Re: UPD better than TCP in streaming video/audio ?
From: Dean Roddey (droddey_at_charmedquark.com)
Date: 12/09/04
- Next message: Eugene Gershnik: "Re: How to create a domain account?"
- Previous message: Peter Steele: "How to create a domain account?"
- In reply to: Puzzolino: "Re: UPD better than TCP in streaming video/audio ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:48:25 -0800
Most lossey video compression schemes probably will follow a similar form,
because of the temporal compression nature. The periodically send a full
frame, and then for some small period of time they send just the changes
from that last full frame. That would mean that you could always re-sync,
you just have to scan forward to the next full frame and pick up again. I
don't think that any compression scheme for broadcast or streaming could be
of the sort that requires you get every byte flawlessly from the beginning
of the stream. It wouldn't be practical because one hiccup at 2 seconds into
it and you'd lose the rest of the content from there on out. So the
compression would have to be somewhat packet oriented to allow for recovery.
-------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
www.charmedquark.com
"Puzzolino" <puzzolino77@libero.it> wrote in message
news:qk%td.486410$35.20795115@news4.tin.it...
> Hi Alun,
> thanks a lot for your long reply.
> The more I work on it, the more I find limitations on the use of UDP:
> among
> all, the maximum size of UDP packets and the use of compression on video
> streams that makes consequent packets strictly dependant on each other
> (this
> becomes a problem when packets get lost).
> What do you think ?
>
- Next message: Eugene Gershnik: "Re: How to create a domain account?"
- Previous message: Peter Steele: "How to create a domain account?"
- In reply to: Puzzolino: "Re: UPD better than TCP in streaming video/audio ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
