[foms] Proposal: adaptive streaming using open codecs

[David R]

> For large content providers use of such server extensions makes a lot of sense. We also have to look at what makes more sense in the players and what makes sense for small content providers.
Actually, large content providers are far more sensitive to cost and scalability, and having servers deliver something different from what is stored on disk does not scale well.
FYI, HTTP Live Streaming uses interleaved chunks, and requires precise alignment of the audio across all bitrates.  Producing streams which can switch with no audio glitch is difficult.
David

> From: silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:19:10 +1100
> To: foms at lists.annodex.net
> Subject: Re: [foms] Proposal: adaptive streaming using open codecs
> 
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Chris Pearce <chris at pearce.org.nz> wrote:
> > On 16/11/2010 6:48 a.m., Steve Lhomme wrote:
> >> Doesn't it lead to more sync issues when the files you received are
> >> not interleaved ?
> >
> > Yes, it's harder to manage non-interleaved streams over multiple
> > connections.
> >
> >> One big pro for non interleaved is that switching between languages
> >> (or regular/commentary track) is a lot easier and the only reasonable
> >> way to handle it server side.
> >
> > The earlier consensus from most of the content providers was the non
> > interleaved was easier to manage, particularly at large scale when you
> > have a number of different bitrate streams, and a number of different
> > audio tracks.
> 
> We have to be careful where we take that statement. Just because the
> large content owners don't want to do physical chunks and want to keep
> audio and video tracks separate doesn't mean we have to do that over
> the network or use chunks in the manifest file. There is always the
> possibility to have something different on disk than what is being
> sent over the network. For large content providers use of such server
> extensions makes a lot of sense. We also have to look at what makes
> more sense in the players and what makes sense for small content
> providers.
> 
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
> _______________________________________________
> foms mailing list
> foms at lists.annodex.net
> http://lists.annodex.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foms
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.annodex.net/cgi-bin/mailman/private/foms/attachments/20101115/9c58bf31/attachment.htm