|
Home > Archive > Macromedia Flash Server > August 2006 > streaming in High Resolution
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 |
streaming in High Resolution
|
|
| Joćo Fernandes 2006-08-02, 7:12 am |
|
Hi there,
We are planning a Video Conference solution and we have tried some =
hardware based stuff that run at 1024*768 using a 768 Kbit/s connection.
I=92ve proposed to take a look at FMS2 but for now I can=92t get nothing =
similar in performance / quality.=20
I used camera.setQuality(98304,0) so I can simulate it to use a similar =
connection but the result is quite ugly.
For now I=92m using a 640*480 video capture webcam.
Can FMS achieve this? Or is FMS more for low resolution streaming?
Thanks,
Jo=E3o Fernandes
________________________________________
_______
FlashComm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
| |
| Maulik Kataria 2006-08-05, 1:12 am |
| May be try some other variables like deblocking and smoothing? Sometimes
compression makes video look bad on subscriber side. So you get to tweak
more, and you have mentioned that you used 98kbps, cant you increase it?
That may be the reason for higher compression
On 8/2/06, Jo=E3o Fernandes <JoaoFernandes-9E+y9+J959NeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi there,
>
> We are planning a Video Conference solution and we have tried some
> hardware based stuff that run at 1024*768 using a 768 Kbit/s connection.
> I've proposed to take a look at FMS2 but for now I can't get nothing
> similar in performance / quality.
>
> I used camera.setQuality(98304,0) so I can simulate it to use a similar
> connection but the result is quite ugly.
> For now I'm using a 640*480 video capture webcam.
>
> Can FMS achieve this? Or is FMS more for low resolution streaming?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jo=E3o Fernandes
> ________________________________________
_______
> FlashComm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
> Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
> Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
> http://www.figleaf.com
> http://training.figleaf.com
>
________________________________________
_______
FlashComm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
| |
| Jay Charles 2006-08-05, 1:12 am |
| If the camera's maximum native resolution is 640x480, you're going to
loose some quality when you scale up to 1024x768. The flashplayer has to
scale the image for each frame, and that makes things ugly.
If all of the clients and the server have enough available bandwidth, I
don't see why you couldn't do clean 1024x768 video, assuming you have a
capture device that supports it.
-Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
[mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Maulik
Kataria
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:41 PM
To: FlashComm Mailing List
Subject: Re: [FlashComm] streaming in High Resolution
May be try some other variables like deblocking and smoothing? Sometimes
compression makes video look bad on subscriber side. So you get to tweak
more, and you have mentioned that you used 98kbps, cant you increase it?
That may be the reason for higher compression
On 8/2/06, Jo=E3o Fernandes <JoaoFernandes-9E+y9+J959NeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi there,
>
> We are planning a Video Conference solution and we have tried some
> hardware based stuff that run at 1024*768 using a 768 Kbit/s
connection.
> I've proposed to take a look at FMS2 but for now I can't get nothing
> similar in performance / quality.
>
> I used camera.setQuality(98304,0) so I can simulate it to use a
similar
> connection but the result is quite ugly.
> For now I'm using a 640*480 video capture webcam.
>
> Can FMS achieve this? Or is FMS more for low resolution streaming?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jo=E3o Fernandes
> ________________________________________
_______
> FlashComm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
> Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
> Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
> http://www.figleaf.com
> http://training.figleaf.com
>
________________________________________
_______
FlashComm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
________________________________________
_______
FlashComm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
| |
| Joćo Fernandes 2006-08-05, 1:11 pm |
|
Thanks Jay,
We actually realized that the current codec supported by the flash player cannot compete with the h.264 one which is used by most of those devices.
I locked to that amount of bandwitdh because is the total amount used by the other solution, so I could compare performance & quality. To achieve almost the same quality (and it was still not good enough), I had to unlock the quality but the bandwitdh consumption was far far away bigger.
We are maybe going to use it anyway but for another matter.
Thanks anyway,
Joćo Fernandes
-----Original Message-----
From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org on behalf of Jay Charles
Sent: Sat 05-Aug-06 5:11 AM
To: 'FlashComm Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [FlashComm] streaming in High Resolution
If the camera's maximum native resolution is 640x480, you're going to
loose some quality when you scale up to 1024x768. The flashplayer has to
scale the image for each frame, and that makes things ugly.
If all of the clients and the server have enough available bandwidth, I
don't see why you couldn't do clean 1024x768 video, assuming you have a
capture device that supports it.
-Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
[mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Maulik
Kataria
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:41 PM
To: FlashComm Mailing List
Subject: Re: [FlashComm] streaming in High Resolution
May be try some other variables like deblocking and smoothing? Sometimes
compression makes video look bad on subscriber side. So you get to tweak
more, and you have mentioned that you used 98kbps, cant you increase it?
That may be the reason for higher compression
On 8/2/06, Joćo Fernandes <JoaoFernandes-9E+y9+J959NeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi there,
>
> We are planning a Video Conference solution and we have tried some
> hardware based stuff that run at 1024*768 using a 768 Kbit/s
connection.
> I've proposed to take a look at FMS2 but for now I can't get nothing
> similar in performance / quality.
>
> I used camera.setQuality(98304,0) so I can simulate it to use a
similar
> connection but the result is quite ugly.
> For now I'm using a 640*480 video capture webcam.
>
> Can FMS achieve this? Or is FMS more for low resolution streaming?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joćo Fernandes
> ________________________________________
_______
> FlashComm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
> Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
> Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
> http://www.figleaf.com
> http://training.figleaf.com
>
________________________________________
_______
FlashComm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
________________________________________
_______
FlashComm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
|
|
|
|
|