Re: SFMC codec ???

Mark Andrew Nassy (nassy@flash.net)
Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:44:01 -0400


At 2:48 AM -0400 on 7/31/98, CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu wrote:

> CU-SEEME-L Digest 1563

> Topics covered in this issue include:

> 6) Re: SFMC codec ???
> by billryan@gsinet.net (Bill Ryan)

> ------------------------------

> From: billryan@gsinet.net (Bill Ryan)
> To: nassy@flash.net
> Cc: CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu
> Subject: Re: SFMC codec ???

> May be some issues as to whether the codec data will be wrapped in RTP or
> just plain CU-SeeMe header protocol....this would only affect the quality
> of the video (RTP tends to be better).

i am not familar with rtp (i assume this stands for real time protocol, is
that correct). if it is not too much to ask would you mind explaining (to a
non-programmer) how this protocol may affect the quality of the video.

and from an end users (me) point of view (pov) what would better refer to.
ie, if it were / is possible to use the same settings, codec, hardware, etc
to connect to a reflector with the cu header protocol then do the same or
similar thing with rtp when a remote participant views my video what would
the difference be.

would similar changes due to using rtp also apply to audio.

Mark Andrew Nassy,
<MAILTO:nassy@flash.net>