4 ms·
Real-time is such an unfortunate term when talking about video collaboration. A codec that can achieve real-time encoding speed is still useless if it has a 10
by stefan_ 7y ago
Real-time is such an unfortunate term when talking about video collaboration. A codec that can achieve real-time encoding speed is still useless if it has a 10 frame latency to output the first data, and arguably not real-time.
- morerunes 7y ago~1/3 second is perfectly acceptable to me to be within the range of "real time", and is quick enough that I'd be willing to bet most people won't notice even in a two way conversation.
- Benjamin_Dobell 7y agoFor live streaming and chat that's fairly acceptable. However, don't forget there are other potential use cases, particularly since cloud gaming is supposedly becoming a thing again.
- spyder 7y ago... and on what kind of hardware, because it's not so much useful if you need a supercomputer for it.
- MisterTea 7y agoThe proper term should is low-latency. Real-time implies deterministic timing of events which must meet a deadline. Real-time can give you low latency but so can a system with a high enough throughput.