I wasn't intending to disparage your current setup's performance. Given the equipment you were working with, I think the production was exceptional. Didn't mean to offend with the "GIGO" comment. I was just trying to make the point that higher quality equipment, whether it be computer or video equipment, will increase production value. Especially, if everyone is trying to "convince" potential clients of Flashcomm's usefulness and quality, I would try to make sure I was putting my "best foot forward." Remember, client's don't appreciate "everything that goes into making something work", they just care about the end result.
With improvement of image quality (picture quality, framerate, camera work ;o), and audio quality, I could see this working for live broadcasts of many events. First of all, for me, my city has been considering having the City Council and County Commissioner's meetings taped and broadcast on local cable. While that could still be done, Flashcomm could provide a relatively cheap alternative for "live" production, too. Some consideration should be given to using multiple cameras, as well. A basic switcher for a few bucks could allow instant switching between perspectives, greatly increasing viewing interest. Not costly, or difficult. Just some ideas... I've been in video production for about 8 years now, so these concerns really come to mind for me. Rick Rick Faircloth, Prism Productions -----Original Message----- From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:mdinowit@;houseoffusion.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 6:58 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting > And is there a way to hookup a "real" video camera, > complete with wireless mic, instead of using a $50 video cam? You can use a Sony DV camera that has usb streaming. The video camera we used was the logitek 4000, which is top of the line for eyeball cams. ($116.03). A wireless mic should be used if its available over the mic in the cam. (All in my writeup) As for the quality of the picture, it wasn't bad to look at. The problem was it 'freeze framing' when the flash client got bogged down. Everything we're seeing is pointing to a problem on the side of the laptop that was moving the content to the flashcom server. Between its speed (300mhz) and the use of the flash client inside a browser (not a good idea), things got bogged down. All these things are detailed int he report. I'll have it up on FA as soon as Judith edits it. > While you're beefing up the serving computer, don't forget the > adage, "Garbage in, garbage out." If the camera produces only > a mediocre image at best, it'll still be mediocre no matter how > much horsepower is under the hood of the computer. > > Is it possible to use a real video camera? Even the cheapest > palm-sized video recorder will produce better images than a video cam. > > Rick > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:mdinowit@;houseoffusion.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:46 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting > > > That may well be the issue. The laptop was a 400mhz with 128 meg of ram. > I've > seen much better broadcast performance on my home machine at 2.53 Ghz and > 512 > meg of ram. While this is not do-able for a laptop, a more modern one would > surely help the performance. > The camera was a Logitek 4000 which is rather top of the line but the > microphone > was whatever was built into it. One of the recommendations I'm making for > people > using this is to have a separate mic (as many have mentioned to me). We'll > be > doing that for the next meeting. > > > I think part of the problem with the NYCFUG broadcast was that it was > > being done on a laptop that didn't really have enough power to handle > > things. The Flash video chat application is just a sample and could > > probably be optimized for use in this context. Also the camera and mic > > setup was not ideal - when folks were nearer the mic and/or there was > > less background noise, things were better (especially when Michael D > > spoke more slowly and clearly). Given the $50 video cam, an > > underpowered laptop and the fact that the server was hosted in Europe, > > I think the quality was pretty good. > > > > It can definitely be better than that - we've had some high-quality > > audio-video broadcasts here with FlashCom and tested it with a much > > larger number of users than we saw connected to the NYCFUG broadcast > > (or the earlier DevCon Community Suite broadcast). > > > > If you're having problems getting the quality you'd like, email me > > offlist and I'll try to help you work with our FlashCom team to see if > > we can resolve the issues (and then we can post back here our findings). > > > > Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture > > Web Technology Group -- Macromedia, Inc. > > tel: (415) 252-2287 -- cell: (415) 717-8473 > > aim: seancorfield -- http://www.macromedia.com > > An Architect's View -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > > > > Introducing Macromedia Contribute. Web publishing for everyone. > > Learn more at http://www.macromedia.com/contribute > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
