Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Webcasting, Windows Media or Quicktime?

Posted by Cliff on from the throw-your-apple-through-the-window dept.

schlarbo asks: "I need to help produce a live webcast and was hoping to get some insight on the process from people with experience. We are a media house in Western Australia that uses Apple computers. We have the cameras, computers and a digital converter for the cameras. However, the big question is: should we use Quicktime Broadcaster, or rent a Windows XP laptop and use Windows Media Player to do the webcast?"

9 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. If you already have the hardware/software by Utopia · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would say go with Quicktime. Just provide a link to the player download.
    Honestly I am not sure you can create a broadcast using just Windows Media Player. You need Windows Media Encoder + Windows Server.

    On a related note. I briefly provided some support to a India-based site.
    Which provides video in Real, Quciktime & Windows Media.
    75% choose to view in Windows Media.

  2. Who are your audience? by metamatic · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you want Mac and Linux users to be able to watch it, use MPEG-4 via QTSS.

    If you want to give Mac and Linux users the finger, go ahead and use Microsoft's tools.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:Who are your audience? by jdclucidly · · Score: 3, Informative

      This couldn't be any more patently false. The only way to play WMV9 and 10 in Linux is to have an ILLEGAL copy of the codecs installed in /usr/lib/win32. On the other hand, Quicktime generates standards-compliant MPEG4 + AAC streams in an MP4/MOV container. These are decoded using the free and open source ffmpeg libraries.

  3. Neither.... by Trelane · · Score: 2, Informative
    You should be using Fluendo's Flumotion. From the site:
    The basic server product is free software, distributed under the GPL. If you want to stream content to your customers using unemcumbered royalty-free media formats (for example, Ogg/Vorbis and Ogg/Theora), you can easily do so without having to take out any license or support contract with us.

    On the other hand, if you do license the Advanced Streaming Server, you get the additional features of our commercial server version. This includes professional GUI administration tools, access to proprietary formats for streaming such as MPEG, and access to our support engineers.

    So you can stream in Ogg/Theora for free (free plugins for the end users, too), or you can pay them money and stream in MPEG and friends [no plugin needed].
    --

    --
    Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
  4. Why is this an either/or question? by Myself · · Score: 3, Informative

    Do both! There's no reason you can't split the signal and encode to every popular format at once. If someone has trouble getting their favorite client working, they can try another one.

    My favorite radio station webcasts in Real, WMA, and two bitrates of MP3 simultaneously. You'd do well to follow that lead.

  5. Re:Great solution, but... by Trelane · · Score: 2, Informative
    ..I assume he's putting on the show because he wants people to, you know, actually watch it. ;)
    Nice slam on Ogg/Vorbis+Ogg/Theora, but them's the facts. It depends on the budget. You can do it for free, if you have little/no budget, or you can pay them for it and use something that people have installed already [which, notably, you have to do for the other solutions already]. Quicktime, you will remember, requires a [free] download for Windows users (no love for anybody else) and Windows Media only works on Windows (though, depending on how you do it, you can make it less annoying for other users). With MPEG or Ogg/Theora, you reach all users (and it's potentially free!)

    Additionally, you can just use the free free Java applet and the end-users need not download anything [it does Vorbis+Theora already!]. (well, honestly, I don't know if they need to download Sun's Java; if it works with MS-Java (i.e. JRE 1.1), then nobody on the mainstream platforms needs to download anything.)

    So you have several different ways you can do it for free and reach everybody (possibly with a free download, like QuickTime), and several different ways you can do it for not-free with no downloads necessary, reaching all users both ways. Sounds like a good deal to me.

    --

    --
    Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
  6. First, answer some questions by RobTerrell · · Score: 4, Informative
    There are some incredibly ignorant answers above.

    First of all, you can't stream live Flash video without a Flash Communication Server license, and it's one of the most expensive prospects in the entire streaming world right now, plus most of the world still only has the Flash 7 live codecs, which are a shitty subset of H.264, so skip that. Secondly, everyone who saying crap like VLC and ogg theora... please. Shut the fuck up. He's specifically asking about Windows Media and Quicktime.

    Refreshingly, the post that asks about your audience is dead on. The choice of streaming format will be entirely driven by your audience (and also by your budget).

    Some questions to consider:

    • Do you have streaming servers? What formats do they handle? If not, you need to start learning their care and feeding right now.

    • How many users do you expect? Do your streaming servers have adequate bandwidth? Do you know how to calculate adequate bandwidth? Are your end users all in australia, or are they international? Have you considered a CDN like Akamai, Playstream, VitalStream, etc.?

    • Are you archiving on the server or on the encoder? Are you backing to tape, for the inevitable "I forgot to hit record" issues?

    If this is your first webcast, you might do well to call a streaming expert (I recommend www.incitedmedia.com, ask for Joe -- they did Live8 so they know what they're doing) and ask some questions.

    Keep in mind: Windows Media looks like crap on Macs. Quicktime is on lots more Windows machines nowadays thanks to iTunes. Quicktime Broadcaster isn't as rock-solid as Windows Media Encoder (and certainly isn't nearly as fully-featured) but will run on the machines you already have.
  7. Quicktime all the way. by Yaztromo · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'd personally use Quicktime Broadcaster and the Darwin Streaming Server all the way. You already have the hardware for it, both are completely free (as in beer, although DSS is also free as in speech), and you have a wide selection of compressors and packetizers.

    Yes, I've heard the Windows users cry "but we don't want to use Quicktime!". My suggestion would be not to force them to by using a standard packetizer and compressor. If quality is your goal, use H.264 for both -- Mac and Linux users can view such streams easily, and Windows users only need either Quicktime or VLC. Or, if you want to sacrifice some quality, use standard MPEG-4 for both. Quicktime Broadcaster will happily handle such formats, and everyone should be able to play them with whatever player they want.

    So broadcast using the free Quicktime solutions, but use a standard format, and everyone can be made happy.

    Yaz.

  8. Missing Link - Re:VLC by pjay_dml · · Score: 2, Informative
    Video Lan Client - VLC

    Also worth mentioning:
    • Open Source !!!
    • During installation you can select to install Mozilla/Firefox plugin
    • Has been implemented with a variety of successful profesional projects