vember 14, 2002 7:49 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
> Importance: High
>
>
> At the beginning of the meeting, when Michael was in front
> of the camera (waving his arms wildly) There were only 5
> logged in, and the Audio and video was crystal cl
to:doug@;samcfug.org
http://www.samcfug.org
=
- Original Message -
From: "Jochem van Dieten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meetin
Whenever I looked, there were 10-20 people.
This was less than at DevCon's busiest.
Also, at DevCon, there were 2, often 3, AV windows running -- only
briefly 2 at NYCFUG.
Also, I thought Michael said that he was using a modem @ 48k
HTH
Dick
On Thursday, November 14, 2002, at 03:44 AM, Joch
samcfug wrote:
> I also watched
>
> As more people logged in - the worse it got - giving me the
> impression that it was a bandwidth issue.
How many people logged in (I haven't quite figured out how to log
everything on the server)?
> After all, the server is in the Netherlands, the meeting was
vember 13, 2002 8:30 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
> Importance: High
>
>
> Cool!
>
> You're saying, let the "Flashcomm Producer" whose
> running the setup, switch the camera views within the
> Flash Interface, as opp
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:Rick@;GoLibertyOnline.com]
> Earlier in this discussion, Tyler Fitch mentioned that he
> successfully used
> a Firewire
> connection between camera and computer. That would provide
> huge bandwidth
> increase
> over the USB port or wh
aircloth [mailto:Rick@;GoLibertyOnline.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 8:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
Cool!
You're saying, let the "Flashcomm Producer" whose
running the setup, switch the camera views within the
Flash Interface, as oppose
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 8:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:Rick@;GoLibertyOnline.com]
> Some consideration should be given to using multiple cameras, as well.
> A basic switcher for a few bucks co
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:Rick@;GoLibertyOnline.com]
> Some consideration should be given to using multiple cameras, as well.
> A basic switcher for a few bucks could allow instant switching between
> perspectives, greatly increasing viewing interest. Not costly
speed. Once a single view (or two if switched pre-computer) is
optimized, then multiple angles in the Flash client could be pursued...
Rick
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:mdinowit@;houseoffusion.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 7:41 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re:
ars now, so these concerns
> really come to mind for me.
>
> Rick
>
> Rick Faircloth,
> Prism Productions
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:mdinowit@;houseoffusion.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 6:58 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subje
Rick
Rick Faircloth,
Prism Productions
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:mdinowit@;houseoffusion.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 6:58 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
> And is there a way to hookup a "real" video camera,
> complete wit
Just a side note here, there's a new FlashCom mailing list on HoF.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=threads&forumid=32
I'd love to get people over there and get talk about all the issues that come up
with flashcom. I'll be posting my experiment results there once I'm done.
~~
5 Developer
http://isitedesign.com
**
-Original Message-
From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:Rick@;GoLibertyOnline.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:51 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
And is there a way to hookup a "real" video camera,
complete with wireless
use a real video camera? Even the cheapest
> palm-sized video recorder will produce better images than a video cam.
>
> Rick
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:mdinowit@;houseoffusion.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:46 PM
> To: C
o:mdinowit@;houseoffusion.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:46 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
That may well be the issue. The laptop was a 400mhz with 128 meg of ram.
I've
seen much better broadcast performance on my home machine at 2.53 Ghz and
512
meg of ram. While
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:mdinowit@;houseoffusion.com]
> the lag comes up. Something to clear out the text buffer or
> store it in some way
> is needed. As this is all done in the flash movie, I expect
> that it can be fixed
> as a patch or update rather than
That may well be the issue. The laptop was a 400mhz with 128 meg of ram. I've
seen much better broadcast performance on my home machine at 2.53 Ghz and 512
meg of ram. While this is not do-able for a laptop, a more modern one would
surely help the performance.
The camera was a Logitek 4000 which is
ED]
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dan Phillips [mailto:dphillips@;cfxhosting.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:31 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
> > Importance: High
> >
> >
> > Thanks fo
patch or update rather than a new release.
> -Original Message-
> From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:dicklacara@;mac.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:22 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
>
>
> I watched last night and had the same reac
> I watched last night and had the same reaction.
>
> AFAIK, Michael was using a 1Gig RAM processor and a 48Kb modem?
The laptop was the same (400mhz, 128 meg). The line was faster but we also set
the connection speed to DSL rather than to LAN. Broadcasting over LAN seems to
generate more of a brow
The biggest problem with the audio-video was the browser. We were using IE to
connect to the flashcom server and after 10-15 minutes of use (depending on text
typed and all) we would need to refresh the browser. This worked on every
occasion and after the refresh always went back up to something th
On Wednesday, Nov 13, 2002, at 07:29 US/Pacific, Dan Phillips wrote:
> I watched the nycfug meeting last night using Flash Com and noticed
> that the
> audio and video were pretty choppy. While doing some internal testing
> of
> Flash Com in the office we have noticed the same kind of performance
://www.samcfug.org
=
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:29 AM
Subject: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
| I watched the nycfug meeting last n
ROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Phillips [mailto:dphillips@;cfxhosting.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:31 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
> Importance: High
>
>
> Thanks for the comments Dick. I was wondering is maybe
> a
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
I watched last night and had the same reaction.
AFAIK, Michael was using a 1Gig RAM processor and a 48Kb modem?
But the choppiness was better than at DevCon where they had a DSL link.
I have been told
I watched last night and had the same reaction.
AFAIK, Michael was using a 1Gig RAM processor and a 48Kb modem?
But the choppiness was better than at DevCon where they had a DSL link.
I have been told that there is a memory leak somewhere in the system --
the choppiness gets worse over time.
I watched the nycfug meeting last night using Flash Com and noticed that the
audio and video were pretty choppy. While doing some internal testing of
Flash Com in the office we have noticed the same kind of performance. Anyway
else using this new feature and seeing the same issues?
Thank you,
Dan
28 matches
Mail list logo
