Re: Difference in vid speeds between White Pine and Cornell

Phil (chrome@lcol.net)
Sat, 6 Jun 1998 05:29:02 -0400


-----Original Message-----
From: David Toole <dtoole@cgocable.net>
To: CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu <CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu>
Date: Saturday, June 06, 1998 4:52 AM
Subject: Difference in vid speeds between White Pine and Cornell

>Here's a curiosity I'm hoping the knowledgeable participants in this
>list can explain.
>
>I've noticed a real difference on some refs between the speed of videos
>I receive using Cornell 1.0 and White Pine 3.1.1 (build 16). For
>example, logged on to a ref last night (listed as an eref1.07b9) with
>Cornell, and vids were extremely slow, almost frozen. Immediately
>afterward I tried White Pine Cu-SeeMe and they were extremely
>fast--about the best I've seen. I've experienced this on a number of
>occaisions. I'm using the same codec with both (the White Pine m-jpeg)
>and all other settings are the same.
>
>Any ideas why this would happen. I much prefer Cornell 1.0, but it's not
>much fun when it produces slower vids. This isn't always the case, but
>often enough that I notice it.
>
>David Toole
>

If you don't have the hardware for it, White Pine v3.x is very slow.
Parallel port cams slow it down. Using the parallel port in SPP mode slows
it down further. If you have less than 64 megs of RAM it's likely to crash.
However, it runs rather well (within certain limitations) if you feed it 64
megs of RAM and run a PCI bus video capture card.