Le 2012-02-07 04:16, Invisible a écrit :
>>> 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.

Once again, you presumed wrong, since other people are able to see the 
full image!


>
> 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.
>

Bad example.  Assuming you downloaded it via bit-torrent from other 
users, you were constrained by their very limited upload speeds.  If you 
downloaded it from an FTP server, you were also porbably constrained by 
the number of connections clobbering said server.

Netflix, and other streaming sites have banks of high performance 
servers connected to very large internet pipes, in multiple sites that 
are close to the users.  This way, there are fewer bottlenecks and 
little to no latency issues that can interfere with the stream.

>> <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.

Which part of the Internet isn't fast enough?

Is HD tv available in the UK, from cable tv providers?  Stop and think 
for a few nanoseconds how that signal is delivered to your cablebox. 
Netflix and co. are the same thing, except the source server is just a 
few 10Gbps hops further away on the Internet backbone.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message