On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:19:04 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>> It's time consuming to visit 100 sites to see if there's anything new.
>> It's far easier to be alerted when there's something new that might be
>> of interest.
> 
> 100 sites?! o_O
> 
> Damn, you actually follow that much stuff? Jees...

Yes, I do.  Now for things like Slashdot or The Register, I skim 
headlines in Google Reader.  I don't always read the full article - but 
if a headline is intriguing, I'll dig in a little deeper.

With Slashdot, if I read the headline and it looks interesting, I'll read 
the story there.  If it looks more interesting, then I'll open the link 
to the /. story and follow the links to the actual story.

>>>>> That's why I just built a new PC - to experience the Core i7
>>>>> first-hand.
>>>>> :-P
>>>>
>>>> So then why bother going to Tom's Hardware again?
>>>
>>> Sarcasm? :-P
>>
>> Or perhaps to find out what the latest processor is that you might be
>> able to afford?
> 
> For that, I go to various shopping websites. I visit Tom's Hardware to
> find out which products have good performance.

Bingo.  Thank you, you've made my point.  You *can* actually learn stuff 
by reading about it on the 'net.

>>> Want to bet that the BBC has servers all over the world?
>>
>> So you just happened to get a crappy connection, while I got a good
>> one?
> 
> Or the BBC offers different quality levels in different parts of the
> world? Heck, maybe they're even using a different codec or something? I
> don't know.

I see.  So the BBC offers really crap quality to those who pay the 
licensing fee in the UK, but offers really good quality to those who 
don't?

>> 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.  If I only 
have a 32 Kbps connection, I'm not going to get a good quality HD picture.

> Sure, it's all compressed. But that almost always means lossy
> compression. You have to trade how much bandwidth you have for what
> level of picture quality you want. 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?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 05/02/2012 11:05 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I see.  So the BBC offers really crap quality to those who pay the
> licensing fee in the UK, but offers really good quality to those who
> don't?

Hmm!
I use get_iplayer to download progs and the blurb on the site says:

The iPhone H.264 feeds from the BBC are higher quality than in the Flash 
iPlayer (normal quality). See the beebhack wiki for a comparison. They 
are intended for the Apple iPhone and are consequently difficult to 
download for any other OS. The same goes for the iPhone MP3 radio 
streams. get_iplayer also allows recording of the high-quality (even HD 
720p) flash based content using rtmpdump. None of the above content is 
‘protected’ by DRM. get_iplayer cannot remove DRM.

http://www.infradead.org/get_iplayer/html/get_iplayer.html

BTW Just a minute starts its 62nd series on Monday. Happy 45th Birthday, 
Just A Minute!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01blgp6


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:27:58 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 05/02/2012 11:05 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I see.  So the BBC offers really crap quality to those who pay the
>> licensing fee in the UK, but offers really good quality to those who
>> don't?
> 
> Hmm!
> I use get_iplayer to download progs and the blurb on the site says:
> 
> The iPhone H.264 feeds from the BBC are higher quality than in the Flash
> iPlayer (normal quality). See the beebhack wiki for a comparison. They
> are intended for the Apple iPhone and are consequently difficult to
> download for any other OS. The same goes for the iPhone MP3 radio
> streams. get_iplayer also allows recording of the high-quality (even HD
> 720p) flash based content using rtmpdump. None of the above content is
> ‘protected’ by DRM. get_iplayer cannot remove DRM.

That's the same software I use.  :)

It does seem odd, though, that they don't do HD streaming for iPlayer 
itself.  I thought I saw a switch for that (but then again, iPlayer video 
isn't something I can get my hands on easily without using get_iplayer 
and a UK-based proxy).

> http://www.infradead.org/get_iplayer/html/get_iplayer.html
> 
> BTW Just a minute starts its 62nd series on Monday. Happy 45th Birthday,
> Just A Minute!
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01blgp6

:)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> 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

> 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.

>>> 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.

>> 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.

Post a reply to this message

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

On 06/02/2012 6:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-UJGO-U7Whto/TzAdp1huWOI/
> AAAAAAAABbs/1IPtFRGNv6Q/s912/2012-02-06.jpg

Euch! The ubiquitous banker Mr Fry.

The quality looks okay or even good to me.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:33:15 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 06/02/2012 6:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-UJGO-U7Whto/TzAdp1huWOI/
>> AAAAAAAABbs/1IPtFRGNv6Q/s912/2012-02-06.jpg
> 
> Euch! The ubiquitous banker Mr Fry.

:)

We're watching "Stephen Fry Across America", just happened to think of 
grabbing a pic while watching it last night. :)

That quality is reported by NetFlix as "Medium/HD", which is usually what 
we get if nothing else is using the connection.

> The quality looks okay or even good to me.

It's quite viewable.  We also tend to get full 5.1 sound with movies that 
have it along with the good quality.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 06/02/2012 6:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-UJGO-U7Whto/TzAdp1huWOI/
> > AAAAAAAABbs/1IPtFRGNv6Q/s912/2012-02-06.jpg
>
> Euch! The ubiquitous banker Mr Fry.

he's great as Sherlock's brother Mycroft in the latest flick...

Post a reply to this message

On 06/02/2012 7:43 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 06/02/2012 6:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-UJGO-U7Whto/TzAdp1huWOI/
>>> AAAAAAAABbs/1IPtFRGNv6Q/s912/2012-02-06.jpg
>>
>> Euch! The ubiquitous banker Mr Fry.
>
> he's great as Sherlock's brother Mycroft in the latest flick...
>
>
He might be but personally I find him hard to watch because of his past.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> 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