Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> 100 hours of talking video

You mean like zoom recordings? Yeah nobody has those.



sort by: page size:

> Really? I did.

I was talking about video quality, not that other stuff.

> - if you shared a household there was always the risk that someone would tape over your favourite recording

This is actually significantly worse now, since most households lack the ability to "tape" anything.


>How is that different from recording a TV show with your VCR

That is considered time shifting which is not what downloading a YouTube video is.


> no one is going to record or archive, let alone watch, years of footage

Recording and storing years of footage shouldn't be a significant problem with modern tech.

Nobody has to watch years of it; they can watch the parts they are interested in. They also can watch at 4x and search, as needed.


>It would be really inefficient to store this as a full HD video for thousands of users.

I don't know how they implement it technically, but the fact remains that the videos are there. And it's more like hundreds of thousands of users.


> It produced a transcript though. Which is something.

You can get those directly in YouTube, so not really something.

It's a shame; it said throttled on the first and second video I tried.


> I... but... how in the world is anyone ever supposed to know that exists???

What is the solution? Make people sit through a 2 hour video? Or not include functions that are hard to find?


> "It conveys so much more information in a much quicker period."

What a pathetic load of hogwash. Video is the slowest possible way of conveying any meaningful information.


> Many videos are not available in VP9.

That's just not true.


>> but his camera can't output a live stream into HDMI

> Buy different camera.

He did :)


> I suspect it's because the project is primarily focused on video.

Audio is 80% of video.

Most people will watch to a potato-quality video if the person talking can be understood fairly well, but will probably not bother with something where the audio is echo-y, with wind, and sounds like it was recorded over a wet string, even if the image is 4K/HDR.

How advanced the included audio controls is certainly up for debate, but it's not possible to focus on 'just' video.


> Storing all the video isn't feasible, not is analyzing it in real time, so the only sensible threat model is targeted attacks, but the companies have no reason to do that. Governments do, but this makes the companies resistant to governments.

Analyzing the audio stream of a video call is possible in real time, in fact Google meet already does it to offer closed captioning in real time (the only good feature meet has compared to other alternatives)


> OBS can do all of that except nativley output a virtual camera.

Right, that's literally the title of the article we're commenting on: OBS can't do that thing that we need.


>> Your video takes way, way more bandwidth than audio ever could.

Then how did they know?


> Not a single mention of one of VHS's killer features versus Beta: Tape length.

And porn.

As I recall, Sony wouldn't sell Beta tape or cameras to porn companies.


> And this camera is a security camera, it's designed to send up video and audio 24/7.

Definitely not blink.

These cheapskates only stream like 10 seconds before prompting you "continue?"


> Far more likely the recording software is crappy and sometimes skips back a second or two.

What?


> massive library of 1080p video with zero buffer time.

Yes but can you sit there and wait for several hours before accessing a grainy 240p clip of a whale being blown up, and then thinking it was the best thing ever for three days? Kids these days....


> because the video and especially audio quality is so atrocious for many of them

Of the few ones you watched, which had atrocious audio quality? I've watched many of them, and the video has been fine for all the recordings, and the audio quality obviously depends on the speakers setup, not the processing/encoding/quality of the video. But of the ones I've seen, the audio has been perfectly fine to be able to understand what's being said.

CCC has been perfecting the art of "recording, streaming and storing conference talks" for many many years, so it would be weird if it suddenly took a dive in quality. Would like to see what videos you're talking about here.

Edit: I just quickly went through all the videos on the page from the submission, to check the video/audio quality. All of them have perfectly OK video/audio quality while 2 videos could have been better mixed/mastered (volume too low) but nothing raising the level of your speaker wouldn't be able to fix.


> Multimedia being, as of this writing, insufficiently advanced to permit me to embed two hours of video in this book.

1992!

next

Legal | privacy