VJCentral TV

[eXhale]

I've been thinking about doing a VJCentral TV in the future (long-term), for VJs to be able to showcase what they do, to have fun :), etc, and I'm looking for some recommendations from those who have already done such a thing.

I wonder what kind of cheap solutions are available for a Linux server? I guess Microsoft format is no option. Would real player work? Or quicktime? How expensive is it? How much bandwidth would use a 1-hour stream with an average of, say, 100 viewers?

Also, would there be an easy way for VJs with a good connection to send their streams to the VJCentral server (based on Texas) from their home computer? I remember iko (the one posting on the eyecandy list) wanted to do such a thing but I haven't talked to him for a while. From what he told me, it's pretty easy but I don't have more info :p

[hamageddon]

Originally posted by eXhale
I've been thinking about doing a VJCentral TV in the future (long-term), for VJs to be able to showcase what they do, to have fun :), etc, and I'm looking for some recommendations from those who have already done such a thing.

I wonder what kind of cheap solutions are available for a Linux server?

maybe this?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ffmpeg/

[LEVLHED]

I know nothing of costs/setup/shit, but I know from a image quality standpoint that Realplayer is a bit better than the rest.
That could be different now, but probably a safe bet.

[krezrock]

realplayer's codec can be massaged to get a nice 320x240 stream at 350k :) probably the cleanest live stream available.

don't know if you can run on linux. we used to use the free version of realproducer. i believe it's called realbasic.

the only positive thing for window media is that the audience license is unlimited. real licenses can get really expensive.

i'd be interested in testing a quicktime mpeg4 stream once i get my hands on it.

it would be interesting to see vj's mix remotely. i'm in dire need of vj's to take over for me on my webcast. otherwise time for a hiatus.

[eXhale]

hmmm real server basic seems nice but it expires after 12 months and then i'd have to spend $2000 to upgrade to real server plus (a bit too much for a non-profit website ;)). it's limited to 24 users while the plus verison is limited to 60... it runs on linux though, i checked...

*shucks*

i wonder if the server for windows media player is windows-only though because i saw some big sites like yahoo which are linux-powered using it. i mean, microsoft is probably the only one using windows servers for large websites :)

ffmpeg would be ideal since i don't want to give money to these big corporations but it seems to still be quite experimental. i don't want to do too much experimentations on my server because it hosts 50+ sites and it's hard to do much on distant servers but i'll give it a try when i finally install linux on one of my computers :)

[Linus]

hi

i think your server would need 1gig > ram to make it possibel for 100 users @ the same time and your line has to be as big as can but i think 10 users @ the same time are a better thing with that ffmpeg script :)
i only tryed some streaming solution for audio on my linux machine called "shoutcast" (check winmap site for more info)
on my local lan and it need i think 20k of ram for 1 listening user .
i think the format should not go over 320x240 because 640x480 would need tooooo :confused: much traffic.

any other ideas?

Linus

[eXhale]

Definitely not more than 320x240... it would take too much bandwidth otherwise. Shoutcast is great but audio takes much less bandwidth than video, so it cannot really compare.

PS: I have now installed Linux on my other computer, I'm trying to get used to it and then I'll give a try to this FFMPEG. I still don't understand the "concept" of these broadcasters so maybe it will help.

[Mattbot]

There is the legal angle to consider as well and it's not too cheery. Lots of extra costs just for music; I shudder to consider the fees involved if any copyrighted video appears. Assuming you choose to obey the law...

My favorite San Francisco club, DNA Lounge has live webcasts (both audio and video) and the owner has kept a record of his struggles to keep it going on the club's website.

Here's a good overview of the legal issues:
http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/webcasting.html

Scroll down to the 27-May-2002 (mon) entry for money, tech and hassle issues involved:
http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2002/05.html

He runs everything off linux boxes and you may find some more tips and software digging through the site.

You can run the Darwin Streaming Server for Red Hat Linux for free and serve up QuickTime. The irony of this solution is that you can't playback QuickTime on the linux box you're serving it from. Free irony is the best kind I suppose...

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/streaming/

I think you're going to need a real web server service if you plan on having more than 10 people on at a time. A Canadian company called BopJet runs a stream replication service that you may wish to look into. But their server isn't coming up... Maybe they dot.bombed. Not a good sign at any rate. I've talked to them before, they are very friendly. They are setup to cater to the small guy as well as coperate sites. If they are still around, their URL is:

http://www.bopjet.com/

Hope this helps,

Mattbot

[eXhale]

Awesome, thanks for all the info. :) This Darwin server seems good, I run Red Hat Linux both locally and on my server so I'll give it a try. I'm conscious if I want to serve more than 10 users, it's going to use a lot of resources. Considering VJC is a non-profit project, I don't know how I can deal with this, but I guess I can give it a try and see how it goes. As for the legal part, I guess it could be possible to only broadcast non-copyrighted video samples but it will be more complicated for the music, since most VJs don't produce their own music...

[eXhale]

Also, although the VJC server is located in Texas, I'm not so I don't know if these laws mentionned on the DNA Lounge page are applicable to me too (?)

[Mattbot]

They do; it's all federal. Interstate commerce and such.

[eXhale]

No, I mean, I live in Switzerland :)

[Linus]

maybe i should make some audio teaser for vjc_tv ?
i make music also beneath the video,... act :)

Linus

[elbows]

Ive been interested in this subject for several years now, in fact prematurely I registered reali.tv and now pay to watch it sit there empty :(

Anyway yeah there are multiple complications to spoil the dream, most of which have already been mentioned.

First problem is video over 56k modem still smells bad. So you have to decide whether to provide a low bandwidth stream for 56kers even though its awful quality, and then provide a more watchable stream for the broadband folks (at say 300k/sec)

Anyway so then you run out of server power and bandwidth very quickly, and you end up with a huge bill for bandwidth. Get a good number of regular viewers around the globe and you are gonna bog down the network of the people who host your server too. Check out prices for getting a company to host you on their own powerful streaming servers, sometimes with worldwide mirrors, the costs are totally rediculous.

Also all these codecs work best when theres multiple similar frames (eg webcam of my face doesnt change that much from frame to frame) and for fast moving VJ type stuff it really pushes most codecs too far at internet encoding rates and you end up with poor results.

Throw in an ample helping of copyright issues and streaming software costs and you end up wondering if its worth it.

Well, thats the way Ive seen it so far, and Ive also watched as a friend who did commercial streaming for a big company got made redundant due to the poor state of the market and the costs involved.

But there are some options left, maybe. Im assuming that we are talking about pre-recorded video rather than a live stream live from a show etc. Well, does it really need to be streamed to the viewer? Even with a 1MB cablemodem connection Id probably rather download a good quality divx clip than watch a stream that breaks up in places and rebuffers a few times.

Another option is flash. Sorenson video codec built into Flash MX is actually pretty good. I have experimented with it, and its good because it streams but doesnt require anything but a normal hppt server. Im not sure how bad it punishes the server, but Ive hosted some clips on a shared server with god knows how many other sites and nobody has pulled the plug on me yet. Worth investigating for sure.

DivX was supposed to get streaming support, but I dunno whats happening with that, it would have been nice.

The Future:

I had an idea in my head the other day that could work - use peer to peer technology but for streaming. Just the same as file sharing stuff like winMX, napster, Kazaa etc but with streaming video instead, and the ability to get the stream from multiple other peers at once to provide the necessary bandwidth. This would be no good for live streaming, but if you had clips of a finite length then as more people watched them they would propagate across the peer to peer network and produce the desired results. Only good for a internet tv show that had a potentialy large audience with the right software, and will probably never happen but I thought it had some merit maybe.

Multicasting:

Ive only just started researching it but it sounds like THE great hope for the future. Basically one to many broadcast method - you could serve 1000 viewers but the packets that contain the stream only get sent once from your server. Clever routing across the internet delivery this data to the users that weanted it, without waste and needless duplication of data. So much bandwidth is saved, hence affordability is more achievable.

Unfortunately, I think it requires major new developments to the structure of the internet. I think its currently being researched and developed on internet2 which is being done my universities etc, I know no more than that. There was something called the m-bone which sounded like multicasting, but all the sites about it seem outdated or dead suggesting it was killed?

Anyway, it is possible to get reasonable results I spose I am being slightly negative about it, but only becuase its a dream of mine for a long time and im frustrated that it isnt happening in a way that the average human can afford to join in with.

For one example of a site with tons of streaming content, uploaded by its users, see www.matrox.tv which basically allows owners of their video editing kit to put their films on the web.

[eXhale]

thanks for all the info elbows. :) i'm aware of all the problems involved with web streaming but i didn't really plan to setup a huge TV to be seen by hundreds of VJ fans ;) i was viewing it more as a small addition to the community here, so we could inspire each other. musicians have plenty of ways to get inspired but it seems it isn't as easy for VJs. DVD reviews are a first step for this and a TV could be a second step. anyway thanks again, i'll keep on gathering information so this dream can hopefully become true one day!

[sleepytom]

darwin supports multicast streams and there is the possibilty to code some load balencing software that would allow you to connect to a peer to peer network based around darwin servers sort of like gnutella style thing

the mbone is the current multicast backbone but most isps arn't on it (although janet and the other uni networks are)

theres a fair bit of discussion on all this over on the apple / darwin newsgroups

i have had darwin servers running on lans before and had pcs (win + linux) running vic and rat as the encoding machine (ie not using sorrenson broadcaster) never really had the bandwith to get into proper tests though (anyone got a spare t1 they don't know what to do with??) darwin runs fine on a p60 with 48meg ram for up to 20 or so connections