 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:54:42 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
spake thusly:
> scott wrote:
>>> I know the BT Vision system is supposed to allow you to download video
>>> content to watch later, but I'm not aware of any system which can
>>> manage it in realtime. (Certainly not just using a normal PC...)
>> Many TV company websites let you watch TV live via your PC at varying
>> levels of quality. I have certainly seen a few that exceed digital SD
>> broadcast TV.
>
> Seriously??
>
>> How about BBC iPlayer, what's the quality like on that? (I can't access
>> it outside the UK)
>
> Pitiful. Utterly pitiful.
>
> I mean, forgetting the minor detail that it's plain unusuable at certain
> times of day, the picture quality is abysmal. (The sound isn't bad
> though.)
I use it via a wireless link on my PS3 and I agree that at certain times
it's quite choppy. Quality is worse than normal broadcast, but it's hardly
abysmal. For those outside the UK it's comparable to the 4OD channel at
youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/channel4 where the maximum seems to be
480p
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> abysmal. For those outside the UK it's comparable to the 4OD channel at
> youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/channel4 where the maximum seems to be
> 480p
That seems comparable to normal digital SDTV.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
de news: op.vbtop7c1mn4jds@phils...
>
> Ethernet speakers?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtherSound
But not a cheap solution
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> scott wrote:
> > Anyway, there are also compression algorithms that are a lot more
> > efficient than the one used on DVDs. So in theory you could get DVD
> > quality with a lot less than 9 MBit/s if you use a better compression
> > algorithm.
> Indeed. A 10:1 improvement in compression is easily attainable without
> noticable loss compared to DVD compression anyway.
10 times smaller than MPEG-2 with the same visual quality? Now that,
I think, would be quite hard.
Maybe if the MPEG-2 had been created with a crappy software (thus
requiring plenty of bitrate) and then you used really aggressive H.264
encoding settings (something like requiring 24 hours of encoding time
for each hour of video or such), perhaps. But under normal circumstances
10:1 feels a bit excessive.
Could you take a 1.5-hour 4GB DVD-quality MPEG-2 and make a 400MB H.264
from it with the same resolution and without visible loss of quality?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/27/2010 3:02 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> When do you think that day will be?
>>
>> Not only is it here. It's a commodity.
>>
>> http://www.netflix.com/NetflixReadyDevices
>
> I don't follow.
Whats not to follow? They stream movies directly from the internet
(albeit at SD resolutions ..)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> When do you think that day will be?
>>>
>>> Not only is it here. It's a commodity.
>>>
>>> http://www.netflix.com/NetflixReadyDevices
>>
>> I don't follow.
>
> Whats not to follow? They stream movies directly from the internet
> (albeit at SD resolutions ..)
Presumably this only actually works if you have a suitably fast Internet
connection though?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> When do you think that day will be?
>>>
>>> Not only is it here. It's a commodity.
>>>
>>> http://www.netflix.com/NetflixReadyDevices
>>
>> I don't follow.
>
> Whats not to follow? They stream movies directly from the internet
> (albeit at SD resolutions ..)
Of course there is the SlingBox too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingbox
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Of course there is the SlingBox too:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingbox
Again, that's all very nice. But unless you have insane levels of
bandwidth available, it's not going to work.
There's nothing theoretically difficult about sending video data over
the Internet. The problem is the bandwidth.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:18:21 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> There's nothing theoretically difficult about sending video data over
> the Internet. The problem is the bandwidth.
You seem to be missing the fact that a lot of people have had the
necessary bandwidth for years.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> There's nothing theoretically difficult about sending video data over
>> the Internet. The problem is the bandwidth.
>
> You seem to be missing the fact that a lot of people have had the
> necessary bandwidth for years.
Hmm, interesting. Where I live, most people have between 2 Mbit/sec and
8 Mbit/sec. (I gather that until ADSL2 is deployed, you can't exceed 8
Mbit/sec...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
