Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
21st March 2009, 20:08 | #41 | Link | |||||||
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 272
|
Quote:
remember the basic choices to keep (HD) widescreen ratios when you get the choice to Encode your content are 848x480 (16:9) ,1280x720 (16:9) , 1360x768 (16:9) , and OC 1920x1080 (16:9), were the likes of the UKs Virgin media users on 10/20/50Mbit could use that real HD Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Multicast is "Virtually Unused" not because people dont want to use it, but Because the ISPS go out of their way to filter the Multicast protocol and/or turn it OFF altogether in their routers and related kit. and i take the implyed point about the home router problem, However i did say and keep saying "Tunnel" exactly because of this ISP filtering of the protocol, as all the worlds ISP routers and related kit are fully multicast capable, but they choose not to let you the end users use or access it.. because the majority of the world ISPS filter it from you for no good reason, you NEED a tunnel and a multicast end point (this Multicast server/tunnel i advocate inside SL for instance) to bypass that and mTunnel proves the point, try it between two or more web connected PCs and VLC MC some content from one, works fine and the ISPs choices to deprive you of the MC protocol are no more. http://www.cdt.luth.se/~peppar/progs/mTunnel/ this most basic and old java based multicast tunnel runs on any generic UDP IPV4, and you then place/push any of your multicast content inside that tunnel, SO no problem as you have bypassed their native UDP IPV4/6 multicast filtering etc.... you must be able to make something that can perform at least as good as the old "Mtunnel" from MBONE days surely?, and intigrate it into SL as a generic option for people/devs to use!, the question then is, "will you? include a tunnel that works for easy use of multicast content streaming and it's control over the web" Ohh ,and stop calling AVC/H.264 "Mpeg-4" in your blog , people might start thinking you can use Divx the original "Mpeg4" in SL Last edited by popper; 21st March 2009 at 21:57. |
|||||||
21st March 2009, 22:06 | #42 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 272
|
ben said:"Quote: In the end, Silverlight really is an application framework, ..."
just a thought, are we going to see SilverLight being used for serving the 360 for video streaming over multicast ?, and are we ever going to see a firmware update for the 360 that can play AAC-LC with more than 2 channels from that ? come to that, could you put SL and some way to control/interact with it on the 360 firmware given its PPC/Altivec+ based, does your SL codebase compile and run there ? Last edited by popper; 21st March 2009 at 22:11. |
21st March 2009, 22:10 | #43 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
Our terminology could use some refactoring. I'm particulary tired of typing and explaining "MPEG-4 Part 2" over and over again . |
|
21st March 2009, 22:15 | #44 | Link | |||
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
That's really out of scope for Silverlight, since it'd be just serving a file without any of the interactivity and managed code. WMP works fine for that already. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
21st March 2009, 22:18 | #45 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 272
|
lol, just call it AVC and be done with it, everyone can then follow your lead....
"sliced another way, Silverlight 3 will be able to play pretty much all MPEG-4 files that would play back well in both QuickTime and Flash." kind of implys the codec to the average user dont you think.... "sliced another way, Silverlight 3 will be able to play pretty much all AVC files that would play back well in both QuickTime and Flash." sounds just so much nicer to the average users, at least i think so. "You mean going from Silverlight to the XBox 360 as an extender?" yes... but more than that, id like to see the interactivity potential of SL directly on the 360,the codecs updated to bring it inline with todays content, hell even a simple browser would be a good start in the next firmware update so we could use it for web based Silverlight and other content online/LAN etc... i dont see it as a fixed CE device , it is a powerful 3 core PPC/Altivec PC that could be doing so much more in the video streaming home, but for the lack of (SL)apps or the ability to install them and use remotely from your LAN.... as an extender 360/WMP doesnt go anywere far enough for me, so i use Tversity as the better option right now, the path for SL doesnt seem very clear to me as you imply these type of apps are "really out of scope for Silverlight", if so it seems the 360 will never be anything other than a dumb extender relying on a powered LAN PC were it could be so much more independant in the streaming video home, or perhaps that might change in the future with a firmware update! Last edited by popper; 21st March 2009 at 23:44. |
21st March 2009, 22:53 | #47 | Link | ||
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
21st March 2009, 23:04 | #48 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
But in general, H.264 clearly won the naming war, probably thanks to Apple and QuickTime. H.264 is certainly better than typing "MPEG-4 Part 10" every time... I just wish we had a H.26x name for MPEG-4 Part 2, since there's really not satisfying shorthand for it. divx/xvid are product specific, and ASP is obviously specific to a particular profile. |
|
22nd March 2009, 04:01 | #49 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,125
|
Its a shame you arent making a 64bit version of silverlight3, vista64 has a 64bit version of IE7 (not default of course) and i'm fairly sure IE8 on windows7 x64 is 64bit, dont think i saw a 32bit version on the start menu of beta 7057 i tried a few days ago. Seems a bit pointless having a 64bit IE and no 64bit flash or silverlight. Can't you just hire some more programmers, you're making alot of profit each year.
Will multi-channel AAC be supported? DXVA would be nice to add in the next version, just to reduce the cpu usage a little, especially on laptops with say a nvidia 8 series card, many of which only have a pentium dual core, maybe even celeron-m cpu. Wont affect those with core i7 cpu's much but for older cpu's it would help. Maybe version 3.5 you could add 64bit support, HE-AAC, DXVA and maybe a few other missing things. I havent come across many websites that use silverlight that i use, only ITV.com/catchup (online tv catchup service for a uk tv channel), do you have a list of big sites that use it somewhere? Last edited by hajj_3; 22nd March 2009 at 04:17. |
22nd March 2009, 04:25 | #50 | Link | ||||
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
64-bit seems compelling as nerd correctness, but really is much more interesting at the OS level than at the consumer app level for most things. It's big for databases, Photoshop, and 3D animation where > 4 GB can actually get used. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you can tell me what country you live in, I can find out what our cool stuff there is. |
||||
22nd March 2009, 15:31 | #51 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,125
|
im from UK, only site i've encountered is ITV.com/catchup (catchup tv service). Having a page on your microsoft.com/silverlight showing what sites use it and for what purpose might help silverlight catch on a bit more so people can see it in action as at the moment its in windows update and most people dont know what its used for and probably have never encountered a silverlight site.
|
24th March 2009, 20:34 | #52 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
|
|
3rd April 2009, 03:01 | #53 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,315
|
HE-AAC is still relevant even for desktop PCs (don't talk about mobile and Wi fi narrow bandwith). There are still a lot of connections like ADSL 512 kbits and Cable 640 kbits. Bitrate of audio track is something around of 10% of total bitrate (audio+video). Even if those connections will go to 1 Mbps in 2010 it will still appropriate use of HE-AAC as total bitrate will be around 700-850 kbit/s (700-800 kbits video + 64-80 kbits HE-AAC). Probably during 2012 it will be possible to get rid of HE-AAC as the slowest connection for desktop segment will be ~2 Mbps.
|
3rd April 2009, 06:00 | #55 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Californiaaaaayyy
Posts: 51
|
I assume you have researched availability/pricing of cable(HIGH-SPEED) in your locale. Just as a matter of of interest, how much does does your dial-up cost compared to high-speed? Just interested.
Best of luck. M
__________________
mozzle |
3rd April 2009, 17:38 | #56 | Link | |
Solaris: burnt by the Sun
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: /etc/default/moo
Posts: 1,923
|
Quote:
dailup is about 15-20$/month for a hand full of hours 2mbps adsl is about 30 cable is about the same |
|
3rd April 2009, 19:08 | #57 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 184
|
Dial up near where I live is like $10/month unlimited. I get 21 mbps down/2 mbps up for $60/month. 7 mbps down/1 mbps up is like $45/month if not bundled. Something like 2 mbps would probably cost $30-40. The prices have remained stagnant for 7+ years. Soon they'll be adding bandwidth caps in my area for my service - I hope they drop the price if they do
|
4th April 2009, 23:58 | #58 | Link |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
There's a ton of great data in the new Akamai "State of the Internet" report:
http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/ With real-world testing, they show 63% of US internet can get more than 2 Mbps. And that's actual speed to Akamai, not provisioned speed. |
5th April 2009, 10:47 | #59 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,840
|
I've heard that roughly 8% of the US population doesn't have access to broadband though obama's 'stimulus' package is supposed to signifigantly lower this. I'm going to guess it's higher in some other fairly civilized countries like northern Australia/New Zealand, some asian and some african countries. Currently in the USA they seem to be doing a lot more of the improving already high speed connections (FIOS) as opposed to dealing with offering the rural community broadband, which I can understand takes a lot of infrastructure. I guess there's always overpriced satellite internet for rural places though.
Bandwidth caps are becoming more and more common. While I can understand their reasons for limiting illegal activities they are also affecting legitimate streaming. If you take 100GB (typical in canada, uk, australia some places are even lower) cap and are streaming HD stuff like from netflix or cbs/abc/fox/nbc a casual internet user could often exceed the bandwidth limit. Last edited by turbojet; 5th April 2009 at 10:51. |
5th April 2009, 18:27 | #60 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
Now, obviously that'll change over time as IP becomes how all data is delivered. But until then, those peope aren't going to be watching web video anyway, so they're not really part of the audience. But being able to send 2 Mbps to 63% of the population is pretty huge! And 25% can do a 5 Mbps stream. And these numbers are going up quickly. I think 1080p web video is going to be realistic for a decent chunk of the population by the end of 2010. |
|
Tags |
flash, h.264, silverlight |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|