←back to thread

257 points tosh | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.237s | source | bottom
1. wiml ◴[] No.42069745[source]
> 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.

replies(4): >>42069829 #>>42069915 #>>42070533 #>>42070733 #
2. handfuloflight ◴[] No.42069829[source]
> 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.

3. arccy ◴[] No.42069915[source]
I 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.
replies(1): >>42071309 #
4. carlhjerpe ◴[] No.42070533[source]
I 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
5. sensanaty ◴[] No.42070733[source]
I 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.

6. adastra22 ◴[] No.42071309[source]
Even compressed video is massive data though.