Re: [AG-TECH] AG hardware improvements and HD content sharing

[gskpop <gskpop@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Christoph Willing wrote:
> Compressed HDV directly from cameras has a latency of about half a 
> second. That is acceptable for non-interactive sessions (and perhaps 
> _some_ interactive sessions).
Chris, is this true of all HDV cameras? I thought it was higher. Is it 
true for the Sony HC-7 that sells for about $1400?  I was
trying one out but got different latencies--probably depends on the 
application involved. I was using it with ExtendedVideoService  module 
that Sang Woo Han/GIST is working on for the WindowsXP platforn.
> We have recently developed a new version of vic with DV and HDV 
> capture & display capability. The Linux version is working well and 
> the Windows port is just about to begin.
Can I get hold of the linux version to start playing with it? I am 
installing some public "portals" on campus that will
be always on, persistent video/audio for "one on one" ad hoc 
communication and want to use the best quality video I can. I may have 
to start with DVTS but pending funding I'd like to move to HDV and 
eventually to uncompressed HD.

Thanks,

-gurcharan
> Uncompressed HDV would be ideal, but the bandwidth required is around 
> 1 Gb/s - not a realistic proposition for most networks. Bandwidth of 
> the compressed streams is around 30Mb/s, so you can have multiple HDV 
> streams on a good network (if you can tolerate the latency). Also, the 
> HD YUV capture cards cost thousands of dollars.
>
>
> chris
>
>
>
> Christoph Willing                       +61 7 3365 8350
> QCIF Access Grid Manager
> University of Queensland