>a well-compressed 1080p png can be as small as ~500 kB >lossless

>>60860898
Line up 100 of those PNGs and see what you get.

That's because AVC is trash.

Try that shit with CRF HEVC. I dare you, I double dog dare you motherfucker.

File: poop.png (3MB, 1508x1493px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1508x1493px

>>60860962

>>60860898
Lossless hevc is more like 4 Mbps at 30fps, AVC is just inefficient.

File: 592px-I_P_and_B_frames.svg.png (19KB, 592x112px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 592x112px

In simple terms there is more data to store (like the motion vectors)
There is also the audio.
You also have frame rates etc. In 1 frame you get at least 24 images (can be more).
You also don't work with compressed frames which means that the 1080p frames are not ~500kB.

>>60861004
BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS TAKING OVER HEVC?

>>60861021
audio is a different stream of the file, dummy

File: qtgmc2-001.mkv_snapshot_00.08_[2017.06.11_18.23.34].png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

Screenshot compressed with GIMP level 9: 2.27MB
Lossless stream: 40.125MB/s, 59.94fps
So x264 lossless is beating PNG handily.

>>60861036
mb
>>60861047
Agreed. Also yeah the reason it would win could be because of the motion vector encoding. It doesn't store each image for all frames but instead only the parts that moved.