Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 5 October 2023 21:53:55 CEST, Michael Richardson <m...@sandelman.ca>
> wrote:
>> Sebastian Moeller via Bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > Now
>> finally, a use case that needs at least a ~100Mbps link... question >
>> is, how much better than the competitors streaming this is going to >
>> look?
>>
>> What's the point? My eyesight isn't actually that good :-)
> Mine neither... from my low-fi perspective, anything up to ~full hd
> (1920x1080) was a noticeable improvement, but e.g. going to 4K on a 43"
> screen does not feel any better... My comment was driven mostly by the
One can stream monster resolutions across very high latency/bloated links.
Meanwhile, my new-this-year Roku enabled TV crashes if I change the volume
while Netflix or Prime or Disney is in the process of starting the stream.
I'm at a loss to understand why TVs don't come with cameras, or at least
support some wide variety of USB webcams. It seems obvious to me that they
should be videophones.... but that requires low-latency networks and
low-latency wifi. (My TV supports one USB-Ethernet device, but not one I
happened to have around)
So why doesn't Sony do this with their PS4/PS5?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
