Just to dispel the latest, Macromedia is stealing my newspaper and
lollipops from babies idea.  I was under the impression that we would
love to include the on2 live encoder but despite many attempts to get
encoding times down it is not yet either small enough in size for the
player or fast enough in performance.  While I certainly can't refute
the claims of on2 that this is possible, I also know the engineer who
worked on this long and hard to get the encoder more towards a feasible
live option - so I would say we should look to the future for this, and
that's the facts jack.

Asa

-----Original Message-----
From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
[mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.
org] On Behalf Of Randy
Tinfow
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:54 AM
To: FlashComm Mailing List
Subject: RE: [FlashComm] webcams & VP6

>The current codec is generally better suited for low latency, multiway
comms.<

And a skinny client.

If ON2 live encoding would make for a fat player, our corporate clients
would have no interest. =20

What is fat? I'd find resistance for anything over 1MB.

RT



=3D---------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=3D---------------------------------------------------------

To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm

=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------

To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]