Real-time video streaming

Thanks but it is not possible to know which site has real-time because I'd have to be seeing the live picture at the same time (ie. be there)... After looking around more and more I have come to see that they call 'realtime' anything from 1-30 seconds!

Now I have gotten about half a second to one second delay using YAWCam and Active Webcam (or something like that- I forget the name) but there isnt full motion- the max that it'll go is about 5-7 FPS (I assume that this is because its using a Java applet, but it could just be the compresison method or something else...)

All the tests that I've done have actually been through the local computer, so if it cant do realtime/full motion locally, then it surely wont do it on the wider Internet...

I'm sure that it is possible, I'm truly sure of this (maybe not truly real-time, but at least within one half to one second) but I have yet to find either a public software or decently priced software package that would do it... (thats why I'm posting here... :-)

-Lenny

Just remember, if it was cheap and easy, everybody would be doing.   I was looking into programming my webcam to broadcast on my website, but the bandwidth alone would have run me dry.  So instead, this is what i do.
i have my webcam running in non broadcast mode at home using Yahoo messenger.
i have REALVNC on my computer at home. http://www.realvnc.com/
---Please note that if you have a router, you will need to use port forwarding.
I then put VNC on any computer that i want to access my home computer (the install is about 1 minute, and doesn't require a reboot).

With this setup, i can dial into my home computer and actually control it.  I turn off my monitor in the event that someone is actually in my room.
I know it's not broadcasting on the web, but it's free, and it's the best work around i've come up with.

Thanks, but VNC isnt designed for this kind of thing at all- as a matter of fact it is very possible that the video feed wouldnt even display a still frame properly because the system that VNC uses is basically breaking the screen into different portions and then detecting change in each portion. In the event that VNC only detects change in one portion of the video display, and then detects a different change in another part, but not simultaneously... you'd wind up with a bunch of unmatching squares as your video feed! (I've tried this, thats how I know)

But thanks for trying to help.

(Also the key here is that the feed could be viewed on a standard web browser without the need for special client software (not more than an Applet or ActiveX etc.)... If going the route of using special software then there are several that I have seen, or one could even set up a VPN or something and use VideoLAN or similar...)

Lenny

I'm going to make this higher at 500 points because I have yet to find the right way to do this... I dont know if 500 is a lot but if someone knows of a way to accomplish basically real-time video streaming at full motion (or close to real-time and close to full motion- but not more than 1/4-1/2 second delay and maybe 20-25 FPS...)

Thanks,
Lenny

There are many products like this on the market:
http://www.axis.com/products/cam_2400/
They can take multiple standard video input, connect to the LAN with an IP address, and viola'
anywhere you can access it through a web browser, you can see the videos

I'm using one of these, and it's really sweet for the price. Not exactly 30fps full motion, but close enough. Inputs can be cameras, video players, any standard video/composite output..runs an embedded Linux/Apache server...
http://www.stardot-tech.com/express6/index.html

If you want faster/better, then you pay for it with something like the vbrick:
http://www.vbrick.com/products/index.asp

Or even higher cost still, the Cisco IPTV offerings (prepare to pay > $50k to start )

Thanks but I have seen things like this before and the point here is that I dont understand why it would be so difficult for a simple program to stream exactly what it receives, over the net...

Please look at the progrm that I mentioned- YAWCAM- and you'll see that it does almost exactly what I'm speaking about, except that its not full motion and its not 100% real-time (the real-time issue is minimal because it is just about realtime- the problem is the motion...)

If anyone has any ideas of other little pieces of software... But not professional kinds that cost thousands... (I mentioned that in the question- there *are* solutions that do this, but for a big price...)

Thanks,
Lenny

Real-motion video is bandwidth intensive. Voice is not. Voice is tiny data packets interspersed with silence (no packets). Full motion video is something quite different. MPEG compression helps, and depending on which version of MPEG, there are copyright costs associated with using it. So, you need something that has enough horsepower that will compress the video into and MPEG format, stream it, and have an MPEG decoder at the other end. As Phil mentioned, if it was cheap or easy, everyone would be doing it. Video distribution over broadband is right around the corner, but it still won't be cheap or simple.

Thanks, but I'm not speaking of high resolution or anything- just a small window that shows live stream of a video feed at about 300Kbps (and no sound at all)

I dont see why this should be so difficult...

There's a Shareware program called 'Active Webcam' and its probably the closest that I've seen and its also not expensive... (but it still comes short on motion...)

I have tried another thing: using an NSV encoder to stream it to a Winamp ActiveX, but there was still a small delay of about 1 second (even on the local computer- because I think that it needs to buffer *something* and wont just stream without at least a little bit of buffering...) But the motion was obviously full stream just as any broadcast... (like using WME or Real Encoder...)

I just find it hard to believe that there's nothing that is freely available that could do this... (actually- how does videoconfrencing work??? isnt that pretty mcuh realtime? Because you have to have lip sync with the speech, so the same technology could be used one-way... no?)

I don't see why my Honda doesn't get 50 miles to the gallon.  The unfortunate thing is that, sometimes, there is not a viable solution for low cost, or even a viable solution at all...and there is no IBM Business Genie.

The best thing I have found for streaming and conferencing was Exchange 2003 Conferencing Server internally and WebEx externally.  Granted, that was ~2 years ago.

Logitech, a few years ago, also had an application that would interface with a web server so that you could use your webcam.  I can't remember the product name, but I used it for a little while until I upgraded from Windows 2000 to Windows XP.

I doubt you're gonna find something to do it for free, since somebody has to write the code to do it, they're gonna want money for it.

video conferencing works using highend routers (cisco) that can give you QoS.  These routers allow you to filter which packets have the highest priority.  So the video and voice packets will be sent over the pipe before any other data (i.e. internet traffic).

for website to stream, it's hard for viewers to know if it's realtime or it's delayed (buffered).
although, if you want a java applet to attach to your webcam, you might want to check the programming section for vb code that can help you do it.


you spoke of shareware called active webcam, do u have link to that?

Here's a link to it. So far I have found that to be the most realtime with the highest FPS rate for Free/Shareware.

http://www.pysoft.com/ActiveWebCamMainpage.htm

I also bumped into a company in Switzerland who does this type of thing also using Java applets, and its pretty realtime and the FPS is also higher, I believe. The thing is that I think that they will only sell a full packege with all equipment and custom set it for your needs. I inquired about just the software and it seemed to be not on offer...

Speaking strictly theoretical here, I must again insist that it should really not be too difficult to provide realtime video streaming with a max delay of about 1/2 second, and with decent motion. Even if not using the QOS (which happens to exist on the router that I have, and I assume many others- thus you could tell the router to place all packets from one port on highest priority...) an average ping to a server even across the country is in the MS range, not even reaching one second...

The only issue that I can think of is the ability to compress it instantaneous enough to allow realtime streaming. If that is truly an issue, then basic compression from RGB to YUY (or something like that- I dont recall its exact letters) should be fine, and with a window of about 3x5 inches, I think that it shouldnt need more than 500-800Kbps max...

Of course one might say that such a thing is surely possible and even available- but for a large fee. And I assume that this is true. However, for a simple one way vdieo feed to a webpage in realitme, I dont see why there is no Share/Freeware version out there... I'm sure that in about a year this wont be a problem, but even now...

Lenny21 -
It seems that, like most software developers, you are at a crossroads...
Time to write the code (or have someone write it) and publish the software and instructions to the world for free...

i think the biggest reason there's no share/freeware on this is because people that develop smart technology generally want to get paid for it.
that swiss company, they probably only sell the whole package because their programmers have the hardware programmed into the software.  They're going to reference the specific hardware in their software.  Kind of like what some software companies do with dongles.

in a year, this might still be a problem. 10-20 years, when everyone is VoIP, it won't be a problem. they're selling vid conference phones for home already.  it won't be long until VoIP takes over. That's why phone companies are hitting up VoIP services. They know it's the future.  There's a market there.  

This 'Active Webcam' that I was trying can actually perform the function of almost realtime, if tweaked (compression ratio and type/bandwidth/frame size...), but its still not full motion. Now I assume that this may be because its using lots of resources, or something else that I'm not aware of.. However, this shows that its not too difficult to achieve... He's using very simple compression, and a Java applet for the viewer. Its also possible that the applet is where the limitation is- I have yet to see an applet stream *anything* at more than 15-20 fps... (example: http://www.clipstream.com/livesubB/cs25_tv.shtml)

To sum it up- surely I wouldnt expect there to be available the highest quality feature packed software free of charge. However, like many software packages, there is usually a freeware/shareware version that does the basic function pretty ok. In this case, a company such as the Swiss one could easily keep their business vs a freeware piece, being that they offer a truly integrated package that is custom taylored to the needs of the customer, and performs quite well...  It also has many features such as camera panning and control, zoom etc... (I think that they even allow you to choose an angle on a map and the servo's would adjust to it automatically...)

If I were more well versed in Java, I might try to look into writing one myself (though possibly a C program would give quicker performance, but Java seems to already have packages which are designed for video- and an applet is easily integrated for web viewing...)

Oh well, I guess that I'll have to either wait 10 years, buy a sophisticated hardwired streaming solution, OR just not do it :-)

I remember harvest church in riverside www.harvest.org
last summer, they did a live concert on the web.
but then again, they are huge and have tons of money to be able to do stuff like that (among other things).

if this was a low cost feasible solution, you'd see television stations broadcasting their shows on the web at the same as the television.

There are two things here: one is the method, and the second is the bandwidth/usage. The method, as far as I can tell, shouldnt be too difficult, as long as it stays simple. However, to actually deliver content to many viewers, this is another story. While there are many 'online broadcasters' today- and the list is growing- it is still, however, not too appealing because of the cost of bandwidth. Most who do it for large audiences, from what I can tell, either have sponsors, or they do it for their own business purpose, OR they charge a subscription fee and make a very small profit.

However, all this is related to general streaming, not realtime. For 'general streaming' there is no real need for realtime- whats the difference if its 1 minute behind or 20 minutes? The key is the clarity and motion...

The only times you'd really need 'realtime' is for videoconfrencing, or if there is a remote controlled camera- you would want to have the delay of the control at a minimum.

Right now I see some videoconfrencing phones being sold for VoIP service, and I assume that they route the video packets along with the voice, thus getting virtually a fully interactive conversation. With this same method it should be quite simple to have a one-way stream that can be viewed on a web site...

As stated before, I personally am surprised that this simple technology hasent been harnessed for realtime streaming, just as one can now download hundreds of free text editors- the idea and technology became so straightforward that it was no issue to program a word processor and distribute it...

It seems that this type of thing should be pretty available I'd think within a year or two (at which time video VoIP would be more widespread...)

Lenny

You aren't comparing Apples to Apples...more like Apples to an Apple Cart.

However, I do like the way you think.  I wish that solar energy and solar power was the same way.  It is no issue to go a purchase a car that has been built and distributed, why can't it just run on Solar power?  Better yet, natural gas...why can't our cars run on Natural Gas.  There are hundreds of busses out there that run on natural gas.  Come to think of it, hydrogen...why can't we build hydrogen generators in our homes, which can fuel our cars, safely compressing the hydrogen and, using hydrides, safely store it.  If the car can't run on hydrogen, then why can't it switch over to unleaded.
http://www.unitednuclear.com/h2.htm
Supply and demand.
Need.

A word processor and text editor is not as bandwidth intensive as a video streaming application.  Even if you are entering text into a website, which is programmed to save it every 5 seconds.  Text can be compressed and uncompressed (even over the wire) with amazing precision.

However, 99% of text editors do not need to have a network stack programmed into it.  A word processor utilizes a a pretty standard input technology, which has been in use and development for nearly 60 years and 30 years, respectively.  The computer handles the keyboard input and usually does not require a special driver...so whether I use a Logitech or a Microsoft or a Generic keyboard, I am going to get the same input.  

The cameras have different drivers and software, and there is no guarantee that just any camera, or it's respective driver, will work.

Then there is the demand...not everyone needs to stream realtime video to 1 or 100's of users.  Most everyone who uses a computer needs some sort of word processor.  Notepad, TextPad, EditPad, Works, Word, Ultraedit, StarOffice, etc.

So, as with a car, the folks that program the word processors and text editors will eventually be rewarded (though I can tell you that it is not much, in some cases...business acquaintences have coded word processors and get a $20 check here or there...even the free ones with a nagware screen have hacks to remove the nagware).  So, the folks at United Nuclear won't make much money.  They may even find big oil coming after them with a patent infringement suit.  OR, big oil may purchase the patent and refuse to sell any additional devices, effectively killing the product.

Bob

I just thought about something...
Did you ever think of commissioning a college student to do this ($250-$500 will get you a lot of college student time) and then asking them to give away their work (and your funding)?  I have done similar things before with pretty good success...granted that was 1992 and most students did stuff similar to this for fun.

Thats an interesting idea... or maybe something like http://elance.com (though the entire idea is not so urgent so I'll first see what else might work)

Also, thanks for the link about the hydrogen fuel- thats pretty interesting. Though I've heard of ideas like it, I havent seen it actually being developed for production...etc.

Hope that it gets going and works well.

BTW- completely off topic- there is a relatively new development in solar technology which can utilize the full spectrum of light. It actually converts more than double the average amount of todays panels. (Which might mean that a full tank/650 miles worth of fuel could be processed in one or two days without any need for buying electricity...)

Elance is good...  I tried to do some elance projects but got severly underbid by a chap overseas.  Some of those overseas folks are quite good (check their ratings) and charge a fair amount.  Ultimately the bid you accept is up to you.

Dude!  Send a link on the solar panels.  That sounds awesome!  I wonder if it could generate electricity on the UV light that makes it through the clouds (sunburns on cloudy days are the worst!).

Real-time in your definition of 1/2 of a second is hard to come by especially the distance of the person receiving the stream is directly porportional to much delay they are going to get. With that said there's also delay issues cause by the encoding machine, which in this case it has to capture the stream from the capture card, encode it into whatever format and at the bit rate of your liking, then send it out to the network, once the receiving end see the stream it still has to decode it plus the delay in network in which it will experience, even locally everything takes time. With all that said, you problably now have a rough estimate that no matter how fast or fat your CPU or network connection is you're going to get a delay.

I've been working with difference encoding software and codec, if you're going to want higher quality video output, please use something better then some webcams. Either get a capture card and feed it high quality video from a high quality camera (i use Sony EVI-D100) if you're going to do something serious. Or capture directly from ieee1492 with a compatible camera using DVTS for example.

Now to you question, I use VideoLan (www.videolan.org) to encode in Divx or which ever codec you would like and broadcast it. Remember the codec affects what type of software avaiable on the client. The delay i'm getting with VideoLAN is around 5 seconds and the quality of the video is real-time motion with audio at 64k using mp3. The configuration of the machine im using is Dual Xeon 2.8G, 2Gig memory, Osprey 203 capture card (http://www.viewcast.com/products/osprey/osprey230.html), camera Sony EVI-D100. That's as real-time as we like for our webcast solution here at SDSC.

If you're interested in real-time colaboration, we also run AccessGrid here at the center, which is an elaborate group-to-group collaboration framework with the ability to transfer full motion video, audio with lip-synching, and data such as share powerpoint and whiteboard. Check out www.accessgrid.org. Basically we have a wall display with 3 projectors and 3 cameras which are all connected to a group of computers that do encoding and capturing for video and another one for audio and the last one is use to put all the incoming stream on to the projectors. You will need multicast network, unicast will work but you must connect to a multicast-enabled bridge.

-bao

Another solution that I have used for point-to-point video conferencing that work really well and realtime motion and audio is openphone at www.openh323.org. It's based onthe h.323 standard for video conferencing. You can use it to dial into and receive calls from any h.323 compatible device, such as the Polycom Viewstation. Another one from Polycom is the ViaVideo II software which is freely avaiable but I beleive you will have to use their portable "webcam" which cost around $600 dollar, but that is also in real-time video and audio.

-bao

Thanks for all the input.

Flyguy- Here's a link thats similar to what I mentioned, but its not the one that I was thinking of...
http://www.you.com.au/news/1485.htm

Sysbot- Its an interesting idea, I'll look into H.323 standards for software... I was looking in the webcam arena until now...

Actually, I'm not using a webcam at all. Its a camera fed into a capture card (BT848 based- basically the Osprey 100) I didnt mention it before because it would just make things look more complicated than they are...

VideoLan is probably good, but I'd think primarily for its designated use (I've used it a little bit and it was pretty ok.) For the use that I was looking for, NSV/Winamp, VLC/S, Real, WME,  etc. all fall into the same group- they do what they do well, but not realtime. They have good motion and compression, but there is an absolute need for buffering. I have tweaked and tried all sorts of things, but even on the local machine there is still a delay. (Actually with big tweaking on NSV it was down to maybe 1/2 second delay, but that required both setting the encoder *and* the player with minimum buffering- something that would have to be set by each client on their own...)

I'll just sum it up again: The setup that I have is a camera being fed into a capture card. The desired objective is to have a realtime/almost full motion stream that can be viewed on a website (with a Java Applet, ActiveX or similar.)

I'm assuming that this should be very simple to do, based on the hugely exploding VoIP use. This means that it is really no issue at all to have a time-sensitive stream, with very little cost in setup (Skype etc.)

The commercially available solutions for this seem to be pretty expensive, being that they're catering primarily for high end users of videoconferencing... I'm not interested in a two way stream, but just a simple one way stream that is as close to realtime as possible.

So far, the closest that I've found to this (in free/shareware) is 'Active Webcam' and 'YAWCAM'. They both do pretty good with the timing, but I havent been able to get either one at anything near full motion.

PS- I'm not just trying to be cheap here: if this were for a business need, then sure, you have to pay for what you want. However this is not for a commercial application, and I was surprised not to be able to find a solution for this area that would be quite simple and work ok... Who am I complaining to? I guess there *is* no one to complain to about this. Basically three options left: #1- wait until someone puts something out that does this, #2- do it on my own, #3- hire someone to do it, and then there's also #4- just forget about the whole idea. Or, maybe someone out there knows of something?

PPS- I'm pretty new here and I dont know how this place works- no one has yet  really answered the question with a solution to it, yet I assume that I have to 'accept' one of the answers? Everyone basically answered real answers, and tried to be helpful,  but none of them were true solutions to the question...

You can request, in community support, to have the question closed and refund your points.

But its a shame because so many people did try to answer... Maybe someone might yet know something? I think it would make sense if it could stay 'open' for as long as possible...

-Lenny

Hi,

Could I leave this up to an admin to look into? I am not familiar with the way the system works here. Many people have tried to give good comments, but none were direct solutions to the original question. If the points were split, I'd have no idea who should get what. But on the other hand I dont know if it should be 'refunded' either, being that many people did try to be helpful...

Thanks,
Lenny

Too much good information here not to at least PAQ .

PAQ - refund then :)