ABC Launches Full Episode Streaming 261
Cjattwood writes "ABC.com has launched their free online episode streaming service earlier today. Shows available include Lost and Alias among others, and are available to watch for free, albeit with ads and commercials. It works pretty well so far, although no Linux support yet as it requires Flash 8." The first episode of Lost on there is a clip show. You can skip around to a segment of the show, but are forced through a commercial before you play. The quality is approximately what you would expect from flash video.
US only (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn (Score:5, Interesting)
Or anyone with a list of US-based proxies, heh.
Any predictions... (Score:3, Interesting)
Shame they are so low res though... no doubt many will continue to use illicit means to see the shows in a much higher res.
Quality (Score:5, Interesting)
I am assuming this is a putdown on Flash video, being Slashdot and all. The ABC site is dragging ass, so I can't actually see the quality for myself. That being said...
Flash video can encode as high a quality as any other encoder. Some of the stuff I have seen looks better than other encoders, and always results in amazingly small file size. Just this morning, I saw a 4 minute, 720x480 AVI go from 890MB to 15MB with virtually no loss in quality.
If the quality is poor, blame the developer, not the tool.
Unrated Editions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? (Score:5, Interesting)
ABC.com has launched their free online episode streaming service earlier today. Shows available include Lost and Alias among others, and are available to watch for free, albeit with ad's and commercials.
I've always wondered about sites like this, or YouTube, or Google Video, or any of the other seriously massive media streaming sites.
How the hell do they do it?
Seems to me like you'd have to have Bandwidth Of The Gods(tm) in order to pull it off. Multicast isn't really working on the internet proper. So how the hell does a site like this manage it? If you have thousands upon thousands of people hooking up...a lot of them at cablemodem speeds, how does the pipe deliver?
I know that these sites do, in fact have massive bandwidth. But it just seems to me that hundreds of thousands of people wanting hours of video thorough mutliple unicast would be enough to choke pretty much anything that's not on Internet2.
How the hell do they manage it? Is there some sort of Voodoo that I'm missing?
Re:Actually pretty smart.. (Score:5, Interesting)
interactive ads (Score:5, Interesting)
Think this could make a difference in the overall effectiveness of their ads? Just curious...
Re:Flash 8 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? (Score:5, Interesting)
The answer is probably that it just isn't as it seems. Even using some big numbers and assumptions, its not as bad as it seems. If the site sends 10 million users 50 MB of data each and spreads it out over a whole day, it comes to about 5.5 GBps continuously. Taking a look at this map [nthelp.com], there are plenty of cities that offer that kind of bandwidth, and this is only one network (admittedly, the largest), and of course, the servers could (and almost certainly are) spread out over several locations. Further, the number of servers required is not great considering it is not unreasonable for a high end server to achieve 100's of MBps when serving static data like this. Of course, all these numbers are probably pretty far off (in reality, I'm sure the number of servers required scales terribly as you start to spend a lot of resources on load balancing and the fact that some sites serve huge libraries of content), but my point is that it is certainly reasonable.
That said, you do still bring up an interesting issue: even though these sites are certainly technically feasible, they are certainly extremely expensive (Go ask Worldcom how much they'd like to buy all of there connections to Los Angeles...). Unless we are reentering dot com days, Google, YouTube and there ilk must be expecting to make some serious ROI soon.
Re:Quality (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:US only (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Quality (Score:3, Interesting)
VP6 is roghly on par with Windows Media 9, H.264, or XVID - definitely a step above MPEG2 or other older codecs.
Re:Flash Video Quality (Score:4, Interesting)
The codec is Flash video. It's Macromedia's/Adobe's own codec.
The bit rate is unknowable unless ABC says what it is in a press release or elsewhere on the site. Maybe you could figure out a way to save one of these flv files and open it in a standalone player that'd tell you the bit rate. My guess is ABC is smart enough to have locked out that ability, though.
"Flash Video Quality" is still basically meaningless, because Flash video can have whatever quality you give it. You can encode Flash video in HD if you want to; it'd be pretty pointless to do so because the whole point of Flash video is to stream, but you could do it if you wanted to.
But omitting the codec or bit rate from the summary aren't really oversights - the codec is a given, the bit rate is just unknown.
Re:Flash Video Quality (Score:1, Interesting)
this is better (Score:2, Interesting)