Theora 1.1 Thusnelda Is Released

[L33F3R]

You have bandwidth problems in the U.S., but there's more in the world than just the U.S.

Well im not from the united states.

the UK is in the same boat as the US from what people tell me, Few years back a french guy that was staying with me thought my Internet was speedy (and his family was made of money...). The aussies get shafted.... Well jeez der goes a big chunk of the developed world right there.

http://www.speedtest.net/global.php

European speeds are only slightly better then the north american ones. When you factor in the shear geography that needs to be covered, its quick to discover that with the acceptance of a select few nations, the speeds are about the same.

I would also like to note that there is a difference in what you pay for and what you get. At the very least its $2/mbit for HE bandwidth. And HE is the shittiest of the shit. if you have a 24mbit line with no usage restrictions you are being kid out of existence. It would cost $48 a month to sustain your bandwidth usage, not to mention the cost of hardware, DSL line, naked or with phone service also? Perhaps you like technical support. ISP's like most businesses, are in business to make money.

All ISP's oversell, no secret there. But at least from my experiences, I have always got what i paid for. No slowdowns, always working and best of all, very low latency. I guess if i had a 100mbit connection to a major carrier and sold it of as either cable or fiber Internet service I could boast that they could theoretically achieve that 100mbit. And then sell it off to 10 people.

[drag]

I don't agree. 24mbit connections are widespread, with 8mbit being a very common lower-bound. Since streaming 1080p H.264 can be done with 4mbit, it's already a reality.

720p on YouTube has nothing "extreme upper range" in it; you can watch it realtime with a 2mbit connection, and 2mbit is pretty much the lowest broadband speed you can get (and mostly you can't; lowest is 4mbit in most places.)

Most professionals pay metered internet rates. You generally get a flat rate for a certain amount of bandwidth and then above that you pay per MB or whatever is the agreement with your hosting provider.

What your talking about would be a 2mbit for one stream. What if you want to have a hundred people watching a video? A thousand people? Do the math.

Hulu.com's high quality stuff is 480p at ~1Mbps. If you have a hundred people view your site with 480p streams then it would be trivial for them to saturate a 100Mbs ethernet line to a internet backbone!

If you just average a constant rate of 1 viewer over a month your looking at 2500+ Gigabits worth of bandwidth used. Which is massively expensive.

[RealNC]

Most professionals pay metered internet rates. You generally get a flat rate for a certain amount of bandwidth and then above that you pay per MB or whatever is the agreement with your hosting provider.

What your talking about would be a 2mbit for one stream. What if you want to have a hundred people watching a video? A thousand people? Do the math.

But it is happening. As I said, YouTube does it.

[RealNC]

Well im not from the united states.

the UK is in the same boat as the US from what people tell me, Few years back a french guy that was staying with me thought my Internet was speedy (and his family was made of money...). The aussies get shafted.... Well jeez der goes a big chunk of the developed world right there.

http://www.speedtest.net/global.php

European speeds are only slightly better then the north american ones. When you factor in the shear geography that needs to be covered, its quick to discover that with the acceptance of a select few nations, the speeds are about the same.

That graph actually supports my point. 6mbit seems to be the average. So targeting 2mbit (720p) seems very logical. It doesn't have to be very high quality 720p. YouTube's 720p isn't comparable with what you see in a 720p BluRay. But, it is much better than high quality 480p if you watch it in full screen. 480p gets blurry if you scale it up. It is subjective, but lossy video is always based on subjective quality perception. And that perception tells us that clear, crispy video is "better" than blurry/fuzzy video, even if it has some more artifacts.

[L33F3R]

i never denied HD would work. I was refuting ridiculous bandwidth claims in regards to global Internet speeds.

[RealNC]

i never denied HD would work. I was refuting ridiculous bandwidth claims in regards to global Internet speeds.

They don't seem that ridiculous. That graph shows 6mbit as the average and most common speed. OK, I said targeting 8mbit as most common is best, but being 2mbits off isn't ridiculous.

[L33F3R]

I don't agree. 24mbit connections are widespread, with 8mbit being a very common lower-bound.

i would also like to point out, that the world is not only NA and Europe. Connections in south korea are amazing but to south korea from the USA for example are utter crap. Asia as a whole is much slower. Japan isnt too bad off. African internet is an oxymoron. So as you can see there is alot to consider.

[RealNC]

The only thing to consider, IMO, is what YouTube does: offering both 480p and 720p versions of the same video. Everyone's happy that way.

[Remco]

The only thing to consider, IMO, is what YouTube does: offering both 480p and 720p versions of the same video. Everyone's happy that way.

Note that 720p is usually still acceptable for Theora. On the Theora mailinglist, it was calculated that panning faster than 465 pixels per second would get you into trouble. When you hit that limit the quality has to be reduced, resulting in lots of blockiness. Luckily, most material is talking heads (that's what Youtube is for, mostly).

[L33F3R]

Hell they can offer 1080p or god knows what, just as long as the other options are on the table. But on youtubes side, thats alot of bandwidth to be supported by google ads. Not to mention increased disk space and server cpu usage.