🚀 go-pugleaf

On 28 Nov 2003 08:44:34 -0800, ecmcdougall@iname.com (ECM) wrote:

><Nittaku> wrote in message news:<3fc1395c$0$28292$ba620e4c@reader1.news.skynet.be>...
>> "ECM" <ecmcdougall@iname.com> wrote in message
>> news:232689b7.0311221855.62889dfc@posting.google.com...
>> > <Nittaku> wrote in message
>>  news:<3fbe483e$0$21196$ba620e4c@reader3.news.skynet.be>...
>> > >
>> > > I found this in a Hauppage FAQ:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.hauppauge.com/html/stream.htm
>> > >
>> > > Comments on this? Will it work? Possible problems?
>> >
>> > I think this might (as long as it's stable software) work fine to help
>> > encode your captures to Windows Media format, but you'd still need to
>> > publish them to your intranet. This software from Hauppage doesn't
>> > encode then stream at the same time - I'm getting the feeling that
>> > this is really what you want.... it IS tempting - watching TV on your
>> > WiFi Tablet or laptop PC anywhere in the house you want to. The
>> > technology isn't up to the challenge yet, though. We'll need
>> > gigabit(or at least 100 Mbit async) WiFi, and some serious software
>> > and hardware development before this'll happen.
>> 
>> This I don't understand.
>> 
>> Encoding a TV signal in real time is possible, the hauppage card does it.
>> Sending data across a 100Mb network should be enough too. I don't see why
>> technology isn't up to the challenge yet.
>
>Well, I think you could stream VCR quality (352X240, 30fps) across a
>wired 100 mbit network - that's about SVCD quality. My comment was
>that a wireless network, even 802.11g (or .11a), would not be adequate
>for that kind of bitrate.
>
>I think we'll have to see what the next 5 years holds for wireless LAN
>- I'm not sure we'll see much of an increase in data transfer rates.
>Remember that a lot of the bitrate increases we saw in the 90's (for
>instance with modems) was due to better hardware compression BEFORE
>transmission, not to more raw data being transmitted through the same
>pipe. Video is already pretty optimally compressed - try "zip"ing an
>MPEG file sometime - and it won't respond to this strategy. We need a
>quantum shift in technology to be able to effectively stream high
>quality video wirelessly, not tweaking of the current stuff.
>
>And as for software, it usually is developed in response to available
>hardware. The hardware is not really up to the task yet, so very
>little software is available to do what you want. Even the "bleeding
>edge" types wouldn't spend a lot of money on technology that would
>allow them a small blocky picture with lots of pauses on $2000+ worth
>of equipment, when they can turn on a sub-$100 TV and get a far
>superior image.....
>
>Anyways, an interesting thread!
>Good Luck!
>ECM


We don't really need any of that.
All that's needed with current technology to achieve better than VCR
quality is a server-side app that can use a conexant chipset card as
input, compress to divx and stream it, and a client-side app
"expecting" the format details communicated to it by the server app,
so it can pick up the stream at a keyframe.

Current CPUs sold are fast enough, 10Mb lan as well as 802.11g is fast
enough, even 802.11b is "almost" fast enough for 640x480 at reasonable
bitrate, a few dropped frames if the signal is degraded.  The
applications just aren't there yet.

There really isn't any good reason to use SVCD unless you need to play
it in a modern DVD player.  The other codecs can have increased
bitrate if that level of quality is desired, but bitrate chosen as
necessary to fit the available network.   Old systems benefitted from
hardware-compression cards but today higher quality can be had (and
more control over it) with software compression.  It's just not
something that could be done with a system that's slow, therefore
being semi-retired but expected to do this demanding task.


Dave