Distributing high-definition video over the Internet was once looked at as a futile proposition, because most people didn’t have large computer screens, and the bandwidth necessary to send these data-intensive files was virtually non-existent (at any price). Well those days are history. Now, content creators can offer online viewers a “lean-back” experience over the Web, thanks to advancements in compression algorithms and software acceleration.
Access to the last 90 days of content is always free. Paid subscribers can access older stories as part of their membership.
Comments (8) for "Inlet H.264 Encoding Distributes One Live Feed to Many Web Users"
1.
I am sure that this is a fine piece of gear but 960x540 is not high definition and making a claim that it is further confuses the market place and ultimately the consumer.
Posted by Bill Hayes on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 @ 04:17 PM
2.
anyone that knows what h.264 is knows that 960X540 IS not HD why try to fool us. it makes you look like you don't know what HD is. HD is coming but it's not here yet. 960x540 is pretty good real time though.
Posted by don deitemeyer on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 @ 08:17 PM
3.
960x540 IS HIGH DEFINITION.
Here is why.
As per definition ANYTHING OVER 720 x 480 IS HIGH DEFINITION.
Hence, this qualifies.
Of course, consumers are used to only a few numbers being associated as HD, namely 1920x1080 and 1280x720. This is because of HDTV's standards.
But again, anything larger than 720x480 ("regular NTSC TV) is High Definition.
Posted by VidLord on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 @ 09:52 PM
4.
480p is also HD = 848 x 480 and is smaller
Posted by Corneliu Ticu on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 @ 11:14 PM
5.
for the record, spinnaker will actually do up to 720p30 output which is most definitely HD. What I told Michael, and was my mistake for not making clearer is that US consumers simply do not have the bandwidth nor computer to support that playback just yet, so we sought to have a decent "Internet HD" quality which is what was cited in the article. 960x540 is quickly becoming a fairly standard "Higher Definition", if not true HD. And I assure you at either 960x540 or 1280x720, the viewing experience is quite impressive.
Posted by andy beach on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 @ 09:35 AM
6.
Many people in the industry can't understand 720p/1080i/480i when you combine it with all the frame rates and field versus psf formats, how 'bout GOP structure, audio sample rates, compression algorithms and settings. Why not throw another arbitrary "HD" labeled frame size to really confuse things.
Technically anything above SD is HD, however whoever decides on standardization (IEEE, FCC, Manufacturers) are only helping to make the transition much more difficult than it should be, but heck, that's what keeps us in the know in business.
Posted by barneyrubble on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 @ 11:45 AM
7.
*Anything* over 720 x 480 is High Def? Who in the world came up with that silly "definition"?
720 x 486 for example is indeed standard def, despite any attempts at industry "spin".
Posted by Pete Benson on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 @ 01:40 PM
8.
"Who in the world came up with that silly "definition"?"
adobe, for one: "High definition simply means more than standard definition(SD)."
http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/productionstudio/articles/prs1ip_hdprimer/prs1ip_hdprimer.pdf
Posted by pwned on Thursday, October 30, 2008 @ 10:49 PM
Post your comments below
.gif)
