4 ms·
Your two examples are not equivalent at all. Video conferencing is generally designed for very low delays, whereas Youtube live streaming has a many second dela
by TD-Linux 11y ago
Your two examples are not equivalent at all. Video conferencing is generally designed for very low delays, whereas Youtube live streaming has a many second delay. This is critical to improving quality - not only can fancier video compression schemes be used with a large delay (B frames etc), but larger buffers mean that spikes in bitrate can be smoothed out. This is especially noticeable for screensharing where screen data updates tend to come in huge spikes with lulls of no changes in between.
- nosuchthing 11y agoYour two examples are not equivalent at all. Well yes, that's what I stipulated by mentioning The trade off for low/unreliable bandwidth is allowing larger buffers which would impose greater latency Video conferencing systems mostly prioritize low latency, so as bandwidth decreases (cross continent internet connections currently almost always have latency/bandwidth issues) either frames will drop, or resolution will need to drop. For our purposes of screen sharing/broadcasting we didn't care as much about low latency as much as we wanted high FPS and high resolution.