Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 15:56 -0500, Mark J. Dulcey wrote: > Jarod Wilson wrote: > > > > Are we talking h.264 here or mpeg2? I can tell you from first-hand > > experience, you can NOT stream 1080i mpeg2 hdtv content over 802.11g > > with any sort of reliability. Too much packet loss, and while g claims > > 54Mbps throughput, I've never seen better than a sustained 2.4MB/s > > transfer, which is about what most 1080i mpeg2 streams require. > > I was thinking of ATSC content which is 18Mbps maximum, or about > 2.25MB/s; a clean 801.11g connection can just about manage that, though > you had better not have much else happening on the network. I probably had another device or two (or three) on the wireless network at the same time, but I really have tried streaming 1080i stuff over g, and its absolutely miserable -- prebuffering pauses every few seconds. Part of it may be that mythtv isn't as forgiving of packet loss and latency compared with mplayer. A quick look at some 1080i recordings on my backend shows them weighing in between roughly 16 and 18 Mbps. > HD from > cable uses substantially lower bit rates, making the problem easier; I > don't know of any cable company that sends HD at more than 10Mbps, and > the systems that are using H.264 are probably using even less. (FIOS may > be an exception; they've got bandwidth to burn.) Yeah, FIOS here. > There is a tradeoff > between quality and channel capacity, and the cable guys always choose > the latter because it's a stronger marketing point. People using cable > for HD... trying hooking up an antenna and watching some broadcast ATSC, > especially from WGBH, and see how much better it looks than the same > stations on cable. Indistinguishable for me, but again, FIOS. > Blu-Ray 1080p content may need higher bit rates, and therefore 802.11n. Yeah, I'd wager slightly higher bit rates. From what I understand, h.264 achieves roughly the same quality as mpeg2 at about 60% the file size for the same resolution, so say (.6 * 18Mbps * 2) for 1080p would be 21.6Mbps, assuming the content isn't letterboxed for original film aspect. --jarod
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |