|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 30th, 2008, 10:42 AM | #16 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 1,997
|
Quote:
Yep I tested it out and was able to stream a 270Kbps stream from my GL2 -> firewire -> shuttle PC (Core2Duo 2Ghz-2GBram) with 40% CPU utilization -> USB wiFi adapter -> Linksys WRT54GL -> Linksys cable modem -> to a friends work computer. Not bad. But depending on how multiple connections are handled, a consumer internet connection will pretty much only allow one connection. Unless I bump the window size down to 120 from 320x240. Now here is another question for ya'll.... I would expect that 15fps would be a better use of bandwidth than 30fps, with all that standing around etc. I would rather devote more of the bitspace to the audio than the extra frames. What would you as a viewer of a wedding in a far far away nation rather have? 1) Higher resolution video (ie the 320x240 screen instead of 240x180 or 160x120) 2) Faster frame rate (29.97fps vs 15) 3) Stereo audio vs FM quality (-96kbps from stereo) vs Voice quality (-28Kbps from FM) |
|
October 2nd, 2008, 12:09 AM | #17 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Juneau, AK
Posts: 814
|
Quote:
doing live webcasts for state meetings. I have used Windows Media Encoder, Wirecast (which ROCKS), Quicktime Broadcaster, and LiveChannel. Windows Media Encoder can send to as many people as you want, if you hire a streaming server provider. Akamai has a couple smaller subsidiaries that do this, they do a great job. My meetings had from 98-305 viewers, and I never had a single problem. It's really a two part process. First, you set up the whole room for 'video production', cameras, mixer, microphones, and such, then you set up the webcast part. It takes a bit of time and a little knowledge, but I'd bet most videographers could handle it, I did the whole webcasts by myself, running cameras, switching, audio mixing, and titling, setting up the webcast, and all. Not the best way to run things but I did what I needed to do with the budget I was given.....and they were happy so that's all that mattered. |
|
October 2nd, 2008, 03:09 PM | #18 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hamilton, ON Canada
Posts: 369
|
amazing, I just got asked to do this and came on here and BAM here is this thread.
So realistically I can't really do windows media encoder from a laptop right? and I would need a fairly fast internet connection? |
October 2nd, 2008, 03:37 PM | #19 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 1,997
|
Quote:
At 320x240x15fps with pretty bad audio he was able to view just fine. The CPU sat around 50% the entire time, so a beefy Laptop would be needed. |
|
October 2nd, 2008, 04:00 PM | #20 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hamilton, ON Canada
Posts: 369
|
Also, what would you charge in addition to your regular fee to do this?
|
October 2nd, 2008, 04:49 PM | #21 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 1,997
|
|
October 3rd, 2008, 08:19 PM | #22 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Juneau, AK
Posts: 814
|
I did it with an older single processor Windows laptop using Windows Media Encoder and it
worked just fine. I sent a 300kbps stream out to my streaming server.....actually they had me set it up so they could 'pull' from me. I also had a dedicated T1 line just for my webcast that no one else was on. I charged over 2 grand for this service, each day I did it. Of course I was taking care of everything, including paying for web server space, setting up the dedicated line and all the rest of it. It was also a 4 hour event each time, a little longer than most weddings, but that's what I charged. |
October 4th, 2008, 04:02 AM | #23 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: switzerland
Posts: 2,133
|
"I would probably ad on $500..." then you are working for free + the hassle if it does not work.
|
| ||||||
|
|