3 ms·
> One complicating factor here is that raw video is surprisingly high bandwidth. It's weird to be living in a world where this is a surprise but here we are.
by wiml 2y ago
> One complicating factor here is that raw video is surprisingly high bandwidth.
It's weird to be living in a world where this is a surprise but here we are.
Nice write up though. Web sockets has a number of nonsensical design decisions, but I wouldn't have expected that this is the one that would be chewing up all your cpu.
- handfuloflight 2y ago> It's weird to be living in a world where this is a surprise but here we are. I think it's because the cost of it is so abstracted away with free streaming video all across the web. Once you take a look at the egress and ingress sides you realize how quickly it adds up.
- arccy 2y agoI think it's just rare for a lot of people to be handling raw video. Most people interact with highly efficient (lossy) codecs on the web.
- adastra22 2y agoEven compressed video is massive data though.
- lillecarl 2y agoI was surprised when calculating and sizing the shared memory for my Gaming VM for use with "Looking-Glass". At 165hz 2k HDR it's many gigabytes per second, that's why HDMI and DisplayPort is specced really high
- jazzyjackson 2y agoI'd still like to get a looking glass. What did you end up with?
- sensanaty 2y agoI always knew video was "expensive", but my mark for what expensive meant was a good few orders of magnitude off when I researched the topic for a personal project. I can easily imagine the author being in a similar boat, knowing that it isn't cheap, but then not realizing that expensive in this context truly does mean expensive until they actually started seeing the associated costs.
- turnsout 2y agoI’m so confused… they were sending uncompressed video to an AWS server? If so, they deserve a $1M bill.