Not only that. JPEG works best on natural-looking images, with gradients, curves, constant and wide color variation, etc. Computer screens very often show entirety different kinds of images, dominated by few flat colors, small details (like text) and sharp edges. That is, exactly by "high-frequency noise" JPEG is built to throw away.
JPEG either makes "smeared" screenshots or low-compression screenshots. PNG often works better.
A proper video codec mostly sends the small changes between frames (including shifts,like scrolling), and relatively rare key frames. It could give both a better visual quality and better bandwidth usage.
What's interesting in the "screenshot per second" solution is that it can be hacked together from common existing pieces, like imagemagic, netcat, and bash; no need to install anything. (Imagine you've got privilege-limited access to a remote box, and maybe cannot even write to disk! Oh wait...)
JPEG either makes "smeared" screenshots or low-compression screenshots. PNG often works better.
A proper video codec mostly sends the small changes between frames (including shifts,like scrolling), and relatively rare key frames. It could give both a better visual quality and better bandwidth usage.
What's interesting in the "screenshot per second" solution is that it can be hacked together from common existing pieces, like imagemagic, netcat, and bash; no need to install anything. (Imagine you've got privilege-limited access to a remote box, and maybe cannot even write to disk! Oh wait...)