Slashdot Mirror
Live Streaming Video?
emmons asks: "I've recently been put in charge of creating a live streaming audio/video solution for a website. I've looked around and it appears that there are two popular options: Real and Windows Media. I haven't found anything else. I don't really like either of those because Real is expensive and Windows Media is, well, Microsoft. Are there any other options?"
But ... well ... you know.
Fuck 'im up, Tim! His views are invalid! -Pirate Corp$
Sun do one, I don't know much about it.
The company I work for does streaming media, and we use Real for it. It's not that expensive, you can download free versions of their tools for evaluation purposes, and it seems to be OK for Linux and BeOS support.
Run Sorenson Broadcaster on a Mac to capture and encode the stream, and then stream it using the Darwin Streaming Server (from Apple) on Linux, Solaris or Mac OS X, and maybe others.
I've been playing with their Darwin Streaming Server on a Linux box and it performs alright and it's free.
g /
http://publicsource.apple.com/projects/streamin
Pork is not a verb
Whatever happened to the MBone? I was never technically associated with it, but I did play with it while I was working at a major ISP/Internet backbone, and it was a great idea. But any web sites you find on it these days are either gone or terribly outdated.
Fuck 'im up, Tim! His views are invalid! -Pirate Corp$
Not using a piece of software just because it is from Microsoft just shows ignorance. Use what works. Evaluate windows media before you bust on it. I use it, and it does streaming pretty well.
I have a nice sony camcorder with a IEEE 1394 port and I also have the IEEE 1394 pci card. How can I stream (any format) from that video source? I can't even use it with netmeeting(ick).
Apple's QT4 is free(beer) and open-source, and works fairly well from what I remember, and that was about a year ago. I remember having a few problems with it under FreeBSD, but it worked like a charm under Solaris.
I'm not sure about encoding for it however, I think that might be where they slap you with the fees, but it's still a pittance compared to what Real wants.
Not only does it run on NT, Linux, Solaris, Free BSD and anything else you decide to compile it for....
its open source.
Oh, and did i mention that its free?
I mean - what else could you want (other than Linux clients with Sorenson)
Click here to go to the website
(i'm not biased, i just know 3 guys that work in QTSS)
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
...unfortunately it isn't yet. :)
.MOV creator, it shouldn't cost anything! And the Quicktime player can stream very well. So, maybe that's the best way?
The problem is that it doesn't have its own streamable file format. AVI files are the standard MPEG4 transport format, but you can't stream them because AVI files have headers at the very end of the stream.
Quicktime MOV files can have MPEG4 embedded in them, and can be streamed, but I don't know of the legal issues involved in that. I'd imagine that if you used a free codec, and a free
www.icecast.org - I believe they have something video in the works.
---- Do not go gently into that good night -----
Rather, you should not run Micro$oft Streaming Server because it has to run on the POS Operating System by Micro$oft.
Semantics make a difference.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
I agree you should check out the alternatives; dont dismiss Windows Media player just because its MS. Check it out and make your decision based on its quality, not who makes it.
The Darwin Streaming Server is in my opinion, the best possible solution. Quicktime has the best quality and is the nicest looking. DSS is opensource, and "is based on the same code as Apple's QuickTime Streaming Server. It is available at http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/streaming for FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris, Windows NT and of course Darwin/Mac OS X. The source can also be downloaded from the above URL.
Remember if you go with Windows Media you'll block all the Linux users (not sure about Mac) out! The only alternative I can see, that everyone's already pointed out, is Quicktime, but again it'll lose all us Linux users. This is one of the lacking things I miss about Windows. Oh well.
-antipop
There might be opensource solutions (possible out of Heroine Virtual), but not many people will be able to view your content. Real reaches the broadest audience, and it works well, I've used it with Video For Linux 2 and a Winnov Videum board for capture.
I do get frustrated by not being able to view Windows media sites such as this Penguin Cam. You could also do it with quicktime, but then you loose linux viewers due to the lack of a sorenson codec. We need something opensource, ubiquitous, and cross-platform, but as they say about NASA: Pick Two.
-JungleBoy
--
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet
might be running loose in your pants."
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
Of course you could always try being unbiased and actually give Media Player a shot, but I guess that would be too hard for the average Slahdot user.
You can download a free 'evaluation' version of RealServer that can serve up to 20 simultaneous streams of live or pre-recorded audio or video, and AFAICT is not feature-limited. I'm using it to serve record and CD clips on this site and it has worked really well.
If you grow beyond that, the next step up costs $2495, which handles up to 60 concurrent streams, IIRC.
--
------------
"...and Maddest of all, to see Life as it Is, and not as it Should Be."
Clients. Lusers. I mean software clients of course--and if you're not using real or media player, your customer's browser is NOT going to have it. Sure you can reasonably ask a luser to spend half an hour installing flash/real/an adobe pdf viewer, but the same does NOT hold for no-name asiaware. If it's not really, really (and exclusively) cool/important, your customers will not bother with it. Period.
its not linux compatible. Its yet another attempt to lock competitors out with proprietary formats, and then either immediately or eventually stop supporting their platform...
SSL Certificate
I recently had to evaluate some streaming video (over LAN) solutions, and we ended up with the Microsoft solution because its inexpensive (effectively bundled with 2k Server) and offers pretty good quality. A major factor in deciding, though, was platform: 99% of the likely userbase used Windows, and weren't techies - meaning that they didn't want to bother with difficult plugin installations!
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
Jamie Zawinski looked at three options for his webcam page (Real, Windows Media, Quicktime). He ended up choosing Real because it was the only player with broad platform support.
It really depends on who your audience is. If you can't afford Real and you're aiming for a Joe Sixpack crowd, forget Linux users and use Quicktime or WIndows Media. That sounds like flamebait, but if you're opposed to Windows because Microsoft is "icky" or because you'd rather spend X thousand dollars to support 5% of your audience, you're a bad businessman.
Hands in my pocket
This has a large article on Open Source alternatives for Multimedia, including streaming audio and Video. It also looks at what is on the horizon in the next little while. Well worth the £4.25 ($5.00USD).
[Please type your sig here.]
Darwin Streaming Server is the free and open source version of QuickTime Streaming Server. It runs on FreeBSD, WinNT, Solaris, RedHat and Mac OS X Server. To do real-time encoding, add Sorenson Broadcaster. It's not free, but it's only $199 no matter how many streams you want to serve. You'll need a fast Mac to run it.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
I think that the mpeg2 library/utils under Linux allows you to encode and stream in mpeg2 format...
It's free (search on Freshmeat)... There is just a small drawback... Those Mpeg streams can't be understood by any Windows Codec (perhaps there are people doing it).
For the rest, it's up to you to decide if you plan to limit your audience to MS Windows users only. Don't forget there are more and more Linux/FreeBSD/Mac/... users and that RealPlayer work on all platforms...
Well, the Quicktime Streaming Server is, at anyrate. It's part of the Darwin project: get the skinny here. Runs just spiffy on Linux, or so I'm told.
The QT client has a freebie version that runs on MacOS and Windows, but, alack, no younicks client yet.
SoupIsGood Food
Don't be closed minded. Yes Microsoft makes crappy ass shit from time to time, but not ALL THE TIME. Now let's start the flame ...
dudle
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
5{o be possible to use vic or the Java Media Framework with the H.263 codec instead of Sorenson Broadcaster.
Otherwise, for MP3 straming, it works great.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Everyone seems to be saying QTSS. It is free. It works on Linux.
BFD.
Can't watch them on Linux though. Or anything else, 'cept MacOS and Win. That is where things really suck.
Now, i'm not saying it isn't great that all of this server stuff works on Linux and all, but we need both sides of the equation to keep content free, server and client.
So what do you use to watch streaming video on Linux? And what types of streams can you watch? How do they compare to the available Windows or Mac software?
Mod parent note up
Silly Rabbit: tricks are for kids.
Looks like the first part of my post got mangled, I said "It might be possible to use..."
Ummm, how is a question regarding an Internet-based IP multicast backbone that was used to send streaming media (amongst other things, but that was a primary feature) offtopic to a post about streaming media?
Fuck 'im up, Tim! His views are invalid! -Pirate Corp$
Just because you can't figure out how to properly install Quicktime, doesn't mean it isn't a viable alternative for others.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
There is a project being run out of Cornell University called the qVIX project. Its aim is to provide real-time, high quality video/audio to users. The algorithim is something very new called CU30 which is a full-frame rate, high quality, real-time video codec. The qVIX application and CU30 codec are GPL'ed and can be found at http://cu30.sourceforge.net.
Couldn't some form of an applet on the client side handle this? Sure, it couldn't be very big images, but I would think it would be possible. You might have to come up with some custom streaming format, or use one currently available. I would imagine it depends on what you are trying to stream (a talking head, or an advertisement, or something else), to determine what kind of quality you want in the end. I think it would be possible though to write some server code and a java applet that could handle it all (though only at a low to medium quality).
I thought I remember seeing this done a long while back, when applets were everywhere, Real was just starting out, and streaming video was still an "idea" for later...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I haven't used it, but Sun has the JMF.
Quote: Developed by Sun and IBM, Java Media Framework 2.0 (JMF) technology is the unified architecture for the playback, synchronization, capture, and transmission and transcode of media - including streaming audio and video - across most major operating systems.
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
www.truetech.com / www.camarades.com, It's video only but it's free and requires no plugin to play. The server sends a string of jpegs. I'm still screwing with it. As a side effect, you get listed on camarades website for free, and can easily clock up 20-50 hits per minute to your page with 'sufficiently interesting' content. Or you can get a feature-reduced realproducer for free, and a version of the server that supports 20 (perhaps 25, have to check) streams. I have stuff about hacking the truetech software, and clips from realproducer on my web page, 'cos it's what I'm working on at the moment :)
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
To say that RealServer is expensive is to assume that you need to buy the top-of-the-line product for a small task. The free RealServer Basic serves 25 simultaneous streams, which can pretty quickly fill a T1 depending on the target bitrates.
Perhaps you have heard of the Ogg project, and its audio codec Vorbis which is currently gaining popularity. Its been feature on here before, but here is a quick summary. The Ogg project is an attempt to create a patent free streaming audio and video specification along with an LGPL'ed implementation. Vorbis has been under heavy development recently and now beta 4 is available (or should be, I've only kept up with cvs). Tarkin is the recently named video codec that is now part of the Ogg project. Supposedly it will incorporate wavelets (the new techno buzz word that seems to be going around), however other technology such as curvelets are being looked into also. Granted, Tarkin isn't available now and wouldn't prove a quick solution but it might very well be a viable open source alternative in the future.
-- BLarg!
FREE!!!
A vast majority (about 70%) of users use either RealPlayer or Windows Media Player. The latter is gaining market share every month. If you want a broad range of users to enjoy your content, you better choose one of the two formats.
some people are slamming you for preferring not to use MS, but as others have posted it looks like either the 1 yr/20 stream realplayer eval or the QT/Darwin solution will do what you need.
What a shame those people are slamming you for wanting a choice...maybe all microsoft people should be forced to drive a yugo and live in a tent until they sign a statement that they now understand the meaning of the word "choice".
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Shoutcast is, in my opinion, by far the best audio streamer. I have little to no experience with video except on the client side, from which perspective real has the most god-awful quality, quicktime is high-quality and relatively well integrated, windows media player is robust and effective but seems to be slightly lower quality.
While I doubt it is free, you might look at ClipStream, which is a Java based streaming system (so it can be done - now, is there an open source solution, and better yet, GPL'd?)...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
DivX ;-) isn't a 'variant of MPEG-4', it's a hack of the Microsoft MPEG4 video codec, usually found within the AVI file format which isn't really suitable for streaming. You'd need to convert the file to ASF, and then why not just use the superior Windows Media Video codecs...
Do you have a problem or something? That is sick disgusting, and perverted. It is also illigale to have pornography with out a notice to let you know first. Since the server is bassed in the US.
/. on to some site that wants you (if there is such a thing).
We are techy's here. Take yourself and all your perverted friends away from
snowulf.com
I've been running Quicktime Streaming both across my LAN and out over the wider net as well for almost two years now and I have to say it's great. You can pick up a used beige G3 box for less than $500 now, Sorenson Broadcaster is $199 and you can bounce your stream off almost any platform. I've been using the QT streamer built into OSX and it works perfectly. I just installed it on LinuxPPC and it works perfectly too. Give it a shot!
obviously you have something conflicting with the software. I've installed QuickTime on more systems than I could possibly remember, Windows, and Mac, and have never had a single problem on any of them.
I don't see why people hate MS products so much. Your precious linux would probably not exist without it!
The delicious tomatoes in my salad probably wouldn't exist without the horse manure they were fertilized with, but you won't see me scooping the brown stuff on top of my arugula. I will, however, defend to the death your right to eat as much of it as you like.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Check out IBM's video charger. It is fantastic and we have used it in multiple installs. Good luck! -Ryan
http://www.the-labs.com/Video/m atik.tu-chemnitz.de/~jan/MPEG/MP EG_Play.html
http://rnvs.infor
http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~chasan/ (this guy supposedly had a Java player, but it isn't there anymore)
And of course:
http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/index.html
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I worked for a company that made a fairly serious investment in streaming video and live encoding - the musticast-enabled their network (v.useful for live netcasting), we distributed a number of server around the country and placed them in the ISP's dial-up POPs. And we opted for Windows media for a number of reasons - - Something like 98% of our users were on the windows platform. - the server is 'free' with win NT/ win2000 You need to pay for the server OS license, but you don't pay per stream like you do with real. It is effectively an unlimited licence. - The quality is great - media player supports a bunch of codecs, and if you use something exotic, the client's player will go fetch the codec and plug it in, transparently. It is possible to pick your codecs independantly for audio and video, and really tweak them for performance. For example, you would pick one setup for fast-paced, live sports footage, and a different one for an interview where the audio is more important. - The encoding tools are free and good. Really free - you can download them without purchasing anything. - Fully multi-threaded, and supports multiple processors and multiple capture boards in one machine. Go for a beefy dual-proc machine with 4 Osprey 1000's in it, and you have a live encoding dream machine. - dead easy to set up ISDN lines, and bonded dialup channels etc for your upstream path in a live encoding setup. We usually used a cisco 1600 with an isdn dialup to allow multiple machines to connect and encode, but you can also just use a connection directly from the machine. I could probably go on - in short, Windows media player and encoder tools are just about the best things I've seen MS build apart from their keyboards and joysticks. The only drawback I found was that to start and stop the services and do other general admin you would have to use something like PC anywhere to get onto the servers. And I hate using a gui over a dial-up. Tim
A search of RealNetworks on slashdot turns up a lot of articles on RealNetworks' violations of privacy. They also sued Streambox under the DMCA, for reverse engineering their file formats and circumventing their "protection against piracy".
And their player bombards you with ads and annoying popups (e.g. please register your personal information with us so we can send you Exciting Product Offerings). It feels like they care more about their corporate associates than the consumer.
Microsoft has also had bad business practices, but then again, they've had a lot more opportunity to. Real, OTOH, doesn't have as much influence, but has been as sleazy as it could. I shudder to think of what RealNetworks would do if it were in MS's position.
We use Windows Media on our hosting network, and it is great - in fact, I'd go so far as to say its one of the best products Microsoft has made. Using a combination of Media Encoder and the actual streaming software, we've got thousands of streams churning away happily all the time. The uptime of these boxes are incredible: we recently found out that one of our encoder boxes (Windows NT 4) has an uptime of over 500 days (!). Windows 2000, out of the box, has excellent support for streaming media services. My only compaint would be that the interface to manage streams is a little icky - it would be great if it had a command line or script interface to it. Afaik, for NT4 its available for free, so its pretty hard to beat on price. Real (from memory) is fairly expensive - and just about everyone that has Windows has Media Player. If your target audience for your streaming is primarily Windows based, your best bet is Windows Media services.
We evaluated compression and required bandwidth for different lighting conditions and compression methods.
The idea was to allow best video quality for 28.8, 56 and 64 kbps connections for the southamerican audience (which means automatic support for different bandwidths). The test was done with a cheap Osprey 101 (videocard+NTSC camera).
The clear winner was MS Video, and it was a suprise, the "smoothing" (sorry, I don't remember the precise name) filter aplied in the player allowed us to put the windows at a 200% size of the original and the image quality looked pretty the same.
I give you the parameters we found as the best for our requirements:
Bandwidth: Multiple. 22Kbps, 29Kbps, 34Kbps.
Audio codec: ACELP.net, 5Kbps, 8000Hz, Mono.
Video codec: MPEG-4 Video Codec V3, 15Fps, 176x144, 8 Sec/lFrame.
Hope this helps.
--ricardo
sgis ddo ekil t'nod i
If you care at all about quality, don't stream. Even over a 384K DSL line, I can't watch 300K streams without freeze frames and drops. If you just post quicktime fast start .mov's then it acts like its streaming by starting when it can, and if it has to stop and wait, the user can still watch it later, after the download is complete. I've completely given up on streaming because I have yet to see one that was watchable --- it was either too small and crappy or it wouldn't keep streaming (and even the best streaming is crappy compared to most downloads).
FUCK THIS REDUNDANT SHIT.... how am I supposed to know someone is posting at the same time as me? FUCK ALL MODERATORS
I've done a lot of work in this area. Here's what I think:
Rule 1: don't use real. They have very good audio codecs, but the video stuff isn't worth it because you have to pay for everything.
If you are looking for quality, go with Windows Media. Get a Quad processor beast with an Osprey 500 and serve live MPEG 4. All the software is free if you don't count the operating systam costs.
If you want an Open Source solution use Vic with Darwin Streaming Server I think an Osprey 200 is your best bet for a capture card, but I haven't actually tried this out yet. Note that this uses the H263 codec which isn't much to talk about. If you want to use sorenson codec to stream live to quicktime, well good luck. There's something called LiveIce but it costs 6 grand and it only runs on NT, but you might want to look into that.
Here's some good links to get you going:
Choosing a Streaming Video Technology
previous slashdot article
technical primer on rt*p protocols
Apparently this manor of societal comment through exageration is over the slashdot crowds collective heads. I was hoping the veiled truth and general wording of this statement would make it funny, not offense. Ah, well... I'll make a note of that...
Justin Dubs
http://www.pcsuperstore.it/smenu.htm Three porno streams totally free, video only, no player or plugins needed. Well, you asked..!
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
Check out helloNetwork: http://www.hellonetwork.com They can do live streaming audio and video at up to 30fps across 28k to broadband with no plugins!
QuickTime is easily the best quality, and there's no price-per-stream. You can run the QuickTime Streaming Server on Mac OS X, Darwin, or Linux. QuickTime 5 also has some new buffering features that make so much sense, you won't believe that Real and MS don't have them.
Live Delivery
There's nothing wrong with wanting to have more options to choose from.
The real question is are you ready to face the fact that Microsoft IS the best solution?
The only consideration is: Which is the best format for my end-users to use? Which format will give the most pleasing viewable results?
The fact is the Microsoft makes the best codecs today. Theirs is the only commercially available (not to mention deployed) MPEG-4 video format.
Nobody cares about Linux in this context. You need Windows & Mac support at the client level, and guess who has Media player for both of those OSes? Right: Microsoft.
Quicktime/Real are no option because their codecs/formats suck when compared to WMA/WMV (has anyone seen WMA/WMV version 8? It's AMAZING!)
As for the streaming server, in here there is some room for flexability. All you REALLY need is HTTP streaming of WMV files. This basically means that Apache could to it for you. There are some advantages to installing Microsoft's streaming media server, as it can adapt to the client's connection speed and send different streams according to bandwidth.
Oh, wait, I get it now. You have to include HTML sarcasm tags or litter your comments with ;-)'s so people KNOW your kidding. Ah, silly me.
Justin Dubs
My mediaplayer has been fortunate enough to work in Linux and I can stream asf files perfectly. Soon wine should be able to work perfectly and we won't have to worry about codecs and stuff.
in light of the quote at the bottom of the page i just had say something!!! alright yea this has been my long standing handle for quiteee a while now,,, sooo now u know
Istigkeit -"is-ness" being and becoming & i'dfiying it with the mathematical abstraction of the idea
Check out Flix by Wildform.
s|Your|You're|
s|Cant|Can't|
s|implementling|implementing|
s|oportunity|opportunity|
Besides format (RM vs asf vs qt, etc) bandwith is a big issue... even you are only doing like a marginal 16k audio only stream, multiplied by hundreds or thousands of users (concurrently for a LIVE event) and you've got some manage-ability issues.
What solutions are available today to help with this? Network edge caching, multi cast setttings... *shrug* still looking for answers quite frankly...
E.
www.randomdrivel.com -- All that is NOT fit to link to
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
Actually if you go through the history before Media Player started supporting streaming media they had a seperate application similar to Real Player called Net Show. This application was available under Linux. I don't know if you can still find it though.
WTF? Why streaming? I just don't get streaming, I mean, delivering video/audio on the fly via packets is stupid. Even on the fattest connections a good sized network hiccup will fuck up the stream. There's nothing more annoying than having a video pause for a few seconds in the middle of it. And if I want to skip to a different part then I've gotta wait for it to rebuffer. Is it just me or is streaming shit? Who came up with the logic of streaming over a connection that's always changeing speed and has no guaranteed delivery? My suggestion would be to abolish streaming media from your site.
QuickTime is WONDERFUL, and great to work with. Besides, it's growing faster than Real.. and *certainly* faster than Windows Media. Apple is great to work with. They'll help you out if you need it, and the technology itself is great. QuickTime is the standard in the media industry, and eventually in the streaming market as well I'm sure.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
I tried the same, having an old P133 cheap crap PC with a original new haupage Bt878 and a small Sony CCD Cam, as test object.
Webcam is no problem, but streaming is not easy, I tried the free testversions (max. 25 User) of real player, after you get this realproducer setup you start streaming and you see only blue in RealPlayer X.X on your Linux powered desktop, you check the options for the server and OK, there is an option to enable compatibility for the free players you may find on real.com...
But on realserver startup you get the message that, hey this option can only be used with the pay version of realproducer...
Wow a few hours lost, reading the docs, setting this sw up...
This Mac thing would only be an option if there is a player for linux available, which isn't AFAIK. In my opinion, if linux serves it, it should at least be able to view it.
My last try was a small java/hack which worked slow as hell, even on a fast LAN, and only worked with NS 4.x...:-(
Last days I read somewhere on heise.de about a DVi??? project which could enable you to store a movie on one CD-R, the sw will be GPL'd soon. Wouldn't that be a starting point for a superior codec, as I think something important as delivering streaming video/audio over the internet should only be done using something GPL?
Michael
There's videoclipstream, a Java streaming video solution, here.
You are being paid to provide a service for a website. WHO THE FUCK CARES IF YOU LIKE MICROSOFT OR NOT? All that matters is that you can get the video out to as many people as possible, and since Windows Media Player is the cheapest and most accessible way to do this, DO IT. Don't shit around with "I hate MS," because guess what? The person you are doing this for I'm sure doesn't give a flying fuck. And the visitors aren't going to spend the time downloading yet another open-source player, because guess what? They don't give a flying fuck either.
You zelots have to realize that you can't put your moronic bias in the way when its not your money. Some people don't give a crap about this stuff you know.
According to Akamai, the company that serves the live streams for Apple's QuickTime TV, at its peak the [MacWorld San Francisco] keynote had 35,407 simultaneous viewers accessing 5.3 gigabits per second of video at broadband rates. This tops Apple's previous personal best of 21,000 simultaneous viewers at last summer's Macworld Expo in New York City. -- From a MacWorld article
That's a lot of traffic. I was watching that stream, and the quality was superb. A very good showing for live streaming of live events.
And of course, the server software is free, and there is no charge per stream, like Real does (or used to do? what about WMP?)
-jon
Remember Amalek.
> Not using a piece of software just because it is
> from Microsoft just shows ignorance. Use what
> works.
No, it's not ignorance. Software is not a one-time purchase. If this guy sets up MS-based streaming video, he's estabilishing a relationship with Microsoft. Even if the MS solution has more features or is cheaper, you have to consider whose promises you're attempting to believe. Microsoft also has no multimedia savvy. Windows Media is ugly stuff to people who know better. It's unfun, and live streaming video ought to be fun.
I would go with QuickTime, myself, for the following reasons:
highest quality available
free, open source server software that runs on Darwin, Linux, NT, and Mac OS X, with NO per-stream cost
easy authoring features that will enable you to put a Flash front-end, titles, or links into your streams
integration with video authoring software
a player that's popular, easy to use, and unclutterd by blinking ads
Apple owns a big piece of Akamai.
Also, you can get a Mac with DVD-R, FireWire, and gigabit ethernet built-in as your broadcaster, and make a DVD after the live event is over, as well as create a DVD-ROM of the raw data, all on the same machine (and all the software is included). The other machines you involve (usually one or two more) can be Linux or NT if you like. With the money you save by having no per-stream cost, the machines are basically free, anyway.
They have the "surestream" thing which scales stream quality up or down depending on user connection. You can point a user at one URL (and one file on the back end) with multiple bitrate encodings and the server/player will deal. Real has had a bug in their server for several months. It keeps causes the server to start using 100% cpu for no reason. We have not been able to get a single realserver instance to handle more than around 500 streams (on more than heafy enough hardware) without it getting really pissed at us over time. It took alot of bitch slapping, but real finally admitted they have the bug. So don't believe any numbers like one server on one monster box will handle 3000 users. Real will tell you memory usage per user and users per cpu mips. But we ended up running enough realserver instances across enough linux boxes to keep each instance below 300 users (a fuzzy happiness level we found). Hey real, if you've fixed the bug already, doh. Guess you should've told me, eh?
Also, check into mixing stereo streams with mono streams in one surestream file. Mono is actually better sounding than stereo below like 30kbps. But above that roughly, you want stereo. But realproducer won't let you mix and match all combinations of everything you'd want.
The best (IMHO) stream you can get is gona be Apple's QuickTime TV (aka QuickTime Streaming Server) ;)
It's free...It's been ported (I belive) to Unix and BSD, as another poster pointed out, they've streamed to thousands of simlutanious users.
Best of all, it's not Microsoft, so it's just cooler all around
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
Real Media isn't as expensive as it looks. First off, RM files don't need a server to stream! Unless you are using multiple bitrate streams (which are kind of nasty anyway), you can stream the files as just that, files on a web server. I use Apache, and they stream just fine off my demo site (http://epmf.dasmegabyte.org/circlemenu.html, it's sh_t and i know it). However, RM files are cheesy, they offer terrible picture quality at every bitrate and resolution and the audio is pretty bad too.
For strict streaming, Windows Media 8 is by far your best choice, and if you're just a hard anti-microsoft guy (no reason to be in this case, they have the best product), I guess it's not an option. But WM8 has some amazingly high video quality at low bitrates, approaching the level of some of the demo Mpeg-4 stuff coming out from research labs (BTW, the MS codec is NOT Mpeg-4, and neither is "divX
But quality isn't what's important...if you're streaming data for a business, you can't be streaming it in a format your users might now have. In this instance, you'll have to think of the following points:
Every windows machine has some version of Windows Media Player; however, not all of them have WM8 installed. WM 6.4 doesn't work well with WM8 files, sometimes the video doen't play at all (!)
If you use DivX, your users will have to download a "grey market" app that won't automatically install. It's a moderately difficult task.
Quicktime is free, cross platform and readily available, but MANY pc users won't have it. Furthurmore, many others will only have old versions which won't work at all.
Real Player is freaking everywhere. But Real Player is notorious for spamming and annoying its user base, and the video quality is, well, sh_tty.
MPEG is great...but MPEg-1 is big, MPEG-2 costly, and MPEG-4 intangible. Still, for users willing to wait for the download, it's worth it.
Whatever you eventually decide to use, please do the world a favour and offer MULTIPLE BITRATES. Nothing is worse than sitting through a ten minute download of a 128 kbit stream on a 28.8, except being forced to sit through a low res 450kbit stream on an OC line!
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Live point to point streaming video.... go take a look at seesaw.com. They put up two live windows of voice and video chat, interactive, at more than five frames a second. They dont use real or MS or Quicktime for that, cause those formats are: 1. Really slow... BAD slow 2. Really heavy weight 3. Aimed at 'perfect' quality... which they dont do well at all Closed video formats like those just really blow. Why are we all stuck with them?
Animated gifs: a million crappy geocities pages can't be wrong!
Ok, more than two words. I'll refund the cost of viewing (please include $5.95 shipping and handling).
Is it just me, or is no one listening to you? ha ha ha
Rz-
If you like the codec of Windows Media audio/video but can't stomach running IIS, check out Starbak. They make a nice Linux powered streaming media toaster that serves Windows Media.
Check out www.hellonetworks.com - they do Java-based streaming, and don't require a plugin - don't know how well it works with non-MS browsers, but may be worth checking out.
I bought Sorenson Broadcaster and used QTSS to deliver live AUDIO of our universities athletic events. A few month's later, the President of the U.S. picked our campus to deliver one of his last major addresses. HAD to try a video webcast. It came off well, with reports from across the country reporting it worked great.
Real offers a free server, but only to get you hooked. Once you become successful, you'll have to purchase expensive licenses.
QuickTime Player is a great choice for users of either major platform. It has a super-easy installer. As already mentioned, the QTSS is free in various incarnations.
Keep in mind that streaming LIVE is different from streaming archived events. You'll be using RTSP (Real Time Streaming Protocol) instead of HTTP. That can cause problems for people behind firewalls that aren't configured to let the stream in.
I highly recommend "QuickTime for the Web". Here's a sample chapter from Apple's site.
Broadcaster is great and you can download a fully functional 30 day demo. I swear, if you want to do live video, you really should get a FireWire equipped Mac, plug in your video camera and run Sorenson Broadcaster. If you want to improve on reality, play with the free copy of iMovie to create your archive files. You would have to be insane to spend money for the hardware and software necessary to do the same stuff on another platform.
Curious George.
***General Consultant to the Human Race*** My opinions are free. You get what you pay for.
I believe that Real is now using the QuickTime streaming server.
photosMy Photostream
iBeam Broadcasting and others provide streaming services for internet sites. Live or on-demand. FTP access for content.
Outsourcing is an option if you think you're going to do a decent amount of streaming and don't want to deal with the number of servers, licenses, and the bandwidth to support it.
disclaimer: yes, i work for iBeam...
Both FAME & MP1E can digitize of a bttv board in realtime for mpeg1. Since mp1e outputs to standard output, you could use something like netcat to stream it to the net. FAME has some net streaming options. I also think the 1.8beta version of MP1E also has some network streaming options.
I also saw a program valled VCR on Freshmeat that claims to do realtime divx;-) encoding which you could also use for streaming purposes.
Sigma designs also has some hardware/software products to do mpeg streaming over a network.
-Jay Thomas
http://www.jay.cx
Then again, when the company asks you were you learned about it, you would be in quite a pickle. ;-)
There are a number of design flaws in Quicktime 3/4, not the least of which is a failure to use the native platform's widget set, instead opting for a set of bitmapped "3D-look" buttons that are mostly indistinguishable from the empty space on the UI. Another problem is the use of a 'dial' volume control, confusing first time users as how to operate it, and many believe you have to only move it a short distance in the small window that the dial appears. It also takes over several file associations without permission (Microsoft's products are no better, but this is something even Real has fixed in RealPlayer). In short, Apple tried to make it look like a physical device when it's not. They ended up wasting screen space, creating a monster UI that's completely opposite from everything they stand for that tries to take over key portions of your system.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
The QT5 beta cures this somewhat.
I agree tho, QT4's section in the interface hall of shame is well-deserved..
Your Working Boy,
Jeez...don't you know you go to Freshmeat for these things? :)
http://freshmeat.net/projects/realplayer/
Trying to navigate to the right spot from http://www.real.com is trickier, but not impossible. Look for RealPlayer 8, RealPlayer 8 Basic, RealPlayer 8 for UNIX link at bottom of page.
Keep in mind if you are using Windows Media you are pretty much losing Mac Users. Yes they have a Mac Client but it never works right and is always behind the windows verison.
you can outsource the viseo part of your website to the feedroom. http://www.feedroom.com
Another problem is the use of a 'dial' volume control, confusing first time users as how to operate it, and many believe you have to only move it a short distance in the small window that the dial appears.
I just have to chime in here. I know it's been roundly criticized, but am I the only one that had no problems figuring out how that dial worked first time? Goddamn it, I thought it was intuitive!
As soon as you get emotions start to dominate any business decision you can be guarenteed that you are heading down the wrong path.
Saying microsoft has no multimedia savvy would have to be one of the most unfounded and totally biased comments I have ever heard.
We are talking about the same company that has produced the windows media 8 protocol which is currently the best (in terms of bandwidth and quality) protocol for streaming audio and video ? The same company that is investing billions into X-Box ?
The same company that has produced Direct-X the most widely used, the best documented, the most available and without doubt the most successful multimedia software development kit on the market ?
If MS have no savvy in this area who does ?
Mac and Quicktime ? You've got to be kidding !
The most economical and flexible hardware solution is a dual processor G4 combined with a DV camera. Accompany this by Sorenson Broadcaster and Sorenson Video 2.1 Developer addition and you have an extremely powerful and cheap streaming server. This will work for multicast streaming, if you want to use other methods, combine it with a QTSS running under Linux or OS X Server running as a reflector. The developer edition of Sorenson Video is important to provide Altivec and multiple processor support. Additionally, your investment in this equipment will make it easy to move to MPEG4 (not MS-MPEG4) when Sorenson releases their software codec. Sorenson recently demoed their beta MPEG4 at the Macworld Expo. Yes, you will be initially investing in a more proprietary solution to begin with, but at least it will be expandable to more open standards later on, less than one could say for solutions from Real and MS. Graham
I just set up a QuickTime Streaming Server 3 preview install on an OS X public beta machine, and have had great luck with it so far for intranet streaming. Plus, it's FREE. check it out. -Nick
I wan't confused by the volume dial, but I must agree that QT4 is the ugliest, least flexible, least apealing UI I've seen. Having a HUGE grey border with grey buttins nearly the same shade should get someones shot.
Who cares if the QuickTime server runs on Linux? You still can't watch any modern Quicktime movies on Linux because there is no player. It's the players that matter.
It's really irritating to hear the ``me too'' crew keep claiming that there is Linux support for QuickTime. There is none that matters.
It is unfortunately the case that RealVideo is the only cross-platform video format that is deployable today. It is unfortunate both because both QuickTime and Windows Media have dramatically better video quality, and also because Real's pricing model is extortionate.
You can get a crippled demo version of the encoder and server for cheap/free, but here's what the licensing prices for RealServer Pro look like, if you're actually using it:
200 viewers: $12,000
400 viewers: $22,000
1000 viewers: $40,000
2000 viewers: $80,000
And that's for a single version of the server, with no future upgrades or support. If you want upgrades and support, add 40%.
I've been looking for a product that can stream video & audio, look & sound good, AND preserve copyright/content protection controls. YOU and *I* may not agree with it, but unless you've been living in a hole, the big issue now for media companies is how to protect their investments - movies, TV, DVD's, music whatever -- and they will not venture forth until something like that exists.. No saving of the streams etc.
Lojak.
I suggest you look at FastCast Networks. They have a very successful track record with providing quality media streaming services on a large scale.
This library uses bits of Wine so that it can load Windows-native en-/de-coder DLLs
Sounds like DivX ;-)
But where does the end user get the license to use the DLLs? From a copy of Windows. The WiMP EULA is tied to the Windows license; its "Supplemental EULA" (also used for IE) states, in effect, "If you are not a licensed user of Microsoft Windows 95, Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition, Microsoft Windows NT, or Microsoft Windows 2000, you have no rights under this EULA."
Running the DLLs on Alpha, Sparc, MIPS, PowerPC, or any other platform supported by NetBSD or GNU/Linux will be dog slow because it must go through an x86 emulation layer.
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Actually, I would submit that this is a completely rational descision. It doesn't matter if they make a better product or not, the truth is the company has a history of sucking people in killing the competition, and making them pay and pay and pay. Getting trapped in a Microsoft solution is a bad business descision.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
$man microsoft
Crowded elevator smell different to midget. -Chinese Proverb
Try this one
$man microsoft
Crowded elevator smell different to midget. -Chinese Proverb
Besides, if you managed to make it to Slashdot, I doubt you're an unexperienced first-time computer user...
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
An open source server without any open source clients for it.... What a wonderful idea!
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
Hey Apple, why no QT on Linux? Jim
Saw this in the Online help for the Darwin server.
:P
If you don't know how to do this, you shouldn't be streaming media to the net.
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/preview/feedback/qt previewform.html
Apple has proven that they're willing to listen to popular demand (witness: Revised APSL, OS X's continued evolution, etc, etc...).
If you want a Linux / Unix / etc. QuickTime client, let 'em know! Then there won't be anything keeping you from using QuickTime Streaming Server, and you won't have to use Real *or* WMP.
Microsoft research has employed and currently employs numerous gods in the world of graphics and multimedia. Graphics gods like Jim Blinn. Realtime gods like Michael Abrash. You can check out all the various research groups, the people involved, and what they do here.
Windows Media is ugly stuff to people who know better. It's unfun, and live streaming video ought to be fun.
Perhaps I'm not one of the people who "knows better", but fun-ness seems like a pretty poor criterion for a critical evaluation of a streaming media product. Clever skins can kiss my ass. Windows Media is pretty decent as far as I'm concerned. MS has put a lot of time and money into crushing Real Networks, and we're beginning to see the fruits of that.
I work for a company doing movies streaming over the net, after looking at a few solutions. We've found MS has the best CODEC out at the bitrate (800k). With their new WM8 codec, you could get near video quality MPEG-4 at 500kbits. They said it's near DVD, but I've found it's nowhere close to that. But still very impressive. You could see some sample of the 300kpbs CODEC at http://www.intertainer.com and compare it to QuickTime or Real. It's by far the best solution for the time being. I don't like MS either, but have to accept that they do have some good products, WM is one of them.
Real Player won't stream through the firewall or proxy that we have at my work. But Windows Media player always works..... my $.02
ugh, the old CuSeeme is still alive and it offers web streaming of audio and video:
Webpage is here
Like duh!...
~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s
You want people to see this stream? It means that they need to have the software to play it.
If you were an average moron surfing the net on a 56k connection, would you take the time to download some other player just to be able to see some stupid live feed or would you continue surfing to the next site?
If you want as many people as possible to view your stream, use WMP. If you don't like M$ and think that you're going to have a job after marketing your stream to a small minority of open source nuts... well, you might keep your job, but you sure as hell aren't going to score any brownie points with your superiors. You know, those guys who can axe you at anytime? And, unlike you, have half a clue about reaching as many people as possible.
Don't hate M$'s products, because quite frankly, all the recent ones have performed every task that they were created to do, and do it very nicely at that.
If you must hate M$, hate them privately, but wave their battle flag if you're trying to shoot for as many people as possible (which, incidentally, is almost always the lowest common denominator on the human scale).
Protector of Capitalist views,
Protector of Capitalist views,
Meorah
While I do love my Quicktime TV, I'm more than just a little unhappy Mac and Windows are the only platforms that it can be recorded or played back on.
Other solutions such as REAL are very expensive beyond reason.
My suggest is to use SUN's JMF (Java Media Framework) Not only can you stream the JMF from the Quicktime streaming Server if you like, but you play back the format using a java applet not a platform dependent player... I.E. Any platform that supports JAVA can play back the stream and users can be completely ignorant of what kind of program they need just to play your stream.
You can get information about JMF from Sun at:
http://java.sun.com/products/java-media/jmf
If you do decide JMF is not for you... I would recomend Quicktime as it is a standard by the very definition of the word. Even Cisco's IP/TV will soon support QuickTime. I still recomend JMF however as you will truely reach the largest possible audience by using a java based player.
Agree completely.
Protector of Capitalist views,
Protector of Capitalist views,
Meorah
The Iomega Buz, available for ~$50 on ebay, is the greatest price/performance capture card.
It creates mjpeg (motion jpeg) in the hardware. With it, I can stream realtime video from my 200Mhz server through a 10mbit network. My kids can watch TV/Videos on their LTSP based terminals streaming from the (underpowerd) server (over the underpowered network). The terminals do the mjpeg (avi or movtar) decoding.
There are other capture cards (like the Matrox Marvel G200/G400) that encode in mjpeg -- but they cost a bundle. Hauppauge has a new "PTV" Tivo-like capture card that encodes MPEG2 in the hardware -- no Linux drivers yet.
See http://mjpeg.sourceforge.net for some great mjpeg tools. The Buz is also great for making VCD's
Chris
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Actually, being a 24/7 camarades user, I believe that it does have an audio option. It's also a bit of a system hog, and will fill the viewers' cache with jpgs, something my regular viewers both love ("hey, lots of pics of chicky with no effort required to get them!") and hate ("Hey, my computer is filled with pics of chicky!". Depending on your settings on Camarades, you can choose not to list your cam in their directory, and you can embed it into your company webpage if you're feeling adventurous.
Another option that can be looked at would be Webcam32. It comes bundled with a lot of webcams these days from what I understand; none of my cams came with anything more than the standard cam software. Easy to configure, supports multiple cams, and has an audio option. It's not too expensive (for those of you who are into paying for software).
Another option would be Ivista. It's more expensive than Webcam32 if you want anything more than streaming video, requires that the computer running it have some form of webserver on it, and can be somewhat flakey with different video sources and webservers. It also offers multiple video sources (for an extra fee, of course) and motion detection.
Neither software package requires a plug-in in order to view the video; however, since I don't stream audio out of my bedroom, I'm not sure what is required for that feature. I believe it's only a java applet, but don't hold me to it. Personally, I prefer Webcam32, since there's a lot more options you can screw around with, like a personal logo displayed on the stream, more flexible captions, etc.
You want lowest common denominator? Use Sun's JMF... Your video can be played back natively on Solaris, Windows, Linux, but most importantly, any platform with Java support can use the Java based player... The users needn't know that 3 second pause was them downloading the player :-). Now THAT is a video stream that reaches everyone!
www.truetech.com - has a wide assortment of communities as well. And the video quality at low bandwidth is still impressive! Been running it for 3 years... all the end user needs is a java enabled and you are set.
Real is expensive iff the number of simultaneous viewers is large. For on demand replays, they are actually quite inexpensive, since the number of viewers at any time may even be less that their freebe server. Most folks greatly overestimate the amount of draw that they will have on multi-media. Until broadband really, really kicks in video doesn't really work well for many folks. Most folks will not do streaming video over a dial-up modem. Its really much to grim. Streaming audio, yes, streaming video no. I do not know your application or the size of your audiance, but be realistic. You may need a lot less than you think you do. I do on demand video for my company and have settled on Real. Quicktime is alas not a good real-time solution yet. It is especially unfriendly on NT platforms where you admin privs to install it. Many orgs will leat real in, but not install quicktime.
Sex is heriditary, if your parents didn't have it chances are good you won't either.
But let's looks at "savvy":
Leading video editing software: Avid, for Mac.
Leading audio editing software: ProTools, for Mac.
Leading photo editing software: Photoshop, for Mac
I could go on, but I do note a lack of success correpsonding to their alleged savvy.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
You mentioned price, as if that is your most important selection criterion. In case such things as high performance, scaleability, robustness, programmability, and protection of intellectual property are important to you, investigate IBM's Content Manager, Video Charger, and VIP's e.Mport. Don't bother if you are buying strictly on price.
buy or appropriate a superior technology [in this case as standard such as MPEG4]
what tech did MS buy to make IE better then netscape?
maybe good coders?
-Jon
Streamripper
this is my sig.
If you're not using a lot of applications simply because they are made by Microsoft... what are you thinking? Believe it or not, some quality software has come out of MS. I don't think anyone would care about Wine if that weren't true.
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
every heard of cygwin?
Check out DivX ;-)
. It may not be streaming video but it's a step in the right (non-Micro$lave) direction...
IE wasn't better until after they put Netscape out of business. They didn't have to buy their tech, they bought assasians.
Check out a recent issue of Linux Journal. A streaming medium is just dying to come out of Ogg Vorbis combined with FIASCO. Pure open source and pretty hot technology. In fact, done well, you'd be looking at a top contender against QT, Real and Media Play. Did I metion open source? Some pieces need to be created though: Integrating FIASCO with Vorbis into the Ogg wrapper, determine how it will be streamed and code some plug-ins. Not such a bad open source project - give me three good programmers and 6 months... then watch out!
:T:R:A:N:S:
Windows Media's performance is lousy and also buggy except when used with Microsoft everything.
Realtime, although impressively consistent across platforms, was expensive with horrible sound quality (when I used it a year ago).
Quicktime impressed me in every area - its sound quality (audio compression technology) is on par with Windows Media, its video (how much it falls apart when bandwidth fluctuates) is on par with RealMedia, and it doesn't require NT server.
By the way, the Windows Media player for Apple is such a buggy joke that Windows Media should really be considered a single-platform format.
Troll. The finding of fact stands on its own. The press episode occured after the trial. Jackson's credibility with me is very high. I praise his courage to do the right thing.
InterVu (bought by Akamai) comes to mind. They were one of the first to directly broadcast live events and are now one of the best.
You can then have more time to focus on your web site and managing the content, not the service.
I'm basically pro-Mac (I'm typing this on my G4) and think overall its an excellent environment but what's the justification for saying ProTools and Photoshop on the Mac is better than ProTools and Photoshop on Windows? Is it purely the Altivec accelleration you're talking about or are there features within the software packages themselves which are superior in the Mac version over the Windows version?
Vivo got bought and shot by RealNetworks. I've seen a new ".viv" player, but I believe RealNetworks still owns all the VivoActive code.
Now, regarding video quality. RealVideo 8 is quite good, and in every comparison I've seen, does better than the competition. Of course, I'm a RealNetworks employee, so I'm prone to bias. Still, here's the link to comparitive data on the RealNetworks site, as well as an independent assessment which largely comes to the same conclusions (with some nods to the competition). And, yes, there's a Linux version
As far as server price goes....hey, we've gotta make a living somehow. For the bandwidth necessary to stream to the audiences that you quote, you're going to pay a lot more in bandwidth and infrastructure than in software licenses.
So, can we get a little slack here? :)
Rob
It's a shame, but your primary interest is likely to be allowing the highest percentage of clients to view your content with as few interruptions as possible. Currently, Microsoft's ASFs fit that bill. I hate them as much as the next guy, spend as much time as possible away from Windows, but unless your target market is slashdotters and the like, you will get the best performance and success rates from the MS offering.
(*hates self briefly, takes deep breath, moves on*)
It's great that this "graphics god", Jim Blinn has a home page on microsoft.com, one of the largest companies in the world, a company with a vested interest in seeing people use ever more complex hardware & software....
:)
... and he doesn't use anything on that page that would be unfamiliar to the first version of Mosaic
Although they may never have released them (I worked there - I used them), they had Linux and Solaris (SGI as well, IIRC) clients and servers that did pretty well.
Last I know the only place you ever saw their software in use was on the pr0n sites. Their VDOPhone was a real popular one for "live interaction" with remote floosies. Sure enough, a search at Yahoo turns up mostly adult sites, and their website (VDOnet.com) is now being held by Register.com.
Perhaps it was poor business decisions that put them under, or maybe it was the client list, but that company had some real promise and was pretty dedicated to supporting multi-platform clients and servers.
Bullshit. IE 3.0 blew Netscape out of the water, and that was in 1996.
Netscape tried to play catchup after that, but never came close. How much longer did it take them just to get style sheets?
I'm working at a Content Service Provider with a fully equiped internet broadcast truck. We use mainly Windows Media / Real and Quicktime. Most clients want to use WinMedia since it's cheap and widely spread.
If you want a system that works cross platform without any plugin's you might want to look into Streamwave. Streamwave uses a java based client that runs in any java enabled browser. It uses port 80 for it's streams, so you don't run into trouble with firewalls or whatever.
You can find info about this product at http://www.streamwave.co.uk
Good luck !
The day MickiSoft stops sucking is the day they announce their first vacuum-cleaner !
Uh... Obviously any overlay problems would be a driver issue. You did try falling back from DirectDraw+DCI, right?
How is this flamebait?
Are you trolling a troll? Windows Media Server has always been free. You might be thinking of the NetShow Theater Server (aka Tiger), but Tiger was a VOD server and most definitely is not the Windows Media Server (nee NetShow Server).
Their product runs on Linux and IRIX. The IRIX version is something of an industry standard (CNN uses it to broadcast raw video material to hundreds of editors simultaneously).
The Linux version supposedly kicks ass as well.
http://www.kasenna.com/
Yes, my machine does not like quicktime , my machine is perfectly stable with the exception of quicktime which manages to instantly blue-screen Windows.
Video / Audio streaming... get a good professional to do it... it is like getting a cassette deck to record a band otherwise! I'd suggest Quick Time for the Video & MP3 for the audio streaming on a stable OS (linux works great with Darwin QT server; ICE cast or Shoutcast server on linux for the MP3) & get the stuff encoded well in the first place. http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/ http://www.icecast.org/ The ICEcast with LAME MP3 encoder (for live streams) is superior to any other quality I know for MP3 live - 22khz as opposed to 16khz... but I use Shoutcast anyway for ease of use & it gets FM quality anyway. The Quick Time is a little bit different... it is the superior quality in streaming video if you don't go with MPEG2. Darim Vision have MPEG2 encoders (& soon MPEG4 streaming will be available) that achieve 600x800 resolution at 25 frames/sec on T1... at a price. Otherwise I would suggest looking at a java/non plug in stream solution such as videoclipstream. http://www.videoclipstream.com *QuAcK*
RuBbErDuCk waz Here!!! http://rubberduck.co.nz
RUBBISH!!!!!
RuBbErDuCk waz Here!!! http://rubberduck.co.nz
... has a lot of solutions _almost_ ready for streaming. Notice the enphasis on "almost".
:-)
They have a quicktime/mpeg player for linux, a library to read and write quicktime format files, and a low-bitrate MPEG encoder, not compatible with MediaPlayer (i.e. noone wrote a codec for it, at least until now).
And the fact their address is http://heroines.sourceforge.net should tell you something about the license(s) they use...
I'm not sure about streaming support, but given the library and the quicktime standard, I'd say this should be easy to implement.
If you have the option of paying some developers to write some code, maybe this could be a solution (you'll need a MS WMP codec based on MPEG 2-movie and libmpeg2)
Ciao,
Roberto.
AniToolBox! An Open Source animation program!
come on - the free Real server is hardly worth deploying unless you're doing this as a hobby.
I've got a theory about why Macs get those kinds of tools, and it has nothing to do with Microsoft sucking. Which is simpler to get the hang of, set up, get running: Windows or Mac? Ok, so assume you are a graphics/publishing/video edition/etc. person. You are an expert in liberal arts. Do you choose a PC or a Mac?
On the other hand, assume you are a business person. You need a lot more flexibility with your configurations, and a lot more power under the hood for less money. You need two buttons on your mouse. You need a platform that you can configure properly for enterprise. You choose... Linux, but then you realize that the apps you need for your business aren't available yet, so you choose Windows instead.
So, logically, the business apps will continue to lag on the Mac, and the graphics apps will lag on the PC. Part of this also is due to simple history, as the Mac had a GUI before the PC, splitting the business people from the liberal arts people early on.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you are going to be format agnostic, the only one option is Kasenna MediaBase. It supports following formats: QuickTime, RealVideo, MPEG-1, MPEG-2 (!) and, possible, in future Windows Media. Server hardware may be driven by Linux or SGI IRIX. Kasenna MediaBase is not free, but proven and stable.
In summary, both companies are slime and no thinking, ethical person should use their products.
The argument that these things should not matter "because there is a job to do" is naive and foolish. We are not at liberty to disable our consciences simply because someone has given us an assignment; we are required to leave them running and to apply what they tell us in ALL situations, not just those situations where it is convenient.
And given the past and present business conduct of both companies, mine tells me that it is wrong to use or support the products of either...so I don't. Yes, this has a cost attached to it -- but that's irrelevant, because the decision has to be based on principle, not on any momentary inconvenience.
Real's servers cost serious money for more than a dozen or so streams, but then again so does the bandwidth for those streams. Do the math and figure out how much connectivity you'll be paying for at your co-lo facility. Surely you don't plan to do high-volume streaming over a single T1 to your office.
Next, do you need good quality across North America? Maybe you need to mirror on both coasts. Need to go beyond North America, or have increased reliability? Then you'll probably need to do sign on with Akamai.
No, the server licenses are just the beginning. Unless you're only talking about a few low-bandwidth streams, in which case you can use the free or cheap Real servers.
So make your server platform decision based on what OSes you need to support clients on, and how bad it would be for your business model to require a player many people don't already have (i.e. Quicktime 4 or above). If you're counting on visitors who aren't paying you directly, you should probably limit your choices to Real and WIndows Media.
Anyway, why run your own servers at all? Why buy the hardware and bandwidth if you can just outsource your hosting to a company that already has fiber, giant servers and a contract with Akamai? Do you have login and tracking issues that video hosting services can't support?
You are refusing to use Windows Media because it is Microsoft? If that is your only consideration then maybe someone should sack you.
________ semper ubi sub ubi
Windows Media was developed in part by Sonic Foundry. They developed the first encoder (OnDemand Producer) and co developed the work on the MPEG 4 codec. To say Microsoft has no media savvy, that was true initially. They have gotten allot of experience and allot of help from Sonic Foundry.
If you go to Micorosft sites and watch any of the old streaming chats they had regarding Windows Media, you will see someone from Sonic Foundry in alomost every single one of them.
They talk about the relationship between to two companies.
Cisco offers their IPTV, which is commercially available.
There are several H.323 streaming server commercially available as well. This standard is used by many Internet2 video applications.
There are also open source alternatives. The vic vac and rat tools long in use on the old mbone are certainly available in open source : for netbsd and for Linux.(You might want to read this before you get into these.)
If you want to multicast your streaming video, you should contact Multicast Tech.
and now it is available on Linux.
A while back I had to pretty much do the same thing, and I ran across Cisco (Yes BIIIG Cisco Net hardware co.). They'll send a free eval, client and server, and some pretty documentation. Didn't send any pricing info with the packet though (If that gives you any indication to what it costs). Regardless, it worked marvelously, good signal quality, full ability to stream at a defined rate, nice scheduling, on-demand, and live broadcast. I was impressed.
So now you guys can stop bitchin about all the machines that come preloaded with Windoze. You are a "licensed user" whether or not it has been formatted off of your machine.
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
I mean either you are streaming or not. How can it matter if the content is live or pre-recorded? That is just a very strange title
That's revisionist history.
Nobody "needs" two-button mice.
When the Mac came out Microsoft created was is arguably the BIGGEST business app for the MacOS - and no other platform. Excel.
There was no such seperation as you tell it. The seperation, as it is, occurredmuch later and arguably due more to Microsoft's illegal contact terms with OEM and the rampant piracy theye encouraged in the old days.
FWIW, there isn't really all that much seperation today. All of Office is still on MacOS, is 100% file-format compatible. Give Office's 90+% markeet share on Win and Mac, that's all that need be said. For your made-up business person, MacOS still makes more sense that a Win box for all teh reasons Gartner and other have rehashed 1000 times.
The bottom line is that it's an irrational market - the best products do not win.
Here is your solution which is probably less than a 400 user license for real, and as an added bonus, it runs linux. It will allow you to stream windows media, real, quicktime and various mpeg files.
Torrent Streaming Media Appliance
-B
IE sucked ass until 5.x. M$FT doesn't need you to throw them bones....they own the market anyway.
Sample code is here: http://developer.apple.com/quicktime/qtjava/qtjtut orial/Module2.html
I am impressed with the way Real supports *nix for seven CPUs. Many companies who claim Linux support really only support i86. Apple took the easy way by relying on Java as their x-platform solution. But to say there is "no player" is extreme when they post the code for a Java player.
Webmonkey has a brand spankin' new article on streaming video that might be of some use. http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/01/03/index4a. html
Sorry, but my own personal research indicates that Real blows. The picture is riddled with obtrusive artifacting, the sound raspy and the frame rate (even on a very fast connection) is choppy.
Hey, since you're an employee of Real, would you mind telling the powers that be that Real's installer is the most offensive POS in existence. How many goddamn times do I have to check/uncheck boxes in order to send the message to you jokers that I DON'T WANT YOU TO SPAM ME!!
BTW, spell "comparative" three time out loud. Sloppy, just like your crummy product.
I for one (Windows user) will not look at anything with the Real link. That POS viewer adds so much crap to my taskbar, startup, and system tray that I almost need to increase my RAM to justify having it. Not to mention when they have an update everything blinks. In my opinion Media Player is best for me, but I also like Quicktime. However, I have a problem with Apple putting their Quicktime icon in my quick start bar. Who the hell ever launches a media player and does a file open? We click on the actual content we want to view. You'd think Apple would undestand this concept, hell, didn't they claim to invent it?
'Same speed C but faster'
I find it a bit odd to find a single post thanking someone for pointing out the silliness of supporting the quicktime version since it doesn't support linux, while providing a link to the unix versions of realplayer: the full version is not avaialble, and what *is* available is "community supported"--whatever that means . . .
for a version that works under load?
And if it exists, would someone *please* tell cnn?
:)
How many watched the "Macworld Expo" Live? I read that Apple/Akamai were delivering 3.2gb/sec.
Info at macnn
I dont recall anything pushing a single stream that hard(id love to know, maybe presidential the stuff), but i think that it speaks for itself.
"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs
Er... No.
Not until there is a player for Linux.
WireHead
WireHead
The previous message was created with 100% recycled words.
a lil more agrovating but is an option http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/software/
back in the day we didnt have no old school
Quicktime works fine for me, on both IE5 & Opera 5 & they both work with the 3ivX Quicktime plugins.
. But there are other ones too - Choice Cast?
It _might_ be a "short recompile" from Solaris or HPUX to linux (I am not a programmer), but it seems to me you would need the source code first. If that was available somewhere I'm sure it would already have been done. Notice that the Solaris version only runs on Sparc (not x86) just to make it harder to port the binary (like was done for Netscape/Alpha). Maybe the situation will change when Microsoft buys their first Linux company (Corel?). Expect a licence that prohibits use on any other Linux platform but theirs.
WireHead
WireHead
The previous message was created with 100% recycled words.
Well?
Have you actually used the latest Windows Media encoder? It's easily the most impressive CODEC I've run into.. Try comparing it to DiVx and see who comes out on top.
In fact, just last night I was comparing some footage I got from one of my Laserdiscs.. Quicktime vs. DiVx vs. Type-2 DV vs. Windows Media 8.
Windows Media is excellent. Too bad you can't serve it or view it without Windows boxes.
Greetings, I do a ton of work with streaming media and found Quicktime Streaming Server to be THE best option. As noted before, the pricing for Real is simply outrageous so that is not an option. However, Quicktime streams are now payable with the latest version of Real Player. So that solves the Linux box issue. Windows Media streaming platform is a nightmare set-up and you cut Mac and Linux folks out of the loop. For us, we want to have the widest audience possible without dumping tons of cash towards a server license. Quicktime Streaming Server is the best choice for us. The only catch is, you need to an Apple G4 to run the app. I am unsure if it has been ported over to another platform yet. Stormy
Which is Microsoft's fault anyways...
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Because I endorsed a microsoft product and pointed out a flaw in the well liked quicktime. Maybe people should consider the features of a program instead of who makes it.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
these posts as possible on my crappy a$$ connection in eastern alabama, using a dual boot win-rhlinux machine, i have a few suggestions. however, the odds of you getting this far in the conversation are slim at best.
Why not set up a farm with multiple servers, some for real, some for M$, and some for qt? i realize that this is not always the most efficient way to do things, but you do actually give more people more choices, and if you are really using a quality setup, and want to hit 100% of the market, this seems to be the best way to do things, according to my own limited knowledge.
So, assuming you can convince the boss to let you set up a min. of 3 new boxes, you would probably need two apples and an M$. i would prefer two linux boxes for apache (based on small server memory footprints, fast connections, which means better throughput on binary transfers), and an apple or two to do the imaging on, and an M$ to do the mpg4 proprietary for wmp.
2^3 * 31 * 647
For good performance, it would obviously need some CPU tweeking to use MMX, 3dNow or whatever (but most likely they wouldn't to show how "slow" linux is for multimedia). Unless there using some special OS feature that HPUX or Solaris have but Linux doesn't, or they used a library which doesn't exist on Linux, it should be somewhat straight forward. Its at least easier then porting from Windows or Mac. And, anyway, they're going to need to release a Mac Os X (yet another *nix OS) version now, so why not make a Linux port at the same time.
And as for Corel, they're getting out of the Linux business.
I imagine that he's a god of getting computers to display and transform graphics in new ways, and very efficiently.
Me, I'm a graphic designer but for all I know there's a little man inside the computer that makes graphics display on screen.
Two very different fields.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.