I can't quite believe my own arithmetic but... that would mean the page is larger than 30 minutes of video streamed using the new codec. Can that possibly be correct?
Calculations here, someone please tell me I'm wrong:
The caption quotes "30kbps", but that has to be a typo - I think they mean 30KBps (240kbps).
I don't think the codec uses 30kbps by default, that specific example is showing what it would look like at 30kbps. Obviously if you have the speed for it, it'll probably raise the bitrate more. Duo is known for adaptively scaling up and down and smoothly switching between different network conditions.
There are four large .gif files. I believe the one you are referring to is 2.6 MB and named `Duo_540X540_TransparentBG_3s_splitscreen_05.gif`, with a split screen comparison of what it would look like at 30kbps. The overhead is the graphics of the "montage", I figure.
I find a better way of inducing horror when it comes to page sizes is referring to “multiples of Doom” rather than megabytes. The original Doom shareware release was two 1.44MB floppies, so this page is 20.4 Dooms big.
There are only two ways of realistically demonstrating encoding artifacts: decode the actual format client side or transmit a lossless encoding. GIF surely isn't lossless, but its losses are somewhat orthogonal to those of the encodings in question. Still, yet could have done with much less of the same.
