Charles said:Looks great. Very quick seek and the quality is good. Keep on pushing!
C
I can only confirm that it seems to be working very smoothly. One of the best experiences ever for viewing video content.
-
Follow
Oops, something didn't work.
Sign In to be begin to follow this thread
What does this mean?
Following an item on Channel 9 allows you to watch for new content and comments that you are interested in. You need to be signed in to Channel 9 to use this feature.Getting "follow" information
Start following this thread
What does this mean?
Following an item on Channel 9 allows you to watch for new content and comments that you are interested in and view them all on your notifications page.Removing your "follow"
Setting up your "follow"
Did you know you can
sign up for email notifications?
-
-
zian
Exploding heads since 1988
giovanni said:Charles said:*snip*I can only confirm that it seems to be working very smoothly. One of the best experiences ever for viewing video content.
Likewise
I'm connected via cable modem -> WiFi -> ThinkPad (Intel wireless chip)
-
Ian2
In geeks we trust ...
Living in the countryside my connectivity to the Internet has always been very poor. This was a revelation - I watched the whole of Mike Taulty's MEF intro without any buffereing! (and although not Hi Res, all perfectly watchable!). Genuinly useful.
I will try this again at various times during the week to see if I get a consistent experience.
Thanks.
-
Dr Herbie
Horses for courses
Ian2 said:Living in the countryside my connectivity to the Internet has always been very poor. This was a revelation - I watched the whole of Mike Taulty's MEF intro without any buffereing! (and although not Hi Res, all perfectly watchable!). Genuinly useful.
I will try this again at various times during the week to see if I get a consistent experience.
Thanks.
Seemed quite blocky here -- on 1.5 (ish) megabit -- OK for talking heads, but not so good for screencasts where I'd want to be able to read the text. Didn't seem to get less blocky over time. Will try again this evening.
Herbie
-
La Bomba
Boing!
Dr Herbie said:Ian2 said:*snip*Seemed quite blocky here -- on 1.5 (ish) megabit -- OK for talking heads, but not so good for screencasts where I'd want to be able to read the text. Didn't seem to get less blocky over time. Will try again this evening.
Herbie
Looks great here...
-
aL_
Kinect ftw
looks good, but i think im not reaching full bandwidth on the bach vid for some reason.. blockyness clears up in ~20 seconds for me
on a wired 100/100mbit connection in sweden. jumping around is snappy though. i know its not about the player but a bandwidth meter would help us helping you
-
CKurt
while( ( !succeed=try() ) ) { }
Sven Groot said:It's definitely better than the previous two attempts. It starts off sort of blocky but after only about 3-5 seconds it becomes much better. Jumping around is quick, but can occasionally cause it to fall back to a lower quality stream again after which it's very reluctant to go back up.
However, I still am not in favour of this. The current, non-smooth streaming videos start just as fast, and have high quality right from the start. There is no argument why we'd even need smooth streaming with my connection.
As Clint said, smooth streaming is not for everybody.
For the player, I hear you about wanting the ability to switch to buffering so that feedback is not lost.
Thank Clint for answering all the questions about the technology! I'm happy to hear my bandwidth does not go lost if I pauze the video (unlike any other video service out there)
-
CannotResolveSymbol
Microsoft: Who do you want to execute today?
CKurt said:Sven Groot said:*snip*Thank Clint for answering all the questions about the technology! I'm happy to hear my bandwidth does not go lost if I pauze the video (unlike any other video service out there)
Looks great here... starts instantly and quickly (probably within first 10-15 seconds) ramps up to the higher-bandwidth stream.
Nice work; can't wait until this is implemented everywhere on C9!
-
Hi Clint, I think your are not coding to the highest quality level possible. For example, in RobbieBCES2010, I can easily get the 1605000 bitrate but the edges are extremely aliased compared to the original video. Is there a reason for that? Why not to code the 2000000+ levels?
Using Smooth Streaming here is a good move!!
-
Bass
I need better writers.
The quality seems a little lower then the regular videos on the site. More artifacty.
-
Clint
I'm a "developer"
intelman said:Clint said:*snip*Those videos work much better than what is currently implemented
I want it now. It was smooth fast and I could skip ahead with little delay. Currently the silverlight
player just freezes This is why I'm testing out the tech and we're building in the toys needed
-
Clint
I'm a "developer"
Bass said:
The quality seems a little lower then the regular videos on the site. More artifacty.
All depends what stream you are viewing at. The idea is the player will grab what is the highest possible for that player size. Currently we send a WMV to you that is far higher quality. So if you watch the video non-full screen, you are getting data you don't want. However the plus side to this is you can then automatically transition into full screen and have what will appear to be zero quality loss. With smooth streaming, it will take a few for you to step up in quality.
Different tech for different purposes. Each have advantages and disadvantages.
I'd love to see a screen shot, know your geo, and what your internet connection type is, if at all possible. clint.rutkas@microsoft.com
-
Clint
I'm a "developer"
aL_ said:
looks good, but i think im not reaching full bandwidth on the bach vid for some reason.. blockyness clears up in ~20 seconds for me
on a wired 100/100mbit connection in sweden. jumping around is snappy though. i know its not about the player but a bandwidth meter would help us helping you
Doing a bandwith meter is "interesting" ... I have two different solutions, one I'm not thrilled with, other doesn't work properly for a few reasons. Smooth Streaming Beta 2 may have fixed some of the issues I was having with the second one. The big issue was the difference between normal and full screen.
-
Clint
I'm a "developer"
Sven Groot said:
It's definitely better than the previous two attempts. It starts off sort of blocky but after only about 3-5 seconds it becomes much better. Jumping around is quick, but can occasionally cause it to fall back to a lower quality stream again after which it's very reluctant to go back up.
However, I still am not in favour of this. The current, non-smooth streaming videos start just as fast, and have high quality right from the start. There is no argument why we'd even need smooth streaming with my connection.
like CKurt mentioned, the feedback about progressive (buffered) playback is not lost. This test for Channel 9 to see do people like it, does it work for them, do they like the trade offs.
-
Clint
I'm a "developer"
aldenml said:
Hi Clint, I think your are not coding to the highest quality level possible. For example, in RobbieBCES2010, I can easily get the 1605000 bitrate but the edges are extremely aliased compared to the original video. Is there a reason for that? Why not to code the 2000000+ levels?
Using Smooth Streaming here is a good move!!
can you send me a screen shot where I can see the time bar?
-
Dr Herbie
Horses for courses
Clint said:aldenml said:*snip*
can you send me a screen shot where I can see the time bar?
Ok, retested.
On a 1.45 MBit link the quality did improve after about 20-30 seconds, but when viewed in full-screen the text was poor. So it's perfectly fine for talking heads but for a screencast I'd want the current, buffered system instead; I'd rather be patient and get higher quality video.
Looks like we might need both ways.
Herbie
-
Clint
I'm a "developer"
Dr Herbie said:Clint said:*snip*
Ok, retested.
On a 1.45 MBit link the quality did improve after about 20-30 seconds, but when viewed in full-screen the text was poor. So it's perfectly fine for talking heads but for a screencast I'd want the current, buffered system instead; I'd rather be patient and get higher quality video.
Looks like we might need both ways.
Herbie
I hear you on that, I have some POCs
-
First 10 seconds are not so good, then it starts getting better. Good stuf, keep going!
Thread Closed
This thread is kinda stale and has been closed but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums,
or Contact Us and let us know.