>> 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.

It used to take me about 4 hours in the evening (i.e., my entire 
evening) just to read this newsgroup. (Although it seems a lot quieter 
lately...)

>>> 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.

If the bitrate of the source is higher than the available bandwidth, it 
just won't play in realtime. It'll constantly stall to rebuffer. So 
presumably the guys behind iPlayer (and every other Internet video 
system) have to transcode to a low enough bitrate that it will actually 
play in realtime. The result is obviously poor image quality.

Consider, for example, that it took me 3 days to download Star Wreck, 
which is only about an hour long. OK, that was only using a 2 Mbit 
connection, but I don't suppose you can download almost 4GB of data over 
an 8 Mbit connection in one hour flat either.

> <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.

Yes, the picture looks fine. I still don't understand how that can be 
possible though. The Internet isn't fast enough. I don't see how you can 
get the data from A to B fast enough for realtime playback.

Post a reply to this message