Slashdot Log In
Open-Source Streaming Video, Sans Plug-Ins
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Apr 28, 2001 07:47 AM
from the plug-ins-sometimes-suck dept.
from the plug-ins-sometimes-suck dept.
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!"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Open Source MPG Video Encoder
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 84 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Big money for encoder / server?? (Score:4)
QuickTime Streaming Server is $0 (Score:4)
Re:Big money for encoder / server?? (Score:5)
Re:Similar situation with email clients? (Score:4)
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.
Re:Big money for encoder / server?? (Score:5)
This would have been great.. in 1996 (Score:4)
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.
Source IS available... (Score:4)
You were looking at the wrong page, in fact, you were probably at the wrong site completely...
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/streaming / [apple.com]
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/ [pacbell.net]
Quicktime (Score:4)
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.
NOT an encoder (Score:3)
Anyone notice that there is no encoding software* here, despite what the article summary says? While it might be nice to have a good, open source, streaming media player, what we really need is a fast and efficient (in terms of compressed file size) video encoder, preferably producing MPEG-1 streams. Without a good, real time, encoder, we can't produce our own video streams for our own purposes (I'd like to turn my Linux box into a digital VCR, personally).
* For those who are easily confused by precise language: an encoder turns raw input data (video data, in this case) into some specific usable format (MPEG-1, MPEG-4, etc.) possibly applying some kind of compression. What the folks at sureplayer have produced is a decoder, which takes the encoded data stream and turns it back into something like the raw data stream.
Re:Quicktime (Score:3)
http://mpeg4ip.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Re:Why MPEG-1? Why not MPEG-4? (Score:3)
No, but OT will... (Score:4)
http://www.xiph.org/archives/tarkin-dev/index.htm
Re:OpenDivx (Score:5)
Re:RealNtworks Slight-of-hand (Score:3)
There was/is some software that would do it for ya. It's called StreamBox VCR, and it can download most streaming content (Real, MS Media, etc.) and does both video and audio. I have a few Art Bell shows saved on my hard drive, along with some stuff from ifilm.com. I even have a copy of "City of the Living Dead" downloaded from those free movie websites. All due to VCR. he main problem is that VCR is Windows only, and it very beta. The only useable versions are cracked betas, which tells you have reliable it is. Even the software has strange options like "Keep trying untill program crashes". The streaming movies take a little bit of "hacking" to use in some cases. You have parse their goofy javascript stuff and do abit of work to find the address of their streaming server.
*ahem* (Score:4)
Are you one of those people?
You can get the encode and server software for windows media from microsoft for free here [microsoft.com] Look under Window Media Tools and Services.
Why MPEG-1? Why not MPEG-4? (Score:3)
Re:MPEG-4 encourages piracy (Score:3)
And besides, they could certainly at least use MPEG-2? DVD's quality seems pretty good on MPEG-2. Why MPEG-1 is my question.
The other thing is, VCDs used MPEG-1 and was extremely lossy and definitely encouraged piracy (people all over Southeast Asia watched VCDs and DVDs more than VHS) as well.
I've seen some of the DivX encoded MPEG-4 videos, and it is not as lossy as you state. They are much better than the VCDs. They have pixelating artifacts when there's fast motion, but for slow motion or relatively still scenes, the quality is almost inditinguishable from DVD quality.
MPEG-4 itself is a standard, not a Microsoft IP, just like MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and the forthcoming MPEG-7. DivX ;-) was stolen from Microsoft's own MPEG-4 codec, and that's why they are trying to re-write it to move away from that.
That said, I still say that OpenDivX's MPEG-4 codec would be really great for streaming once they have it redone. Streaming and MPEG-4 do not encourage piracy by themselves per se (geez, I'm beginning to sound like the NRA - 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people').
Re:Big money for encoder / server?? (Score:3)
Oh, you can't get one? That seems too expensive to me then...
I'm sorry, but I won't play that game.
I'm tired of the "We'll make a server for you since there's sooo many linux servers out there. No client package though, cause nobody uses linux for the desktop." ala Valve - Halflife etc....
Cheaper ? (Score:3)
The bandwidth is still the major inhibiting factor.
Streaming RealMedia for free (Score:3)
Real & MS & QT give away the client, then charge big $$ for encoding/server software...
Of those three, I use Real's stuff most of the time. They at least attempt to provide players for platforms other than Windows. A lot of people stream RealMedia for free, especially for low demand applications.
You can download a free version of their encoder (Real System Producer Basic) if you search the web site hard enough (the bottom of this page: http://www.realnetworks.com/developers/index.html [realnetworks.com]. The limitations don't seem that severe. The worst is that the encoded file intentionally won't play with older versions of the player. Hint: if you search hard enough, you can find older versions of Real Producer Basic that help avoid that problem.
Streaming Real video or audio over HTTP is free and works from most web servers. To do it, you name the actual RealMedia file with a .ra extension and built a text file with a .ram extension. Inside that text file, put the full URL to the .ra file. Then link to the text file. Sure it's supposed to be less efficient than "real" streaming, but most people don't care.
Perl Harbor Video (Score:5)
Sheesh, talk about disturbing propaganda, the video makes our country sound like it's run by a bunch of klingons
Rate me [picture-rate.com] on picture-rate.com
Open-Source Codecs (Score:3)
Sigh... (Score:5)
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.
Quicktime (Score:3)
OpenDivx (Score:5)
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.
OV doesn't do video. (Score:4)
Similar situation with email clients? (Score:3)
More work would get done, more features would be added, and we might even end up rivaling wma, et al.
*No disrepect to the authors, but their efforts would be more rewarding if they took part in a group based project.
what about OpenDivx? (Score:3)
Re:java !plugin ||!proprietary ??? (Score:3)
Furthermore, regarding propietary, a Java plugin is a PROGRAM, not a FILE FORMAT. If they release the source (which I presume they will since its GPL and Open-Source) they its not exacly propietary. Anybody can look at it; Anybody can modify it, or tweak it.
Overall, this would be very nice, especially for people running unpopular browsers that don't have many players yet
RealNtworks Slight-of-hand (Score:5)
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
---
ffmpeg (Score:3)
Bout time... (Score:3)
You would think on the net it would be easier for handicapped people to access hearing impaired type videos they normally wouldn't see on TV, yet I've yet to see one product come from Windows, or Real with captioning. Odd I would think someone could capture a nice little niche there and help a shitload of others out.
Oh well...
nice rack [antioffline.com]