|
Home > Archive > Macromedia Flash Server > April 2005 > Low Camera quality
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Low Camera quality
|
|
| Jordan Snyder 2005-04-07, 5:49 pm |
| Hello,
I have written a simple Flash app to broadcast video and audio from a
webcam to an FCS instance. The camera quality is good locally, and I
setMode and setQuality on the Camera instance...but then playing back
the stream from a client shows poor video quality. Is there anything
I can do on the client side ( other than NetStream.receiveVideo(FPS)
because I did that already ) to improve video quality?
TIA
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:16:15 +0000, actionscriptcoder
<actionscriptcoder-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Sorry Dennis ... only just got around to finding the window I clicked
> that component in ... fook .. that works a treat .. thanks for that
> one!
>
> A
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:33:38 -0600, Dennis Baldwin
> <dbaldwin-s5AGIlkFG9nCnp4W7fqMDg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
--
Jordan Snyder
Applications Developer
ImageAction, USA
http://www.imageaction.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
|
|
| Jordan Snyder 2005-04-07, 5:49 pm |
| Actually, I have tried this, and I still get very pixelated video. It
doesn't seem to matter what I set the camera's quality and mode to on
the broadcast side...the result is the same on the client.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:53:14 +0000, actionscriptcoder
<actionscriptcoder-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> This worked very well for me:
> http://www.peldi.com/blog/archives/...ing_opti_1.html
>
> A
>
--
Jordan Snyder
Applications Developer
ImageAction, USA
http://www.imageaction.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| actionscriptcoder 2005-04-07, 5:49 pm |
| I got around this by adding a multiplier to the width & height ... the
algorithm still seems to work well at higher resolutions, but it
obviously chews up more bandwidth.
A
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Jayson K Hanes 2005-04-07, 5:49 pm |
| Try a better webcam (or different) -- what you see rendered on the
client that is publishing the cam seems to always have no bearing on
just "how good" the result is of its' video being sampled, compressed,
and xmit'd to-and-fro-the server back to clients.. You are seeing a
live-feed without much processing.. And it is at that point of little
consequence to the quality of (something like):=20
hardware (Cam) -> driver -> flash (perhaps cropped etc) =3D what you see
live
Compared to:
hardware > driver > flash -> (sampled/compressed (codec)) -> net ->
server -> recorded/buffered -> distributed -> received by flash ->
uncompressed and such by flash and presented by flash..
-Jayson
[vbcol=seagreen]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org=20
> [mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of=20
> Jordan Snyder
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 7:09 PM
> To: FlashComm Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Low Camera quality
>=20
> Actually, I have tried this, and I still get very pixelated=20
> video. It doesn't seem to matter what I set the camera's=20
> quality and mode to on the broadcast side...the result is the=20
> same on the client.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:53:14 +0000, actionscriptcoder=20
> <actionscriptcoder-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| David Simmons 2005-04-07, 5:49 pm |
| Better webcams can definitely help, but I've found the biggest thing that
affects video quality is proper lighting. Play around with the lighting a
bit and you'll be amazed at the difference you can get from your camera.
You can also try the myCam.setLoopback(true) function to turn on the
compressor/decompressor for the local video display on the capture side.
You're chewing up CPU cycles to compress and decompress the image before
local display, but it should give you a better idea of what quality is sent
over the network.
Displaying the stream that's coming from the server is another good way to
see what other clients get. Just mimic the code used on your regular
viewers.
Testing with a local development server can let you crank up the bandwidth
and quality settings to see what the system is capable of before you start
tweaking all the numbers. Check the server config files to make sure you
don't have a bandwidth cap set too low.
Hope this helps,
- Dave Simmons
Macromedia Engineering
-----Original Message-----
From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
[mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Jayson K Hanes
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 4:19 PM
To: FlashComm Mailing List
Subject: RE: [FlashComm] Low Camera quality
Try a better webcam (or different) -- what you see rendered on the
client that is publishing the cam seems to always have no bearing on
just "how good" the result is of its' video being sampled, compressed,
and xmit'd to-and-fro-the server back to clients.. You are seeing a
live-feed without much processing.. And it is at that point of little
consequence to the quality of (something like):
hardware (Cam) -> driver -> flash (perhaps cropped etc) = what you see
live
Compared to:
hardware > driver > flash -> (sampled/compressed (codec)) -> net ->
server -> recorded/buffered -> distributed -> received by flash ->
uncompressed and such by flash and presented by flash..
-Jayson
[vbcol=seagreen]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
> [mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of
> Jordan Snyder
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 7:09 PM
> To: FlashComm Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Low Camera quality
>
> Actually, I have tried this, and I still get very pixelated
> video. It doesn't seem to matter what I set the camera's
> quality and mode to on the broadcast side...the result is the
> same on the client.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:53:14 +0000, actionscriptcoder
> <actionscriptcoder-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Bill Sanders 2005-04-07, 5:49 pm |
| Jordan,
You can save a bundle simply by improving your lighting. Dave is right,
and while improved lighting seems too simple, it really beats a lot of
other methods. Also, use a utility to dynamically change your camera's
settings. You're welcome to use the utility at:
http://nemo.hartford.edu/~wsanders/vidUtil/vid2004.html
Cheers,
Bill
On Feb 22, 2005, at 7:59 PM, David Simmons wrote:
> Better webcams can definitely help, but I've found the biggest thing
> that
> affects video quality is proper lighting. Play around with the
> lighting a
> bit and you'll be amazed at the difference you can get from your
> camera.
>
> You can also try the myCam.setLoopback(true) function to turn on the
> compressor/decompressor for the local video display on the capture
> side.
> You're chewing up CPU cycles to compress and decompress the image
> before
> local display, but it should give you a better idea of what quality is
> sent
> over the network.
>
> Displaying the stream that's coming from the server is another good
> way to
> see what other clients get. Just mimic the code used on your regular
> viewers.
>
> Testing with a local development server can let you crank up the
> bandwidth
> and quality settings to see what the system is capable of before you
> start
> tweaking all the numbers. Check the server config files to make sure
> you
> don't have a bandwidth cap set too low.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> - Dave Simmons
> Macromedia Engineering
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
> [mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Jayson K
> Hanes
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 4:19 PM
> To: FlashComm Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [FlashComm] Low Camera quality
>
> Try a better webcam (or different) -- what you see rendered on the
> client that is publishing the cam seems to always have no bearing on
> just "how good" the result is of its' video being sampled, compressed,
> and xmit'd to-and-fro-the server back to clients.. You are seeing a
> live-feed without much processing.. And it is at that point of little
> consequence to the quality of (something like):
>
> hardware (Cam) -> driver -> flash (perhaps cropped etc) = what you see
> live
>
> Compared to:
>
> hardware > driver > flash -> (sampled/compressed (codec)) -> net ->
> server -> recorded/buffered -> distributed -> received by flash ->
> uncompressed and such by flash and presented by flash..
>
> -Jayson
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
bill sanders | www.sandlight.com | bloomfield, ct | 860-242-2260
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Jordan Snyder 2005-04-07, 5:49 pm |
| Bill
That looks like a great tool.
What are the defaults for the application? It all looks pretty good
the first time I go to your site, but when I start to modify settings
I start getting pixelated video again. Could you let me know about
the defaults?
Thanks for your help.
Cheers
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:52:07 -0500, Bill Sanders <wdsanders-Wuw85uim5zDR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Jordan,
>
> You can save a bundle simply by improving your lighting. Dave is right,
> and while improved lighting seems too simple, it really beats a lot of
> other methods. Also, use a utility to dynamically change your camera's
> settings. You're welcome to use the utility at:
>
> http://nemo.hartford.edu/~wsanders/vidUtil/vid2004.html
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
> On Feb 22, 2005, at 7:59 PM, David Simmons wrote:
>
> bill sanders | www.sandlight.com | bloomfield, ct | 860-242-2260
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
--
Jordan Snyder
Applications Developer
ImageAction, USA
http://www.imageaction.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| hank williams 2005-04-07, 5:49 pm |
| Yes, the effect of low light amazed me. Several months ago, I was
playing with my webcam, and all of a sudden the frame rate dropped
from good to unbearable. I called creative to complain, but to no
avail.
I finally realized what was going on when the next day the video was
good again. The day before when it had become night time and I had
lost the sunlight.
What I realized was happening is that the camera tries very hard to
show a sufficiently bright video so that you can be seen. To do this
in low light the camera has to slow the frame rate down to get longer
exposures (photography 101). So you get a good picture even in low
light, but the frame rate, no matter how high flash sets it to, will
be low in low light situations. This is a function of the camera
trying to give you some kind of useful albeit fuzzy picture when there
isnt much light.
Just think about the kind of light that a regular still camera, or a
video camera needs to give you a good picture. The physics and
therefore photographic issues are the same.
I am working on a consumer video application, and I realize one of my
biggest challenges is going to be getting people to light themselves
properly.
Hank
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:59:15 -0800, David Simmons
<dsimmons-14osZcCZf762oZ/6fjIToQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Better webcams can definitely help, but I've found the biggest thing that
> affects video quality is proper lighting. Play around with the lighting a
> bit and you'll be amazed at the difference you can get from your camera.
>
> You can also try the myCam.setLoopback(true) function to turn on the
> compressor/decompressor for the local video display on the capture side.
> You're chewing up CPU cycles to compress and decompress the image before
> local display, but it should give you a better idea of what quality is sent
> over the network.
>
> Displaying the stream that's coming from the server is another good way to
> see what other clients get. Just mimic the code used on your regular
> viewers.
>
> Testing with a local development server can let you crank up the bandwidth
> and quality settings to see what the system is capable of before you start
> tweaking all the numbers. Check the server config files to make sure you
> don't have a bandwidth cap set too low.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> - Dave Simmons
> Macromedia Engineering
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
> [mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Jayson K Hanes
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 4:19 PM
> To: FlashComm Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [FlashComm] Low Camera quality
>
> Try a better webcam (or different) -- what you see rendered on the
> client that is publishing the cam seems to always have no bearing on
> just "how good" the result is of its' video being sampled, compressed,
> and xmit'd to-and-fro-the server back to clients.. You are seeing a
> live-feed without much processing.. And it is at that point of little
> consequence to the quality of (something like):
>
> hardware (Cam) -> driver -> flash (perhaps cropped etc) = what you see
> live
>
> Compared to:
>
> hardware > driver > flash -> (sampled/compressed (codec)) -> net ->
> server -> recorded/buffered -> distributed -> received by flash ->
> uncompressed and such by flash and presented by flash..
>
> -Jayson
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Helen Triolo 2005-04-07, 5:49 pm |
| hank williams wrote:
>I realize one of my
>biggest challenges is going to be getting people to light themselves
>properly.
>
>
You could send them here for a tutorial:
http://www.infonegocio.com/xeron/bruno/olympics.html (the guy in the
opening scene seems to have mastered lighting himself properly). Of
course, what I really meant to say was thanks for the interesting info
on low light and videos -- I'm just getting started fooling around with
Flash and my digital video cam and appreciate info like that. Going
back to lurking now...
Helen
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Bill Sanders 2005-04-07, 5:49 pm |
| Hi Jordan,
The initial settings are:
bw=0
quality=85
FPS=8
SoundRate=8
SS-bwlimits
S2cli=10000bytes (80k)
cli2ser=12500bytes(100k)
On the far right side of the app, play with the BW settings and FPS.
Glad it helps,
Bill
On Feb 23, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Jordan Snyder wrote:
> Bill
>
> That looks like a great tool.
>
> What are the defaults for the application? It all looks pretty good
> the first time I go to your site, but when I start to modify settings
> I start getting pixelated video again. Could you let me know about
> the defaults?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:52:07 -0500, Bill Sanders
> <wdsanders-Wuw85uim5zDR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
> --
> Jordan Snyder
> Applications Developer
> ImageAction, USA
> http://www.imageaction.com
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
bill sanders | www.sandlight.com | bloomfield, ct | 860-242-2260
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Jordan Snyder 2005-04-07, 5:50 pm |
| Everyone,
Your info has helped a great deal, and I've made good progress on the
Flash broadcasting front. Thanks a lot.
Bill, I'm curious as to how you profiled the bandwidth in your Flash
app. I would like to include similar info in some of my video test
applications, to see what bandwidth is being consumed in both
directions at any given time. I'm having a hard time finding anything
on this in the archives or on the net. Did you do something CRAZY or
is it pretty simple? (: Either way, please do share.
Cheers.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:59:35 -0500, Bill Sanders <wdsanders-Wuw85uim5zDR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hi Jordan,
>
> The initial settings are:
>
> bw=0
> quality=85
> FPS=8
> SoundRate=8
>
> SS-bwlimits
> S2cli=10000bytes (80k)
> cli2ser=12500bytes(100k)
>
> On the far right side of the app, play with the BW settings and FPS.
>
> Glad it helps,
> Bill
>
> On Feb 23, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Jordan Snyder wrote:
>
> bill sanders | www.sandlight.com | bloomfield, ct | 860-242-2260
>
>
--
Jordan Snyder
Applications Developer
ImageAction, USA
http://www.imageaction.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
|
|
|
|
|