Slashdot Mirror
Open-Source Streaming Video, Sans Plug-Ins
gravityworshipper writes: "Nice new project, Sureplayer, making a GPL MPEG-1 streaming video encoder that plays through any browser with Java. The Ogg Vorbis people may have something wonderful someday, but this is already sort of working (and has a catchier name). The sound still sucks (doesn't work at all in N4.7X for Linux), but they're looking for people to help. I am tired of using (proprietary) Real and not being able to see Quicktime or Windows Media Player video at all in Linux. Sureplayer encoder/server is open source, so makes it easier and cheaper for indie artists to put video online, and easier for their work to be seen because no client download required, just a browser with Java. Real & MS & QT give away the client, then charge big $$ for encoding/server software, which users don't realize but video people do. I saw this is a NewsForge Report. Cool!"
MS don't charge for the encoder, and Media Server is part of Win2k Advanced Server. Just to set that little point straight - they're still not linux-compatible, but they're cheap compared to Real (they have to be, that's how MS kills its competition in new arenas)
Don't lump QuickTime in with Real and MS. The QuickTime server is free (for Mac, Windows, Linux), and the encoding software is $29.
Sure, but what direction should this merged project take? You say there are only 2 or 3 "good ones" in the email clients section of freshmeat, and I agree, but I doubt your 2 or 3 are the same as my 2 or 3.
What is best? What you like? What some author dictates? What Microsoft says we'll all have? The concept of "best" is personal. For example I use VIM and MUTT, and I think this pair is the "best" combo possible, but I don't think everyone would agree with me.
Having 100 projects gives you choice, and this can be painful, but I'd rather have 100 projects that will make 100 people happy than 1 monolithic "best" project that makes nobody happy.
Hm. I'm trying the demos. Wow. So it has no timing synchronization. It shows each frame regardless of what the frame rate is supposed to be. Let's see. A tiny postage-stamp sized video frame, maybe 240x180, at 3fps (yes, 3fps) from a 350K stream. The commercial video players do better than this at 40K.
I've seen better video performance at much lower bandwidth through server-side push of GIFs, Netscape 1.1 style. And that didn't need Java.
Well, good luck to them.
You were looking at the wrong page, in fact, you were probably at the wrong site completely...
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/streaming /
From that page: If you have registered with this site, you can download the source code for the Darwin Streaming Server 2.0.1 server and proxy.
In fact, here is someone who has taken the source from the server and made several enchancements:
http://home.pacbell.net/madgett/videod/
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
While I'll grant you the point for saying QT isn't Linux compatible, you lose points for saying that creating QT media is expensive... last I checked, it just required QT Pro, $30. It's a simple registration key.
Add in the fact that you can download the streaming server and run it under Linux for free. That would make Quicktime a very cheap option.
Just not Linux friendly. But, the average video shop probally isn't going to care... they probally want to use their Macs for video production, and the higher ups want their videos to be available on Windows.
dennis
http://www.xiph.org/archives/tarkin-dev/index.htm
I agree - stick with DivX or some truely open source CODEC like ffmpeg (also MPEG-4 compatible) or MPEG2Movie whiuch achieves similar compression (but better speed) in an MPEG-2 format. OpenDivX isn't even MPEG-4 - it's just a basic half-pel motion comp MPEG-1 algorithm plus a deblocking filter. It's amazing how many people confuse the bitstream formats with the codec features - why not call OpenDivX Quicktime since the MPEG-4 bitstream format is Quicktime? Sigh.
Real & MS & QT give away the client, then charge big $$ for encoding/server software, which users don't realize but video people do.
Are you one of those people?
You can get the encode and server software for windows media from microsoft for free here Look under Window Media Tools and Services.
Was anyone else a little disturbed by that Perl Harbor Video? "Hating is not enough", "Remember the vengeance in our hearts" "When you buy bonds this week, remember that they are vengeance bonds".
:P
Sheesh, talk about disturbing propaganda, the video makes our country sound like it's run by a bunch of klingons
Rate me on picture-rate.com
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
A Java applet is effectively the same as a plugin such as Flash or QuickTime. You still have to download the player program. In Java it's distributed as CLASS files (often packaged in a Java ARchive); with "normal" plugins it's an executable file.
You still have to worry about program size (how long will it take to download over a slow connection), versioning (what if the user has an old version of the player, or what if a newer version won't play older content), and security (what if the user disables, refuses to download, or does not grant the proper access rights to the program).
There are some advantages to using Java:
- The applets are generally smaller and quicker to download (since a large part of the class library already exists on the user's system.
- You can develop a single program that will work on all platforms (see note below)
- Installation of the applet is generally transparent to the user, but this is mostly because the applets are using the old Java 1.0 security model that doesn't require any user intervention, and thus poses great restrictions on what the applet can do.
However, because of the horrible implementations of JVMs in the major browsers, point #2 is pretty much moot; you can't be sure that your applet will work correctly in every browser/platform combination without extensive testing.Add to that the fact that the most popular browser family in the world (Internet Explorer) runs a Java version that is horribly out-of-date, and will never upgrade. So you're always stuck using the oldest and ugliest class library; at least you can hope for a recent version when using Flash.
You can get around all of these problems by requiring that the user have Sun's Java Plugin (a browser plugin that has the most recent JVM, and a standardized implementation). Of course, this defeats the entire purpose of not requiring plugins to view the content.
So please, all web developers, stop saying that your software doesn't require a plugin. You're only right on a technicality; the net effect to your users is still the same.
No it isnt... divx is the preferred format for ripping. OpenDivx is just a basic implementation of MPEG-4 v1. The rest of the world is moving on, m$ (of which divx was ripped) and 3ivx are at version 3 for instance.
OpenDivx is missing a lot of advanced compression features, and its going to get sued to hell for contributory patent infringement if they get succesfull.
Ogg is the name for the suite of formats. Vorbis is just one-the audio component. Ogg Vorbis doesn't have anything to do with video.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
It was always amazing to me how Realnetworks managed to convince the world that you had to use the PNM(Progressive Networks Media) protocol and their proprietary server to stream audio and video. I deployed some of their version 2 (vintage dark ages) server products - which cost us a fortune - and in the back of one of the technical references it mentions that little fact. "Oh, and if you're not actually streaming LIVE video content, then you can stream it via HTTP and you didn't have to spend XX thousands of dollars to buy our server. All you actually needed was the encoder. Sorry we didn't tell you before you bought".
Now to be perfectly honest, I can't blame (the then named) Progressive Networks for not making this fact known. It was my inexperience with streaming media at that time that led me astray. It does however indicate the underlying business model they were using was based entirely in a fabrication. As I recall, the server, and not the encoder was the expensive part of the package we were sold.
--CTH
---
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line