Open-Source Streaming Video, Sans Plug-Ins 84
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!"
Re:OGG who? (Score:1)
Bah! (Score:2)
Re:Big money for encoder / server?? (Score:2)
Big money for encoder / server?? (Score:4)
QuickTime Streaming Server is $0 (Score:4)
Re:Big money for encoder / server?? (Score:5)
Re:Ogg Vorbis has something....now! (Score:2)
--
Re:Sigh... (Score:1)
Re:Sigh... (Score:1)
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.
Looked more like... (Score:2)
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]
Speed & Quicktime (Score:2)
Past that... What about Quicktime? The players free. The streaming server is free. The server is opensource, so it runs or can run on just about any plaform available. The player is available for Windows and Mac OS, the two dominant client OSes....
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.
Damn you (Score:1)
PS. I was expecting some cool server enclosures when I clicked on your "nice rack" link, but all I got was a handful of Angelina Jolie. I guess things *do* work out for the best...
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
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:RealNtworks Slight-of-hand (Score:2)
Re:RealNtworks Slight-of-hand (Score:2)
--Ben
BZZZZ, you don't know what you're talking about (Score:2)
(1) OpenDivx != DivX. OpenDivX is 100% legal. DivX is a hacked version of Microsoft's MPEG 4 codec. OpenDivX isn't quite as good as DivX at the moment, but I'm sure it will get there soon enough.
(2) If you believe MPEG-1 yields better quality than MPEG-4, then you're either on some bad drugs or you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. A good SBC DivX has *great* quality; give it 2 CDs for space and you practically have the DVD.
/ Peter Schuller
----------------
E-Mail: peter.schuller@infidyne.com
URL: http://www.scode.org
As far as _my_ experience is concerned... (Score:1)
The OGG software is "already sort of working (and has a catchier name). The sound still sucks (doesn't work at all in N4.7X for Linux)"
The above sounds infintely better than "a GPL MPEG-1 streaming video encoder that plays through any browser with Java."
Unless of course I'm the only linux user who winds up cursing and sending netscape a 'kill -9' whenever I stumble across a page with Java on it.
Open Mash (Score:1)
MPEG-I player without sound (Score:2)
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)
Didn't work in mozilla 0.8.1 for me (Score:2)
Browser: mozilla 0.8.1
Video card: Matrox G450 dual-head
Doesn't work. I loaded up trusty IE 5.5 and it worked fine. Also worked in Opera 5.
So I don't think the site was slashdotted cause it ran in two of my three browsers. So much for run everywhere... :-(
Re:Sigh... and an exception (Score:1)
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.
Re:Big money for encoder / server?? (Score:2)
If you need to clean up the video, and want to be able to do batch processing, etc.. then you would want Media Cleaner, and this is more expensive. But you can do steaming with existing media for the cost of of $30 of software (QuickTime Pro + Darwin Streaming Software) and relatively cheap hardware (my favorite for this is an iMac running MacOS X Server... portable/luggable and stable... add a second iMac with Sorenson Broadcaster and you have a mobile streaming setup).
Re:*ahem* (Score:1)
Ofcourse you need a windows server....but I'm guessing most people wanting to stream windows media already have a windows server. You can also always find a service provider who is willing to stream as well.
*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.
MPEG4 not yet suitable for live streaming (Score:2)
Phillip.
*ahem* (Score:2)
Darwin Streaming Server [apple.com] available for download.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Ogg Vorbis has something....now! (Score:2)
Re:Why MPEG-1? Why not MPEG-4? (Score:2)
As far as open source MPEG-4 goes, that's why I brought up OpenDivX - at least from the look of it, it seems like an Open Source MPEG-4 codec that was originally stolen from Microsoft that they are trying to re-create so as to be non-stolen.
Re:Nit Pick (Score:2)
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:Similar situation with email clients? (Score:1)
This seems to be a problem that plagues small open-source projects in general. Look at how many web-based BBS/forum software there is on sourceforge and how many new ones are being created monthly. It's counterproductive, none of the software ever progresses past a certain maturity level.
maru
Re:*ahem* (Score:2)
If you think the windows media server is unconditionally free, you'd better look at that licensing agreement a little closer. As soon as you start charging for streams, you'd better open those purse strings because MS is going to be all up in there.
maru
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....
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
As someone who does a lot of Java development work, I have to say I whole heartedly agree. Java has changed *SO* much for the better since the versions that most browser JVMs use. Applets suffer from a *lot* of problems, and from an "open source" standpoint, Flash is actually must closer than Java is. The SWF spec was released by MM quite some time ago, and enough reverse engineering of it has occured that you don't even have to really deal with MM anymore at all (Look at the Ming library for PHP for example)
What this all gets down to really is feature bloat. The web was not made for, nor can it handle true CD-ROM style interactivity. It just can't. A new protocol from the ground up needs to be built. Period.
Flash, and Shockwave, and even Java are cool, and can do some neat stuff, but why in the HELL should that kind of user experience require a "plugin" of any sort in this day and age? HTTP is great for what it was made for, HTML. Even basic LAYOUT required a whole new spec though (CSS) I really hope someone else sees how much the web resembles a ball of duct tape right now, and starts working on the next generator protocol and "browser" soon... The closest thing I've seen so far is Curl, which has the worst licensing agreement I have *ever* seen.
Re:Multicasting (Score:2)
It would probably be easier just to set up re-broadcasting services at major 'net centres, - large colocation facilities, for example. That way a single stream could be sent out to a coordinating server, that then sends the stream out to a bunch of other servers (spread around the globe) that clients then connect to to stream the video.
Of course, there could always be an extra layer in there, where particularly frugal ISP's set up their own rebroadcasters, effectively cutting the traffic they would be paying for by a factor of the number of viewers.
Unfortunately, systems like these do not lend themselves to the low end user. It would be expensive (or at least difficult) to set something like this up - but I don't think router-level multicasting is really going to catch on.
Cheaper ? (Score:3)
The bandwidth is still the major inhibiting factor.
Re:Sigh... (Score:1)
I'm impressed (Score:1)
Re:Big money for encoder / server?? (Score:1)
Re:Big money for encoder / server?? (Score:1)
http://developer.apple.com/quicktime/ [apple.com]
Just three days ago I wanted to put up some quick streaming video on my website. I borrowed a friend's DV camera, went out and videotaped, made a movie with iMovie on an iMac DV (which was really easy), made a quick reference movie and poof the thing was online and streaming from a G4 under OS X Server. I have to say, I'm very wary of Macs, but the ease of this process really impressed me.
Re:Big money for encoder / server?? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Nit Pick (Score:2)
Rate me [picture-rate.com] on picture-rate.com
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
Re:Big money for encoder / server?? (Score:1)
avifile can stream asf files over the internet (Score:2)
It does not work as a plug-in, so there are still many pages where you have to read the html to watch win media files, or use the "run external palyer option", but it does work.
Open-Source Codecs (Score:3)
Re:Sigh... (Score:1)
I'm not actually trying to bash IE... I actually like IE's JVM better than I like Netscape's (it's far more stable). But it is old, and it won't be updated, so you have to restrict yourself whenever you decide to develop for it.
I'm not bashing Java either.. I develop in (server-side) Java pretty much exclusively now. What I am bashing are people who claim that their Java-based applets are intrinsically better than things like Flash or QuickTime because it "does not use plugins". That is simply misleading.
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
- You can't run any applet that's written for JDK 1.1 or later (current version will be 1.4 soon) in any version of IE or Netscape before 6.0
- Bugs in the JVMs (especially the Netscape JVMs) mean that applets frequently crash, or produce different results than what you would expect.
To get around this, you have to install your own JVM, which means the user is doing as much work as if they installed a regular plugin in the first place.
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
The whole point of saying "no plugin required" is that you provide some sort of functionality to the user without the user having to do anything extra in order to get it; it's a totally painless and universal process. Unfortunately, that limits you to some very basic technologies; HTML, animated GIFs, maybe JavaScript. Anything else needs user involvement to some degree.
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:
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)
Its not how much you throw away thats important (Score:2)
Its not about how much data you discard, its about how visually important that data is. MPEG-4 discriminates a lot better in what to throw away as MPEG-1.
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.
Re:Why MPEG-1? Why not MPEG-4? (Score:1)
Although, for streaming, MPEG-4 would be a much better format. I don't know of any well known open source MPEG-4 players (MS's WMF has a very similar format).
OV doesn't do video. (Score:4)
Re:Similar situation with email clients? (Score:1)
However when it comes to multimedia codecs it is extremly importand to have standards. And it's not enough that the OpenSource/FreeSoftware community accept it as a standard. The rest of the world must to.
So what we need is an Open/Free codec that will be so good that the windows-people wil use it even if it doesn't ship with windows (DivX managed to do that). And then we would finaly be able to not feel so "left out" for using an alternativ OS.
Why the rivalry ? (Score:2)
I am sure once the Sureplayer really takes off, it will use ogg vorbis encodigns as well.
In addition, Sureplayer is paralysed because better encoding formats are patented and require a license fee.
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
Re:Streaming RealMedia for free (Score:2)
By the way, try freespeech.org for free real media streaming - for non-profit ORGANIZATIONS (ie, not you and your clanmates).
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)
Re:large number of developers of media stuff (Score:1)
OGG who? (Score:1)
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]
Re:Why not MPEG-4? I believe you but... (Score:2)
I've played around with video capture to DivX
Every (and I mean every) time I've downloaded a video capture done in MPEG-1 it's (1) huge and (2) full of godawful artifacts. They cannot go fullscreen without looking like shit. At the same time I can do my own captures direct to DivX
The dichotomy between the claims and my own experience leaves me feeling very puzzled...
Multicasting (Score:2)
--jeff
Mod this comment UP! (Score:2)
"Score:0"? This AC gives accurate information about Apple's software and he gets a "0"? Yet the article above [it] talks about the same thing with M$ and gets a "4". Bad karma indeed ...
pherris
MPEG1 Streaming in QuickTime (Score:2)
gravityworshipper is WRONG ... (Score:1)
MPEG-4 encourages piracy (Score:2)
More importantly to those with lax morals, MPEG 4 is extremely lossy. If you care one iota about video quality, you won't use it. All the MPEG4s I've watched are rat's nests of compression artifacts. They lapse in and out of severe pixelation, and there is a constant curtain of noise riding over the picture.
KTS:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Utensil.