
Live Streaming Video? 300
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?"
Quicktime (Score:1)
There is an alternative (Score:1)
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.
Quicktime? (Score:2)
Apple has one (Score:2)
http://publicsource.apple.com/projects/streamin
MBone (Score:3)
Microsoft != bad software (Score:3)
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.
What about IEEE 1394? (Score:1)
QT4 (Score:1)
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.
Quicktime Streaming Server is slashdot friendly (Score:5)
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 [apple.com]
(i'm not biased, i just know 3 guys that work in QTSS)
MPEG4 should be the best solution... (Score:2)
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
Icecast ( video coming I believe ) (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft != bad software (Score:1)
--
"No se rinde el gallo rojo, sólo cuando ya está muerto."
Re:There is an alternative (Score:1)
Don't be close minded... (Score:1)
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.
Windows Media Player (Score:1)
Quicktime / Darwin Streaming Server (Score:5)
Re:Microsoft != bad software (Score:1)
Real Player is very crossplatform, but yes, expensive. I'm sure there is a way to stream MPEG streams, but thats probably expensive && || poor quality.
Does the OSS community even have an option here?
Don't block users out! (Score:3)
-antipop
how broad of an audience do you want? (Score:1)
There might be opensource solutions (possible out of Heroine Virtual [sourceforge.net]), 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 [thedirks.org] 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 [montereybayaquarium.org]. 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."
hmm (Score:1)
Free version of RealServer (Score:2)
If you grow beyond that, the next step up costs $2495, which handles up to 60 concurrent streams, IIRC.
--
Here's a QT Example (Score:1)
2 words (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft != bad software except... (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft != bad software (Score:2)
Microsoft has this problem where they refuse to support other operating systems due to their anti-competative nature. Since this person obviously cares about Linux/Mac users, WMP is not the best choice.
Maximum audience reach (Score:1)
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!
Re:Microsoft != bad software (Score:2)
Accusing someone of ignorance without understanding their motivation may be a mistake. Have you considered that there may be very good reasons why a person might want to avoid products created by a company that have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the product itself?
Re:What about IEEE 1394? (Score:2)
Real (Score:1)
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.
Buy January's Linux Journal (Score:1)
Re:Don't block users out! (Score:1)
--
Re:Free version of RealServer (Score:1)
The RealSystem Server Plus is now $1995.
Sorenson Broadcaster + Darwin Streaming Server (Score:2)
--
Re:Microsoft != bad software (Score:4)
Re:MPEG4 should be the best solution... (Score:3)
Shouldn't those be footers then?
What about Mpeg2 ? (Score:1)
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...
Quicktime is FreeBeer and FreeSpeech. Sorta. (Score:2)
The QT client has a freebie version that runs on MacOS and Windows, but, alack, no younicks client yet.
SoupIsGood Food
Just because it's Microsoft ... (Score:1)
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
Possible alternatives to Sorenson Broadcaster (Score:2)
Icecast is an option (Score:3)
Otherwise, for MP3 straming, it works great.
--
Evan
Re:Quicktime? (Score:1)
Quicktime streaming server (Score:1)
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?
Re:Microsoft != bad software (Mod parent note up) (Score:1)
er, WTF? (Score:2)
How is this offtopic? (Score:1)
Re:crapple (Score:1)
A new system called qVIX is what you want. (Score:2)
What about Java? (Score:3)
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 [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Re:Don't block users out! (Score:1)
Yes, once would also have been too much.
Re:Quicktime Streaming Server is slashdot friendly (Score:1)
Which to choose? (Score:1)
I haven't used it, but Sun has the JMF [sun.com].
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.
Re:Don't block users out! (Score:1)
ILOTAFAW (I'll lay off the acronyms for a while)
--
Re:you seem very unexperienced !!! (Score:1)
Re:Free version of RealServer (Score:1)
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.
I'm aware of their eval product - and I'm not sure about the person who originally posed the question, but my guess was they probably wanted the capability to do more than 20 simultaneous streams... And probably more than 60 would be a fair guess. I know we were paying somewhere around ~$100k/server for RealServer licenses, and I think that got us 500... maybe it was 1000, but it still wasn't _THAT_ many. And even for $100k, you don't get ALL the features. Acting as a pull splitting source (if my terminoligy is correct) is still disabled unless you buy something like the "Unlimited Internet Gold License", which costs an ungodly amount of money as to discourage anybody from actually trying to compete with RBN.
Re:Free version of RealServer (Score:1)
I was under the impression that Real bills you monthly for every stream, in addition to the license fee for the server. I don't know if this is true, but the people I was talking to made it sound like they nickel and dime you to death.
Re:Just because it's Microsoft ... (Score:1)
Microsoft has made many questionable business decisions, and even when they haven't broken, or at least bent, the law, their practices hardly make them out to be the victim in this transaction.
Furthermore, Microsoft's refusal to port to other operating systems limits the usefulness of their formats, and by caving in and using their stuff regardless, they hardly have any impetus to change their practices.
don't use MS!! (Score:2)
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".
Related... (Score:2)
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
You might also try these links... (Score:2)
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 [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Re:You might also try these links... (Score:2)
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Been there, done that, MS rocks (Score:3)
Ahem, RealNetworks is sleazier than Microsoft (Score:2)
A search of RealNetworks on slashdot [slashdot.org] turns up a lot [slashdot.org] of [slashdot.org] articles [slashdot.org] on RealNetworks' violations of privacy. They also sued Streambox [slashdot.org] 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.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Live Video Solutions (Score:4)
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 [ucl.ac.uk] with Darwin Streaming Server [apple.com] 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 [dv.com]
previous slashdot article [slashdot.org]
technical primer on rt*p protocols [ohio-state.edu]
QuickTime How-To URL. (Score:2)
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 [apple.com]
Re:Quicktime / Darwin Streaming Server (Score:2)
You're choices for these are VIC(open source) [ucl.ac.uk], Sorenson Broadcaster [sorenson.com], and Sorenson+LiveICE [media100.com]
Note that sorenson alone can only do H263 in realtime on a Mac which is the same as Vic, but LiveICE is supposed to actually do the sorenson codec (although it will cost you).
Re:Apple has one (Score:2)
Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity
Java streaming video (Score:3)
APSL has been revved (Score:2)
-jon
Re:Microsoft == bad partner, no multimedia savvy (Score:5)
> 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.
Real (Score:3)
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.
Re:QTSS+Sorenson Broadcaster=No Brainer! (Score:4)
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" [apple.com]. Here's a sample chapter [apple.com] from Apple's site.
Broadcaster is great and you can download a fully functional 30 day demo [sorenson.com]. 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.
Re:Ahem, RealNetworks is sleazier than Microsoft (Score:2)
I dont think that
Re:Microsoft != bad software (Score:2)
Spoken like a true coward. Read this: You are nothing without conviction.
Sorenson Streaming Solution (Score:2)
QuickTime SS3 (Score:2)
Quicktime Streaming Server is worthless (Score:4)
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%.
Re:Icecast is an option (Score:3)
They are not.
Icecast streaming video is still a fantasy. Last time I checked, they haven't even started.
Windows-native DLLs are illegal (Score:2)
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? [pineight.com]
Re:Microsoft == bad partner, no multimedia savvy (Score:3)
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.
I got your solution (Score:2)
$man microsoft
Ah hell i screwed up the link (Score:2)
Try this one [sourceforge.net]
$man microsoft
Re:Don't block users out! (Score:2)
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Quicktime Streaming Server is slashdot friendly (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft == bad partner, no multimedia savvy (Score:2)
Microsoft research has employed and currently employs numerous gods in the world of graphics and multimedia. Graphics gods like Jim Blinn [microsoft.com]. Realtime gods like Michael Abrash. You can check out all the various research groups, the people involved, and what they do here [microsoft.com].
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.
Re:What an idiot! (Score:4)
Re:MBone (Score:2)
Oddly, I was actually curious about what happened to it, thought that it might be relevant to the discussion, as it used to be a hotbed for developers dealing with streaming video.
Do people hang out waiting to find any excuse to flame? I think you need a new outlet for your rage. On the other hand, at least this is reasonably non-violent.
Everyone else, sorry for the rant.
Re:Real (Score:3)
As a user I hate Real. More than any other single app I use. I don't want fucking channels. I don't want take5 or whatever that shit is. I don't want icons I never asked for all over my desktop. I don't want spam. All I want to do is watch some video. Video that I can download, not a fucking stream. I don't want to have to go back to the server every time I want to see it, just because some asshole in marketing thought by streaming it they might get a few extra clicks on their banner ads.
I know streaming is suited to this particular application (live video), but I urge anyone looking at doing streaming media to avoid Real. For the damage they've done to my online experience they deserve a plague of festering boils, but I'll setting for them never getting another customer.
</rant>
Re:Microsoft != bad software (OT) (Score:2)
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 [sourceforge.net]
Open Standards Silly! (Score:2)
Thanks, but.... (Score:4)
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 [realnetworks.com], as well as an independent assessment [geocities.com] which largely comes to the same conclusions (with some nods to the competition). And, yes, there's a Linux version [freshmeat.net]
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
Re:Microsoft == bad partner, no multimedia savvy (Score:2)
... and he doesn't use anything on that page that would be unfamiliar to the first version of Mosaic
Heroine Software... (Score:2)
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 [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.
Re:There is an alternative (Score:2)
Personnaly I would rather pay for hardware than software (that's what got me into linux in the first place). I Windows media has a better compression, quality and price (nill) than It's illogical to think about anything else.
I love Linux and use it every day, but don't forget the golden rule of engineering: "the right tool for the right job"
...
Yes, I know I ramble and my spelling isn't quite up to scratch. If you wish to complain,
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, doesn't your bandwidth cost money, too? (Score:3)
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?
well, sort of (Score:2)
And how much more (Score:2)
And if it exists, would someone *please* tell cnn?
:)
Re:Microsoft != bad software (Score:2)
Re:Use the Java Viewer for Linux (Score:2)
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak