 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:18:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Again, that's all very nice. But unless you have insane levels of
> bandwidth available, it's not going to work.
3 Mbps isn't "insane" by today's standards. It's what I've got, and the
Netflix streaming works. Did I mention I project the image on a 9'
diagonal screen?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:10:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>
>> besides game consoles, many people for the past few years have been
>> connecting computers to their large screen FullHD TVs. Because, you
>> know, it's usually more pleasing seeing images at a large screen from
>> the comfort of your sofa (yeah, with a wireless keyboard) rather than
>> sitting a few inches away from a much smaller screen.
>
> Not if you're a programmer... although admittedly few people are.
Has nothing to do with being a programmer. I know quite a few
professional software engineers who have home cinema setups to watch
movies, and far prefer that over watching in front of their computer
screen.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Wow - I assume 1st class seating, not coach. ;-)
Coach, actually. But now that you mention it, I have to wonder why.
> And fire? Sounds like a story....
Not much of a story. 1985, house caught on fire while we weren't home, got
home, no people hurt, pets dead, expensive and annoying to repair thing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:15:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Wow - I assume 1st class seating, not coach. ;-)
>
> Coach, actually. But now that you mention it, I have to wonder why.
Weird....
>> And fire? Sounds like a story....
>
> Not much of a story. 1985, house caught on fire while we weren't home,
> got home, no people hurt, pets dead, expensive and annoying to repair
> thing.
:-( Sorry to hear that (I know, it was a long time ago, but loss of home
and pets is a bad memory).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/28/10 06:35, Mike Raiford wrote:
> I think the resolution actually tops out somewhere around 720x480. Their
> STB only supports the SD mode, though it may be progressive scan, or it
> could be that you have a high enough bandwidth connection that you're
> getting less compression.
I'm guessing bandwidth. Speakeasy claims 25 Mb/s, although in practice
it's always lower. I get download rates exceeding 1.5 MB/s (bytes).
--
I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> You know that pitch perception is logarithmic, right?
>
> She was still off by 10x as much as I was. Things that sounded the same
> were a good semitone or even full tone different.
That's quite impressive...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> probably due more to server load than end-user bandwidth though.)
>
> Probably not. Probably due to bottlenecks between you and the backbone.
Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I don't follow.
>
> Netflix streaming video service. I use it myself, generally get good
> results over a 3 Mbps (down) DSL connection.
>
> Or hulu.com. Or BBC iPlayer for that matter.
BBC iPlayer I've actually used. The quality is not even close to what
you see on TV.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> BBC iPlayer I've actually used. The quality is not even close to what you
> see on TV.
What bandwidth did you have available at the time?
Try this page to check:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/diagnostics
After it's done the tests it tells you which services you can get in
realtime. I've never used it, but I assume there are options for HD (3500
kbps), and various bandwidth versions for SDTV. The top SDTV one is 1500
kbps, that should almost be broadcast quality.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:57:40 +0200, nemesis
<nam### [at] gmail com> did spake thusly:
> Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> http://vimeo.com/9078364
>>>
>>> youtube sucks...
>> ...is something supposed to happen?
>
> besides bringing some tears to your eyes thanks to a beautiful movie, it
> should show you better hi-def picture quality than in youtube in
> general...
Ah I've been corrupted I was a) waiting for everything to speed up and the
car to hit him and b) thinking if they cut this down to 30 seconds or so
it'd make a great perfume commercial.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
