really transmission

>>109533505
the point is easy access and easy use at acceptable speed compared to other alternatives e.g. bluetooth

File: 1771511798548.png (406 KB, 1008x1916)

406 KB PNG

>>109533410
Only non retarded person in this thread

I'd just send the file with WhatsApp

>>109533505
could be useful for sending over a small file between phones, something bluetooth is supposed to be good for i've never gotten bluetooth to work for anything properly.

a wifi hotspot with an http server is still better for performance (there are apps for that)

>>109533505
Id use it for sending .md files between my pc and tablet. But then I also have Bluetooth

>>109533608
>something bluetooth is supposed to be good for i've never gotten bluetooth to work for anything properly
Funnily enough this has about the same transfer speed as bluetooth.

I already do this for URLs when moving from desktop to phone to the shitter. 1 click by the url bar + 1 tap on my phone from the home screen and it's faster than the "send tab to device" feature.

>>109533355
it was literally already invented, it's called bluetooth

>>109533355
This is kinda cool actually, checked and checked
Good way to transfer data without having to rely on any other protocols or mediums, but I suspect for a video you can do better than QR (perhaps something with motion tracking which can tolerate much less error correction)
"Compression" isn't an issue as long as you display the image in full resolution on the sender and get raw video data on the receiver
I think with a good (not vibeslopped) implementation you could do way better than 140kb/s

>>109533608
>>109533660
kdeconnect

>>109533505
No need for bluetooth, wifi, or any other standard connectivity, can transfer across any line of sight with the right support. It's basically ghetto FSO (except FSO can do gigabit speeds).

>>109533464
It shows the decoding of text - a url

>>109533793
No, it's decoding the actual video data. It's why there's an entire array of QR codes that swap very fast (each frame being a different data frame).

>>109533355
write the app

>>109533863
using javascript only

>>109533355
itt: things iToddlers have to do because all free, open and efficient data transferring solutions are locked behind their walled garden tiktok-consuming ROM.

>>109533567
Literally unnecessary.
>KDE Connect
>Sharing (com.ammar.sharing)
>Share to Computer
>Plain App
>Syncthing
All of these are significantly faster and more convenient.

File: 1786155407477490.png (219 KB, 374x478)

219 KB PNG

>>109533355
Couldn't you just use email?

>>109533793
a url thats 16k lines long?????

this is incredible bait, are you an AI???

>>109533908
>hey anon great photo. can you send me that fireworks pic to me?
>umm let me just install syncthing
>fuck that's not on google play store
>maybe install kde connect
>ok anon wtf is that
moron

>>109533908
Plus sites like LocalSend and PairDrop which don't require an app
Also, Quick Share which is part of GMS on Android, which now also works with Apple devices using AirDrop

>>109533567
>at acceptable speed compared to other alternatives e.g. bluetooth
Sure, bluetooth isn't the fastest fing - but it's a lot faster than adding an unrequired encoding/decoding step, plus the time taken to render and display an image combined with the time taken to read the image.

VS just transferring the file.

>the point is easy access
nothing says 'easy' like having to ensure visual focus is maintained. How does the source 'know' the target has accurately read the QR and it can move to the next 'frame'? Or is it maassively error prone, adding to the 'usibility'?

>>109533594
If it's small enough. And if you don't mind them taking a copy.

>>109533725
>Funnily enough this has about the same transfer speed as bluetooth.
Bluetooth is a bag of shit for a 2.4Gh protocol, but it's still faster than QR codes. By factors.

>>109534207
As opposed to... installing some bullshit app that generates bullshit arrays of qr codes?

>>109534289
Are you retarded? There is no need to sync target and source and the speed clearly shows it keeps up with bluetooth despite your retarded assumptions.

>>109534207
>braindead retard
You've cherry picked ONE thing in the list that clearly is listing all the different methods you have to share files. "Sharing" and "Share to Computer" are literally just air drop or whatever. You scan a QR code and you get a file. The person receiving the file doesn't need to install any special app whatsoever. Plus transfers are faster. Also >>109534419

>>109534289
>By factors.
It's not. For most BT devices it's 2mbps = 250 kB/s.

>>109534425
>Are you retarded?
You seem to think so. Keep doin' that, I'm sure it won't come back to bite you.

>There is no need to sync target and source
So there's no possible way for the target device to not pick up a clean image. Sounds legit.

>and the speed clearly shows it keeps up with bluetooth
Bluetooth maxes out at less than 200KB/s? There was me thinking the lowest possible speed option was 3Mbit... And commonly available hardware exceeding that by almost 10x...

>>109534441
I was thinkin' more 3Mbps ... but I'll take it.
Decade+ old fings, mebbe. But 250KB/s is still notably faster than 140KB/s. Especially when moving a file several GB or larger.

>>109534431
>The person receiving the file doesn't need to install any special app whatsoever.
It's a pity that the problem of moving data between disparate and incompatible systems wasn't solved decades ago, when they started to network together, really.... Or it'd make all this rather futile....

>>109533355
>140kB/s
We're going under bluetooth speeds.

>>109534503
>illiterate AND retarded at the same time
A classic combo

>>109534862
Evidence for either o those accusations?

want the APP

>>109535227
https://github.com/bashalarmistalt/decimen-optical-transfer

very nice, what security layers could be added, encryption? password?

>>109535276
cool

>>109535359
>what security layers could be added
nothing

>>109535359
Password could be easy to add. Encryption a bit trickier but doable (have Alice scan Bob's QR-code expressing his public key, then Alice can use it to send the data to Bob as he scans the encrypted file).

>>109535359
What security would actually be required?

It's not like you'll be projecting it at scale onto the side of a building to hit one person or nuttin?

>>109535359
For what purpose?

>>109535603
first transmit the encryption keys under cover, like literally under a blanket, and then project all encrypted messages on the side of the building

>>109535431
>>109535539
>>109535603
>>109535628
idk im trying to think of something for this special software but not to slam some already common security feat, like trying thinking some out of the box here...

That's cool. If Snowcrash made any sense it would be a weaponised version of this.

huh cool

>>109535276
That's actually pretty neat. Reminds me of old keypunch readers, reading one punch card at a time really fast.

>>109533863
well the max recommended capacity for QR code is 1024 bytes, for every frame to be captured reliably, you need at most 25FPS, which means roughly a speed of 25kbps. Not the fastest possible transfer, is it? and if one frame drops, the entire video needs to loop again.
And you also need headers so that the application can know how to reconstruct the chunks, so realistically, closer to 1000 bytes per QR code.

And what is the usecase really? Is it even worth it?

>>109535792
>And what is the usecase really?
given its a webapp you could use it to transfer a small file to a normalfag. My phone is set up so if necessary I could start an sftp server but I can't exactly tell regular people to use that.
and I can't use any of their bullshit closed source or proprietary transfer methods, whatever apple bullshit ios has.

>>109535819
>transfer a small file
Bluetooth already exists.

>>109535792
why make shit up when it's so easy to look up what you're talking about?
QR supports codes up to nearly 3KiB in size, not 1KiB, this application works up to 60FPS, not 25FPS, and it supports reading more than one QR code per frame as well. they have contributed speed tests with the best peaking at 600KiB/s, not 25kbps (sic, that should be 25KiBps)

>>109535792
Retard, everything you said is wrong AND you don't need to download frames in-order.

>>109535792
>>109535903
oh also, dropped frames don't require waiting for the animation to loop again, because the data is fountain coded

>>109533781
>Good way to transfer data
No it's not. Kinda cool but useless.
>(perhaps something with motion tracking which can tolerate much less error correction)
Now you want to mount the phone on a gimbal? topkek
>>109533785
>No need for bluetooth, wifi, or any other standard connectivity
And what kind of device would have the relatively high res screen, camera and decent processing power but no $3 bluetooth radio or USB? None, outside extremely niche scenarios like EMF testing chambers.
>"Compression" isn't an issue as long as you display the image in full resolution on the sender and get raw video data on the receiver
Again android APIs deliver compressed data half of the time but it's true in the sense that camera blur, shake, etc. is worse.

>I think with a good (not vibeslopped) implementation you could do way better than 140kb/s
That's not about AI, that's all about pushing resolution higher (and perhaps adding colors) which is a zero sum game with reliability. Although 512x512 x4 colors is what I'd see as a maximum so that's multi-megabit speed before error correction

>>109533355
Same speed as bluetooth

>>109535903
>QR supports
>>109535792
>max recommended capacity for QR code
It's just a standard, no other app can decode this anyway so it doesn't matter.

>>109533355
I don't own a cell phone. I've never owned one.

>>109536206
You don't need a high res screen nor a high res camera. Phones don't have proper usb access anymore (you need to jump through 30 hoops assuming you're savvy enough to enable developer mode). Bluetooth very often doesn't work correctly because bluetooth drivers are assgarbage (usually works on phones but not on non-phone devices). In public, you typically don't have access to wifi and there is no way to easily transfer files over mobile networks the way it's possible on a local wifi network without a 3rd party operator.

>>109536233
well sure, for something like this it doesn't actually need to conform to QR specifications, as it's not intended to be read by just any QR reader, from what i've seen it does seem to use standard QR codes, which do have an upper limit

>>109533355
> 140 kB/s
Add an audio stream too and you might break 200 kB/s
Use color and it could be 600 kB/s

>>109533355
not worth the time. cool concept. trash tech to use for such concept since error rate will be astronomically high the more dense you make the code, leading to slower transfer rates as the software tries to recover lost bits. forget sending anything that relies on lossless compression.

>>109533401
Learn about lossless compression, retard.

>>109536277
>You don't need a high res screen nor a high res camera.
You do, relatively. We are talking a $20 camera and $20 screen, compared to adding a $3 wifi-bt radio. BoM.
>Phones don't have proper usb access anymore
Yet coping with MTP is a breeze compared to rigging up my phone in front of my webcam for many hours.
>In public, you typically don't have access to wifi
??? what is hotspot
Anyway everyone has a peer-to-peer wifi option now, and googles phones are iOS-compatible now. And sending it over the internet is faster and easier too.

There is nothing wrong with the mediums available which this is a alternative to. The reason file sync / mass transfer on phones sucks is because they want you to buy their cloud storage.

>>109536467
I see you've never left your mom's basement in your life. Your delusions have reached critical levels and grossly need correction. Touch grass and ask google next time.

>>109536334
>Use color
The guy who made decimen has links to other similar projects on his page and apparently there is one that uses colors
https://github.com/sz3/libcimbar
but it's only ~100KB/s though, I don't know if the framerate is lower or something

>>109536502
>can't even say what's wrong
Im sorry babe, next time I'll try to be less right so you don't get upset :*

Whats the fastest way to transfer files from a phone (lets say android) to a pc besides cable?

Back in the days you could create a file server on the phone through wifi and access it in the browser but it seems all these apps are no more or cost money wtf

>>109533442
judging by this comment and your replies, I think you might be the retard

>>109536851
kde connect

>>109536851
I'm too lazy to install newfangled apps so I just use python web server and access it from the same local network.
on android that means termux.

>>109536856
yea; i didn't consider the receiving webapp would be taking in compressed video from the camera.
not much compression to be fair, i'm not sure how much it really matters, and i get that video made up of QR codes changing each frame is far from a good scenario for typical low bitrate encoding.
i'll "take that L", as the kids today say, in this case. as i hadn't looked in this application enough when i posted that to know it was a "web app", and as such would certainly be using a compressed video stream for QR code extraction

File: 1000036616.png (595 KB, 826x1002)

595 KB PNG

The state of file sharing was pathetic, and it has remained pathetic and unexcusable to this day

upspin was the right solution but they forced central google for centralized ns-server

>>109533355
It's horrifically inefficient in terms of bits/joule compared to other methods.

>>109536467
>Yet coping with MTP is a breeze compared to rigging up my phone in front of my webcam for many hours.
MTP is completely broken.

>>109533410
nah, describe the video to an AI agent and have it regenerated on the spot.

>>109533410
first of all, this >>109533457

second of all, notice they transferred an 11 second video in 2.6 seconds. Recording the video would take 11 seconds.

third of all, it was done purely optically instead of any sort of radio waves like all other comms from a phone, which is pretty cool and maybe useful in some uncommon situations

>>109533793
oh you're quite dumb

>>109535674
I think the security comes from it being one-way trust. The server doesn't even know the client exists. You never need to pair them like with Bluetooth. As a client (person with smartphone) walking up to an IRL screen streaming a file like this, I'd feel way safer than connecting to some public WiFi or Bluetooth which will give me malware or track my MAC

>>109541148
> Recording the video would take 11 seconds.
Play the video on 4x speed.

>>109541339
even if your argument wasn't flat out retarded, you'd still need to involve other devices (speaker and microphone) to convey sound compared to this pure optical method

>>109533355
cool I didn't know that was a thing, it's always good having alternative ways to transfer stuff, I guess it's slower than infrarred though

>>109533355
Well, from what your demonstration shows us, it's slow as shit.

>>109541465
it makes sense if the video is generated with a special software, where no frames are wasted, each second you get 30/60/144 frames, each frame is x bytes = ?

Pretty cool if you consider putting the qr sequences on a screen where anyone can scan.

>>109541465
>you'd still need to involve other devices (speaker and microphone) to convey sound
who cares about sound

>>109541465
Tbh Ive never heard any video with audio on this site.