Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
How do you know?
The IR firm is WRONG.
Check the Annual Report. Directors earn 48,000 per year [see the (1) note below], 12,000 per quarter as shown below - plus any options or company stock plan awards. It may be that 48,000 is a low amount - which the options help to attract directors who think 48k isn't enough. The table below is for compensation for the 4th quarter. Directors earned 12,000 cash, with other compensation that doubled those earnings.
From the last 10-K:
COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS
Our directors are reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in connection with attendance at Board of Director and committee meetings. In addition, our directors are eligible for grants of options to purchase shares of our common stock at the discretion of our Board of Directors.
The following table summarizes compensation paid to all of our directors:
Name / Fees Earned or Paid in Cash / Stock Awards / Option Awards / All Other Compensation / Total
($)
Yoshitaro Kumagai 12,000 Nil Nil 20,500 32,500
Lawrance J. Langs 12,000 Nil Nil 12,500 24,500
Edward Kolic 12,000 Nil Nil 12,500 24,500
(1)
On May 23, 2014, the Board of Directors set the annual compensation payable to each member of the Board of Directors at $48,000 per annum for the period from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015. The fees earned or paid in cash of $12,000 for each Director was for the service period of June 1, 2014 to August 31, 2014 during this fiscal year.
(2)
All other compensation for Mr. Kumagai, Mr. Langs and Mr. Kolic includes participation in the employee share purchase plan described above under long term incentive plans and $8,000 for consulting fees for Mr. Kumagai.
(3)
All other compensation is stated in United States dollars and compensation was provided in Canadian dollars.
Sorry Brook, the options are in addition to Directors salaries.
Double dipping or triple dipping if you count the employee stock plan.
Options generally aren't considered a compensation payment because the option price is at or equal to the share price at time of issue. Options are a means to lock in directors for a long-term commitment - otherwise they might jump ship to a competitor. The options take time to vest - so it motivates the director to stay awhile.
I want to know why Fred seemed to get shorted in the options deal. Steve gets 400k. Dale gets 350k. Directors who do very little get 100k. Fred gets 150k when his salary is higher than Dale's and he has been there for so many years.
Is there a powershift going on toward Dale as 2nd in charge? Or is there a need to appease Dale with a extra large share of options due to overstated assessments made last summer in the hiring process when the stock price was above 80 cents.
Brook - exercised options will be new shares on top of the current 52 million. They don't count now. They won't really add to the float or the cash either until a sale. Executives just have them to sell when they want to cash in at higher share prices. At whatever future date, the company gets more cash, company executives get more cash, and the share price gets held down by insiders selling.
Steve has always said he is against dilution, yet he certainly likes the options plan.
IMO - Very accurate conclusions you are making.
Destiny can't show off the current product to major customers now because it isn't good enough for a broad customer markets as the marketing documents claim. IMO - some customers might buy Clipstream if they don't need some platforms such as mobile or retail customers with connections less than 4 Mb/sec. In my experience the quality is decent, but the buffering delays occur too often for my 2MB connection.
I had a good laugh when I read your post again.
'Fund managers are not that dumb not to touch a company twice ...'
Have there been any Fund Managers invested in DSNY in the last three years? I don't recall there being any institutional investors in DSNY.
'Apple once was close to get bankrupt ...'
And, you are comparing Destiny to pre-iPod Apple who had their Mac business which was about 5% of the computer market at its lowest.
At that time, Jobs met with Bill Gates to obtain $150 million in capital to shore up the company finances. Apple also got Microsoft commitments to keep writing Office for Mac platforms. Microsoft needed Apple to survive to avoid a potential Monopoly condition that might have led to a government Break-Up policy - ala the ATT phone company.
Two grandiose examples to associate with DSNY's Clipstream mistakes.
Some investors are forgiving about mistakes, while some investors are not. It is the intentional omissions or over-zealous promotion over something that doesn't work that really pisses off investors.
In August 2013, DSNY spiked to 2.50 on Steve's CC in July and some promises about a release of Clipstream. The price spike wasn't just Steve's comments. Some penny stock investment reviews picked up the story and shared Steve's comments and other facts about Destiny and Clipstream.
These investment reviewers have been burned like the investors that read their documents. These same publishers won't be back quickly on any statements from DSNY.
While I think the MPE business will continue to grow, and Clipstream will continue to get better - the anger over the results motivated me to let it go - and move on.
I am enjoying your whining since you likely picked up exit shares.
Last fall, I shredded the DSNY profile documents created by Three Part Advisors twice which were full of filler statements that didn't set good expectations. The agent in charge left Three Part Advisors shortly after my November critique although I am not certain of a direct correlation between my critiques and his leaving TPA.
IMO, presenting Clipstream as a product line in those investment conferences last year when they couldn't ship or demonstrate a working product was like committing Hari Kari to your company reputation.
It they missed those conferences last year, I might agree that DSNY should present now. They may need to find a different investor peer group to connect with since they butchered their reputation with many in that group.
The pricing plans compared to Vimeo's PRO service is non-competitive. Vimeo's quality is better. They offer unlimited plays so you are not facing a huge charge if your video goes viral.
Vimeo PRO at $199 per year ($17 per month).
'Get up to 1,000GB of storage a year (20GB each week) and unlimited HD plays'
'No bandwidth caps or time limits'.
'High Definition video (up to 1080p)' (Better than Clipstream).
'Mobile, tablet, and connected TV compatibility'
'Advanced Statistics'
This is Vimeo's third level of service. Customers can start out at FREE or try the Vimeo PLUS account for $60.00 per year.
The only thing that Clipstream seems to offer is Secured video. It is unclear if the pricing plan includes security as a free feature.
I would guess that Wurl is attempting to use Clipstream as a product name without realizing that Destiny owns the trademark.
The red color doesn't match and the company hasn't delivered a working sample yet - so they can't possibly start delivering what is talked about here.
I sold some shares based on some guesses.
(1) Steve stated the software will be done in March, so I am guessing it won't be done by the Q2 CC in April.
(2) If the software isn't available by May 1st, then customer revenues won't be much - if any - in Q3. Q2 will be another loss and Q3 may be another loss. Customers will start with small trials or free test drives at first. So Q3 revenues will be low - if any exist.
(4) I hope Clipstream revenues show up in Q4, but those revenues won't be known until late November.
The Clipstream solution has potential, but customers won't adopt the solution for a while until it is tested - and proven after they get to see it. How long that will take is the big question.
I wanted my cash for other investments in the next seven months.
I just read about it here. If they have one, it will probably be at the company offices - since no one knows about it they can hold it there for official business with no attendees. I went two years ago. Last year it was at their offices - with no notice.
Sorry guys. Someone had to send a message to the board prior to the AGM meeting tomorrow.
Destiny isn't giving investors any reason to buy the stock. Releasing poor quality software. Releasing very little information about the status of R&D. Prior over selling of the features and near-term delivery schedule counts as misinformation, not information.
While I could have patience if the company was frank about the outlook, I haven't heard enough yet so I had to use some money for another investment.
While the switch to Dale as the COO is probably good, to me it confirms that he hasn't had anything to sell or promote on the Clipstream front to date - so they have allocated him another role - to promote PlayMPE. Karen was a interim VP anyway - although I found that interim designation for a VP role strange.
Maybe they will develop and reveal a better strategy after the sauna party they will be hosting tomorrow.
Prior Years Registered Play MPE Users/
From an old message;
In May 2009, registered Play MPE users were 28,000.
In Sep 2011, registered Play MPE users were 50,000.
In Oct 2012, registered Play MPE users are 61,467.
One Year of PlayMPE Statistics Growth:
I found a Yahoo Feb 14 2014 message with Play MPE Stats.
Total Registered Users: 69,648
Total Tracks: 1,525,311
Total Deliveries: 374,281,860
Today's Statistics are as follows:
Total Registered Users: 74,670
Total Tracks: 2,052,705
Total Deliveries: 435,459,832
The One Year Net Change is as follows:
New Registered Users: 5,022 ( 7% increase)
New Tracks: 527,394 (34% increase)
New Deliveries: 61,177,972 (16% increase)
I will try to find older statistics to compute the rate of increasing Play MPE transactions.
I did, but I got a very vague answer. Updates are coming, but not immediately.
I don't really grasp why they pulled it down without a ready replacement. I can only guess that they got the information they needed from various devices and users. Now they are implementing some changes that will take days or weeks - IMO.
DSNY seems to have removed the Beta video link.
It is no longer on the showcase menu.
The OTC Market level-2 quote is interesting. After DSNY bumped up to 37 cents a 36 ASK price for 4,000 shares appeared when there is a 4,000 share block on the BID at .352.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/DSNY/quote
Why the stalemate on a trade. The difference is $32 for either the buyer or seller.
It seems to be a posturing move to position a 36 ASK trade price without any real intent to sell shares because they could meet the bid at 35.2 cents.
IMO - there isn't much keeping DSNY from the 40s again. The Beta-video is running well. There aren't many sellers now.
I noticed a 2013 HTFBS favorite XXII is back at $1 today after a spike to $7. Some more investers got Pumped and Dumped on.
It is on the Showcase menu here.
https://my.clipstream.com/showcase/
The Beta link is under the Showcase menu now.
They moved it yesterday?
Outstanding. You have spent the last year complaining about Javascript as a problem for video rendering. Now you post this article and support it.
'It's powered by a JavaScript library designed by OTOY, a Los Angeles-based company that specializes in delivering complex 3D video and rendering to its customers through a browser-based client.'
'"What OTOY has accomplished with JavaScript on any Web browser promises greater flexibility without compromising performance, and that's incredibly exciting,"'
Let's see if OTOY violates any of Destiny's patents.
I Agree. I could guess he is employed by the H.264 patent owners since Hugo keeps highlighting H.264 and 'open standard' in the same message. Very funny.
He knows he isn't going to scare off long-term share holders. I think he is here to scare off new buyers for some reason other than buying stock cheap because he had that opportunity already.
Could he be working for other video hosting companies that will compete with Clipstream?
I don't believe these numbers are relevant to Clipstream video use anyway. Corporate IT users aren't watching many videos.
Some companies still use Windows XP desktops because they can't budget upgrades to Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 - or they are waiting for Windows 10.
Most Windows XP users should be using non-IE 8 browsers for internet use rather than IE 8.
I will look to poke holes in this data source, but I don't have time right now - nor is it important to do so.
Very funny. IE 8 has 20% market share? Whoever hasn't migrated off that browser is not a very bright user.
ZDNet reported the same results in August 2014. Why hasn't the data changed much?
At the same time, ZDnet reported that Microsoft will drop support for IE 8 in Jan 2016. Only one year out although I thought that IE 8 users were only on Windows XP who were already off of support anyway. These users need to upgrade their computers ASAP so they are protected from viruses and Windows hacks.
There may be some commercial equipment like cash registers and bank machines that still run on Windows XP which also connect through the internet with the IE 8 browser for site-to-site communications.
Here is the w3 Counter data that shows different browser usage figures. Chrome is first. All of IE is second (17%). Firefox is 3rd. IE 8 has only a 4% percent market share on this tracking method.
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
Yes - I looked into Vimeo too.
Its pricing is reasonable and ad free. They are an alternative hosting company that offers something different than Youtube.
Have you read their licensing agreement too?
Some businesses can use Vimeo or other similar services for promotional videos if they are OK with the licensing terms. As I read it, Vimeo does not want to be responsible for your video on their site so you have to be OK with the video being propagated or released out of your control. It allows them to not only host your video, but include it in searches to find your video in the library of videos. It may also allow them to use your video in promoting their own business - either as an example of their service. It may also allow the video to be used in other conditions. What those might be I could only guess at.
In summary, you have to grant them the copyright to your video so that they can host it and use it within their business format. I believe they want to create huge libraries of videos which turn into another advertising opportunity for them - either placing ads beside your video or on the search pages for all videos which allows them to host your video ad free if they user clicks on your video from your website. They appear to want to use low-costs videos to build up a clientele of companies that want more services which bill out at higher prices.
While there is nothing wrong with that, some companies don't want to release their video content under that arrangement. While it works for others.
Regardless, Vimeo probably uses VP9 when it can and Flash when it can to avoid the H.264 charges since their per monthly charge is low. So they juggle multiple encoder formats to work around the compatibility and cost problems.
Yes - Destiny is shooting to compete with Vimeo which they failed to deliver on last year. There are other markets besides that corporate video hosting market.
Of course Destiny isn't going to 'match' Youtube with VP9 and others with H.265. Netflix is not the customer for Clipstream.
Clipstream provides something different - a playerless solution that will play on any device.
Oh - did you say device makers are just now signing up for VP9 compatibility? Those devices won't be on the market until 2016. Then all the people who bought devices in 2015 or before will be out of luck for running any VP9 video. While some people upgrade devices every two years, other people stretch it out to 4-5 years. You can repost your argument about VP9 compatibility in 2020 if you want to profess truthfully that VP9 is available to everyone.
The same compatibility problem exists for H.265, although the H.264 decoders are already licensed and bundled into most devices.
Of course Apple and Netflix use H.264 and H.265. Those are the big guys.
In the Aussie 2015 Daala Project Presentation, the speaker gave SkyPe as an example of a company that now uses H.265, but they started with VP7 and VP8 because they couldn't afford the per use royalties of 20 cents per use.
The little guy is anyone who wants to put a video up on the web on their own website. If it goes viral, they suddenly face a huge licensing charge. Publishers are charged when they host their own videos. When you state that publishers are not charged for content then you are assuming that video creators have to hire video hosting companies to perform that service. Content is worthless unless it is broadcast to someone. Right now, little guys have to use Youtube to host their videos partially because of the licensing fee. Youtube pays the bill with advertising revenues.
With all your references and links to support your points which are fairly thorough and one sided, I am beginning to think you are an agent for HEVC, the H.265 patent holder. You seem to know a lot about Destiny, but you hate what they are doing. You obviously have a financial reason to be here - or you wouldn't be.
The companies installing H.265 decoders are paying 25 million license fees - assuming that customers will need that decoder. Every hardware and distributor of H.265 codex pays up before they can use it. Even though it is installed on devices, video publishers don't want to use it because they don't want to pay the encoder licensing fee. Only the biggest customers bite that apple since their cost per user is low.
The companies installing VP9 decoder aren't paying license fees, but the VP9 codec hasn't been adopted since there are concerns with VP8 codec patents that might violate H.264 patents. Therefore, companies do not want to adopt VP9 as a standard only to later be charged as patent violators by HEVC, et al. This statement comes from the Daala project lecture in Australia earlier this month. It is also backed up by Google employee statements that said VP9 isn't used much outside of Google. VP9 only works on some browsers too.
The risks of using VP9 is driving Mozilla to fund the Daala project, but they won't have a first release until 2016 or later.
Jobs banned Flash due to bugs more than anything else. Maybe battery life too in 2007 when battery technology was using early Li-ion technology with fire risk and short-life spans. This is 2014. Batteries are much better now. Charging is faster and there are plug-ins ports almost everywhere. Tomorrow - batteries might hold up for a week or more - who knows. Graphene and Graphite components can potentially enable batteries to recharge almost instantly.
Your arguments might have been valid seven years ago, but not now.
Very funny. 'I wouldn't waste your time' when you are wasting your own time and other investors time.
Some industry people want video to be standards based - but it isn't. Google has one solution (VP9), HVEC has another solution. Mozilla wants another solution. Destiny has another solution.
The device makers each have their own devices which include primary browsers using 5+ different standards. Firefox, Safari, IE, Chrome, Opera, and whatever else appears. Those are the primary ones in the EU and North America. Asia probably has their own standards.
Are you suggesting that Apple will drop its Safari browser for Chrome or vice versa all to be compliant with a global standard? Each company wants to fit into the standard for its own benefit, but deviate from the standard for its own benefit. Therefore, there won't be a global standard any time soon.
HEVC wants H.265 to be the global standard. Mozilla and others want something else.
Destiny's use of software for video has its own advantages over video codex encoded in hardware - that isn't really available yet anyway. It takes years to get all the manufacturers to agree on anything, then more years to implement that policy. All the while new opportunities arise that press OEMs to pioneer something new to set their product apart from the crowd.
Clipstream is adaptable - and intended to be universal because it uses an old - old - standard that everyone agrees on and implements out of necessity. So Clipstream is standards based because it uses Javascript which is an international standard. Destiny is just using Javascript in a new way.
You may be right.
If the average network speed factors in those with 1GB fiber networks, then the bulk of users fall below the average network speed. But any data figures are old - even 2014 - and the average is shifting upwards.
The real untapped dimension is how to factor in all the people who don't have their own devices yet (in developing countries) - where there is one per family or neighborhood. When you explode that number and everyone starts getting their own devices worldwide - the market for video explodes further - even from these numbers.
Worldwide Smartphone Shipments Increase 25.2% in the Third Quarter
327 Million Units.
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS25224914
When you criticize Destiny's decisions you should consider their global plan - not a plan to deliver the best quality video to those who can afford 54Mbps service.
Here is Wikipedia's data on Internet Access speeds by Country. Only the top 30 countries AVERAGE over 6 Mbps in 2014. Half the people in those countries have higher speeds and half have lower speeds. These are wired and wireless speeds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds
Bloomberg published a list of MOBILE SPEEDS in 2013. Only 4 countries in the Top 20 country were averaging above 2 Mbps. Data is from Cisco Systems.
http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2013-05-01/countries-with-fastest-mobile-data-speeds.html#slide21
Businesses who want to reach broad customer bases need video solutions that work at speeds well below 2 Mbps without crashing or taking large bandwidth.
Is a 15 second Taco Bell ad popping up in front of your business video better? That diffuses the message and loses viewers too.
IMO - the quality is pretty good at 2 Mbps on most devices for general videos - excluding high-action or huge screens. If I see two versions of the video - Clipstream and 1080p, I can tell the difference otherwise I don't even think about it.
Then there is the secure video solutions which is a unique market.
Your statements seem to assume the buyers will be consumers who will make the decision on quality.
The Clipstream customers are product manufacturers and service providers who want low cost, simplicity, broad distribution, as well as quality.
Youtube offers the best combination of these solutions except that the licensing term interferes with video market uses.
Yes - this is a decent discussion which pushed me to look into the higher quality issue. Here is what I found.
(1) Youtube does support Ultra-HD video mode, but the default is set to auto-detect - so you get a lower, decent quality. I can change the speed to 2000p for 4k videos. When I did, the buffer symbol came on for a long while, too long to work well.
(2) Google started using their VP9 encoder to deliver these UHD videos. Their VP9 encoder is compatible with Chrome and Firefox, but not IE. It is royalty free in comparison to the H.264 and H.265 encoder options.
(3) I found an encoder comparison article that compared UHD encoders. The H.265 was better than VP9 and H.264. H.264 has a license fee attached to its use that tops out at $6.5 million per year per company that encodes or decodes H.264 videos. The new H.265 license fee tops out at 25 million per year per company. VP9 is free but it doesn't work with some browsers.
(4) I also found out about the Daala Project which is a Open Source encoder under-development that intends to leap past the H.265 solution with a different approach to encoding/decoding. This project is associated with Mozilla, et al. It has been under development since 2013, but the only video sample I found had bugs in it. It is not ready to go.
(5) The licensing agreement for Daala could allow Destiny to integrate it into a solution and still charge for Clipstream. This could allow Destiny to jump into the UHD video market to hurdle the competitors using H.265 or Vp9. However, Daala isn't due to be released early this year so Clipstream has to use Destiny's encoder for now.
In conclusion - there are problems for companies who want to deliver the next generation of video. Companies need to pay royalty fees for H.264 and H.265 - up to $25 million per year per company who send/receive/host more 100,000 videos. This minimum allows a small guy to start using the H.XXX software royalty-free. If companies use VP9 - IE browsers have problems, maybe others. An opinion by a Google employee stated that VP9 is not getting a lot of traction yet due to incompatibility issues. Now the Daala encoder might beat both of those, but it is not available yet. The Daala project home page shows comparisons between H.265 DCT methods and Daala methods here.
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/daala/demo1.shtml
As far as the 'levels' go, In 2013 - Destiny invited some contacts to test 10-13 buttons that ran sample videos at different resolutions so that Destiny engineers could adjust the software for various speeds. I believe they can expand that range to higher levels but they choose not to until they have working software. While I believe they can go higher, they can't match the H.265 technology with their own encoder. The developers of H.265 have been working on that technology for many years. That platform is also pushing device makers to include chip decoder on devices. The Daala technology might offer Destiny a Clipstream upgrade path in 2016 to get to Ultra-HD and beyond.
I understand your point, but I believe the development path needs to focus on delivering a working product for a mass market first.
According to Steve, you should be getting 960 by 540 or whatever the vertical dimension is. Either there are enhancements occurring inside Flash to decompress and render frames better than Clipstream or Destiny still has some resolution quality features to improve upon.
Enhancing video quality for customers with 54+ Mbps speed should be a relatively easy task. The Clipstream encoding engine logic can be be scaled up to support twice the number of quality levels rather than what they support now.
I do not know why Steve settled on the 960 width as the top standard although I suspect that it was a size that he thought networks in 2011 could handle which they could also deliver. I also understand the reluctance to change the 960 resolution in the middle of a project when they haven't achieved it yet.
The question you ask have to be answered with conditions.
Why dosen't Clipstream meet or beat Youtube?
(1) You need to check your download network speed. It might beat Youtube if it is over 4 Mbps.
(2) What specifications do you get on Youtube videos? With Windows and Adobe flash - there is a right-mouse button menu titled 'Stats for Nerds' that tells me the video dimensions. I do not know about Apple devices using the Safari browser. If Youtube sends video at or above 1080 x 720 - I would be surprised - although they do claim to support higher resolution video formats.
(3) Are you using wireless networks for your devices? Wired devices are usually faster with less variability in the network speed.
(4) What montitor dimensions are you using? If you have a large hi-end monitor that formats at 2048 bits wide, then a 960 wide image expanded full-screen can seem low resolution. Some graphic engines may blend full images to improve the quality in some cases but I don't know what each device has built into it.
When I compare Youtube videos on my 2Mbps network speed, Youtube does look slightly better at 640x320 than Clipstream at its 2nd or 3rd quality level. However, it is pretty close - and it doesn't bother me if I am getting important news or information. Only high action, non-essential videos need that resolution quality - IMO.
The marketing theory works like this: if the quality stands out as unique, then you are attracted to it visually - so the better the resolution the more attractive your product is and the less likely you are to ignore the video.
However, it the video has valuable content then you will watch it anyway as long as it is decent quality.
This is the market that Destiny wants to help first - IMO.
The internet market does not want Hi-Res videos displaying everywhere because each high quality video is a magnitude bigger in size. 4k bit frames are 8 or 16 times bigger than 960 bit frames because you have X and Y dimensions to consider. If you consider color density values - there could be a third dimension. Therefore 4k files are WAY BIGGER than 960 files. Mobile networks say that they want to accommodate Hi-Def quality, but they aren't going to handle it well for a long while - like 20 years. I believe the current spectrum owned by the mobile carriers won't support that level of service.
The current LTE networks are good now compared to years past, but they won't be good if everyone is watching 4k sports videos on them. Therefore, the mobile providers limit bandwidth use with different strategies like throttling and pricing.
The people who want the 4k videos are the television makers who what you to throw away your 5 year old 1080p television for a new 4k television. Once that happens, they will have a 8k television to sell you.
The mobile device market is doing the same thing. If the iPad has a Hi-Res screen then Samsung has a higher-res screen. In some cases it makes a difference, but not often.
I would like to consider cutting back on your isn't high enough quality - mumbo-jumbo - and consider that Destiny is solving a big problem by providing a decent solution that won't overload the mobile networks with super-hi-res videos that they can't support anyway. Although Netflix needs hi-res videos for its entertainment market, other commercial uses do not need that, nor is it wanted by multiple parties.
Phil,
The definition of HD that Steve uses is technically true, but it was defined relative to the old television standard of 640 by 480 (or 320). Anything higher than that fits the HD definition.
However, the common TVs now are 1280 by 1080 - known as 1080p or lesser standards 1080 by 720 known as 720p. They also go higher - but those are the most common television screens.
Therefore, Clipstream's current best is just under the 720p standard - but still HD. The problem with Clipstream quality starts to appear when you are using Hi-Res monitors that are 1440 x 1280 or higher. Clipstream has to scale up pixels from 960 to 1440 or higher.
The 4k televisions are 4000 bits wide compared to Clipstreams 960. The market for Clipstream is for commercial grade videos at first. Once Clipstream has a solid customer base for Ads, Trainings, and other promotional videos - they will get likely have to raise their highest quality level. The problem with 4k videos and other hi-def videos is the file size - therefore most internet videos aren't 4k quality. They get scaled down to 1080, 1240, or 1440, etc. Many Youtube videos I see in Windows 7 are 640 x 320 - so Destiny can beat standard Youtube videos. Youtube does not want to transmit extreme hi-res videos either since it woould cost them more money to deliver free videos.
I identified a key difference in the Beta-video from the other showcase videos.
When I use the Full-Screen button in the Beta-video there is instant shifting from in-page viewing to full-screen, or back the other way.
In the other showcase movie trailers, there is a blank screen and pause for buffering for 1-2 seconds.
While I didn't think this improvement was essential for go-live, it may be the precursor development to full-screen mode for mobile.
Can other users verify the improvement at different network speeds? Thanks.
What strange director appointment - IMO.
Point360 is in Los Angeles.
Point360 recently dropped off the Nasdaq CM for the OTC stock market due to lack of market requirements to maintain their listing.
Point360 is losing money and customers fast.
Point360 appears to do all things for all movie production companies except that their sales are dropping every year and quarter over the last 3 years in an improving economy.
The new director owns 60% of Point360 so he has full control.
Why would this guy join DSNY's board when he has his own company to worry about?