On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:20:31 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> 100 sites?! o_O
>>>
>>> Damn, you actually follow that much stuff? Jees...
>>
>> Yes, I do.
> 
> Damn. How do you ever get anything done?! o_O

I use Google Reader so I don't have to visit all those sites to see 
what's new.  Takes me about an hour in the evening to go through the 
day's posts and see what's new.

>> Bingo.  Thank you, you've made my point.  You *can* actually learn
>> stuff by reading about it on the 'net.
> 
> You can /totally/ find out prices or technical specifications or look up
> instructions. I'm saying you can't really comprehend a fundamentally
> different world-view just by reading about it.

Depends on who's written it.

>>>> Then your eyes are better than mine, or you got a really crappy
>>>> connection.
>>>
>>> Yes. Because it's the connection that determines the picture quality,
>>> not the sender. Oh, wait...
>>
>> Yes, it is the connection that determines the picture quality.
> 
> Erm, no. It's the quality that the file is transcoded at.

A connection that isn't fast enough isn't going to show you the full 
definition.  I defy you to demonstrate a high quality video over a slow 
connection.

>>> And that's the problem - it seems that to stream realtime over the
>>> Internet, you have to accept really low picture quality.
>>
>> Would you like me to take a picture of Netflix streaming on my 10' wide
>> screen with a 3 Mbps ADSL connection?  Would that make you happy?
> 
> It still wouldn't explain how it's possible... Every Internet video
> system I've ever seen either has awful image quality or isn't realtime.
> And it appears that's because the necessary bandwidth doesn't exist yet.

<sigh>

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-UJGO-U7Whto/TzAdp1huWOI/
AAAAAAAABbs/1IPtFRGNv6Q/s912/2012-02-06.jpg

Now consider that's a quick photo of a 10' screen streaming realtime at 3 
Mbps.  The bluriness you see there is an artifact of the camera used, not 
the actual image on the screen.

Obviously the necessary bandwidth exists.

Jim

Post a reply to this message