Re: [videoblogging] vogroll 3 test

On 02/09/2004, at 7:42 PM, Andreas Haugstrup wrote:

> It worked just fine for me (from Denmark, I guess I'm in the middle
> between Australia and the US). :o)
> There was a small delay when hovering over each video, maybe three
> seconds
> to wait at the most.

ok, this is about the vogroll v. 3.

so what do people think? acceptable performance all in all? (the one
that was hosted on Deidre's site seemed to be really slow, not sure if
that is a permanent fact of life or just a bad network hair day).

if people think the lag is too much (personally I don't, but I'm making
it for community use) then we could use still images and I could just
use soundtracks in the same way that it is currently using videotracks.
That way bandwidth should be low enough to work within 2 seconds. The
images would of course be what has been already provided, and the audio
can be whatever you want it to be, and you'd host it.

so, are we going to run with this?
[ ] yep, i prefer video in the vogroll
[ ] yep, i prefer audio only in the vogroll

i'll make up a tutorial on how to compress to the appropriate data rate
to make this viable. and let you know. but it won't work if you don't
make some content for it….

Adrian Miles
……………………………………………………….. ||
interactive networked video ||
research blog ||