RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
i suggest that you post your issues to the flashcomm list here: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com it is pretty active and someone should be able to help you... mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: samcfug [mailto:doug@;samcfug.org] > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:49 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting > Importance: High > > > At the beginning of the meeting, when Michael was in front > of the camera (waving his arms wildly) There were only 5 > logged in, and the Audio and video was crystal clear. As > the meeting progressed into Tobe's presentation, more and > more came online, and while this may be coincidental, as > more logged in, the audio began to become choppy, and then > the video begin to drop frames. When it got over 10 logged > in, I lost the audio portion entirely, and the video , while > of good quality, was dropping so many frames it was more > like a PowerPoint Presentation, and even the text messages > in the chat window were lagging too. > At one time, when quite a few left, and the list fell to > around 5 or 6, the Audio and video came back strong., then > fell off dramatically as more returned to the session. The > browser issues took me completely by surprise as I feel that > should not happen. > > This was my observation and is in no way a gripe or > criticism. I am excited about the concept and want it to be > successful. > > In fact Kudos to Michael and Judith for doing this test, and > allowing the rest of us, to actually view the issues with > Flashcom. Not to mention all the hard work and time > involved in analyzing and reporting all the issues for our > benefit. This effort "in the trenches" provides much more > insight into the software than the staged events produced by > Macromedia where unlimited tech resources are available. > > In my case I have been attempting to install the server > software on my dual processor server, and after 5 tries, > have so far been unsuccessful. > This server does NOT have CFMX or Flash remoting installed, > as FlashCom does not mention that in the system > requirements. It is a Win2k Advanced server box. Among the > issues is that the software will not even recognize the > Admin name and password to access the admin section, or when > the admin login is left completely blank it will not connect > up. If I cannot get the server software installed and > running, then our group plans to broadcast our meeting on > the 21st will be a failure. Thus the reason I was so > interested in the technical side of the NTCFUG presentation. > My experience so far has been really frustrating. A second > laptop will be attempting to record the session for later > sharing and viewing by other user groups. > > Connectivity will not be our problem, because we have the > use of a T-1 connection for the server, and also a T-1 > connection in the College Auditorium. My laptop, is a Dell > Inspiron 8200 which has 1 GIG RAM and a 1.8 Ghz processor, > so I don't think bandwidth will be much of an issue. I have > only the 10 user license and will be limiting logins to that > number via a password. If we can do a successful > demonstration, then the college A/V department will loan us > their Hi-Tech digital video cameras and wireless > microphones, and purchase the educational enterprise > license, and SBC will make available a temporary OC3 pipe > for future meetings. > > Several Colleges, SBC, and the Air Force's Air Information > Warfare center are closely watching our endeavor with > FlashComm. IF we can successfully produce, I feel confident > that there will be quite a number of license sales for > Macromedia as a result. > > = > Douglas White > group Manager > mailto:doug@;samcfug.org > http://www.samcfug.org > = > - Original Message - > From: "Jochem van Dieten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 5:44 AM > Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting > > > | samcfug wrote: > | > | > I also watched > | > > | > As more people logged in - the worse it got - giving me > the > | > impression that it was a bandwidth issue. > | > | How many people logged in (I haven't quite figured out how > to log > | everything on the server)? > | > | > After all, the server is in the Netherlands, the meeting > was > | > in NYC > | > | If there was a bandwidth issue, it was because Flash > Communications > | Server is limited to 10 Mbps. NREN's don't get clogged
Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
At the beginning of the meeting, when Michael was in front of the camera (waving his arms wildly) There were only 5 logged in, and the Audio and video was crystal clear. As the meeting progressed into Tobe's presentation, more and more came online, and while this may be coincidental, as more logged in, the audio began to become choppy, and then the video begin to drop frames. When it got over 10 logged in, I lost the audio portion entirely, and the video , while of good quality, was dropping so many frames it was more like a PowerPoint Presentation, and even the text messages in the chat window were lagging too. At one time, when quite a few left, and the list fell to around 5 or 6, the Audio and video came back strong., then fell off dramatically as more returned to the session. The browser issues took me completely by surprise as I feel that should not happen. This was my observation and is in no way a gripe or criticism. I am excited about the concept and want it to be successful. In fact Kudos to Michael and Judith for doing this test, and allowing the rest of us, to actually view the issues with Flashcom. Not to mention all the hard work and time involved in analyzing and reporting all the issues for our benefit. This effort "in the trenches" provides much more insight into the software than the staged events produced by Macromedia where unlimited tech resources are available. In my case I have been attempting to install the server software on my dual processor server, and after 5 tries, have so far been unsuccessful. This server does NOT have CFMX or Flash remoting installed, as FlashCom does not mention that in the system requirements. It is a Win2k Advanced server box. Among the issues is that the software will not even recognize the Admin name and password to access the admin section, or when the admin login is left completely blank it will not connect up. If I cannot get the server software installed and running, then our group plans to broadcast our meeting on the 21st will be a failure. Thus the reason I was so interested in the technical side of the NTCFUG presentation. My experience so far has been really frustrating. A second laptop will be attempting to record the session for later sharing and viewing by other user groups. Connectivity will not be our problem, because we have the use of a T-1 connection for the server, and also a T-1 connection in the College Auditorium. My laptop, is a Dell Inspiron 8200 which has 1 GIG RAM and a 1.8 Ghz processor, so I don't think bandwidth will be much of an issue. I have only the 10 user license and will be limiting logins to that number via a password. If we can do a successful demonstration, then the college A/V department will loan us their Hi-Tech digital video cameras and wireless microphones, and purchase the educational enterprise license, and SBC will make available a temporary OC3 pipe for future meetings. Several Colleges, SBC, and the Air Force's Air Information Warfare center are closely watching our endeavor with FlashComm. IF we can successfully produce, I feel confident that there will be quite a number of license sales for Macromedia as a result. = Douglas White group Manager mailto:doug@;samcfug.org http://www.samcfug.org = - Original Message - From: "Jochem van Dieten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 5:44 AM Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting | samcfug wrote: | | > I also watched | > | > As more people logged in - the worse it got - giving me the | > impression that it was a bandwidth issue. | | How many people logged in (I haven't quite figured out how to log | everything on the server)? | | > After all, the server is in the Netherlands, the meeting was | > in NYC | | If there was a bandwidth issue, it was because Flash Communications | Server is limited to 10 Mbps. NREN's don't get clogged by that. | | Jochem | | | ~| 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
Whenever I looked, there were 10-20 people. This was less than at DevCon's busiest. Also, at DevCon, there were 2, often 3, AV windows running -- only briefly 2 at NYCFUG. Also, I thought Michael said that he was using a modem @ 48k HTH Dick On Thursday, November 14, 2002, at 03:44 AM, Jochem van Dieten wrote: > samcfug wrote: > >> I also watched >> >> As more people logged in - the worse it got - giving me the >> impression that it was a bandwidth issue. > > How many people logged in (I haven't quite figured out how to log > everything on the server)? > >> After all, the server is in the Netherlands, the meeting was >> in NYC > > If there was a bandwidth issue, it was because Flash Communications > Server is limited to 10 Mbps. NREN's don't get clogged by that. > > Jochem > > > ~| 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
samcfug wrote: > I also watched > > As more people logged in - the worse it got - giving me the > impression that it was a bandwidth issue. How many people logged in (I haven't quite figured out how to log everything on the server)? > After all, the server is in the Netherlands, the meeting was > in NYC If there was a bandwidth issue, it was because Flash Communications Server is limited to 10 Mbps. NREN's don't get clogged by that. Jochem ~| 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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
yeah, the problem with allow the user to pick from two camera views, is
that you have to have two video streams going out at the same time,
which requires two connections to the server and twice as much
bandwidth.
the following functions switch between cameras
function camera1()
{
publishStream.attachVideo(Camera.get(0));
}
function camera2()
{
publishStream.attachVideo(Camera.get(1));
}
You could then call these functions with a button press:
//call the camera1 function when the user presses buttton 1
button1.onRelease = camera1;
//call the camera2 function when the user presses buttton 2
button2.onRelease = camera2
that is a very simple example but hopefully it conveys how simple it
would be.
mike chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:Rick@;GoLibertyOnline.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 8:30 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
> Importance: High
>
>
> Cool!
>
> You're saying, let the "Flashcomm Producer" whose
> running the setup, switch the camera views within the
> Flash Interface, as opposed to offering two views to viewers
> to choose from?
>
> Rick
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Chambers [mailto:mchamber@;macromedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 8:03 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:Rick@;GoLibertyOnline.com]
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> fyi
>
> if you had two camera's pluged into your laptop, then this
> would be very
> simple to do. you would just use ActionScript to switch between the
> cameras.
>
> mike chambers
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
~|
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
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
> -Original Message- > From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:Rick@;GoLibertyOnline.com] > Earlier in this discussion, Tyler Fitch mentioned that he > successfully used > a Firewire > connection between camera and computer. That would provide > huge bandwidth > increase > over the USB port or whatever the "Video Cam" was using. If > Firewire ports > were used, > one camera could be placed on each port, and I'm sure there's > software out > there that > would allow two signals to be switched within the computer, > if desired. yes, instead of sending the video to the server, you would just display it in the local movie. > Another question, if multiple cameras were fed into the > computer, but only > one view > was sent to viewers, could there be "preview windows" which > would allow a > producer > to preview camera angles before deciding which one to send to viewers? yes. just send one to the server, and one to the local "control" movie. then, if you switch what is sent to clients, just switch which is sent local and which is sent out. mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
Michael: In your direct email summary of your notes you said: "Some people suggested using 2 camera's. I'm not sure how to do this on my laptop so that the two different feeds are going to different windows." I'm sure others are commenting on using two cameras other than myself, but I was suggesting using two cameras, but only feeding one signal at a time into the computer. I'm not sure right off how two cameras would be hooked up to one computer (perhaps multiple video capture cards), but I'm afraid that would place great limitations on the bandwidth. From my perspective, better to offer one view that cleaner and larger, than two with half the size and diminished quality. Earlier in this discussion, Tyler Fitch mentioned that he successfully used a Firewire connection between camera and computer. That would provide huge bandwidth increase over the USB port or whatever the "Video Cam" was using. If Firewire ports were used, one camera could be placed on each port, and I'm sure there's software out there that would allow two signals to be switched within the computer, if desired. Another question, if multiple cameras were fed into the computer, but only one view was sent to viewers, could there be "preview windows" which would allow a producer to preview camera angles before deciding which one to send to viewers? Allowing viewers to choose a view might work in some situations, but in many situations viewers would not be able to know enough about what's happening in a room to decide which view to choose, if they could only view one. A producer in the room would better be able to make those decisions. Having a "preview" of what the producer was about to send to viewers would be critical...to make sure the signal is present, clean, properly framed, etc. My approach would be to concentrate efforts on quality improvement from the production side, initially, instead of offering more options to the viewers. Keep up the good work! Rick -Original Message- From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:Rick@;GoLibertyOnline.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 8:30 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting Cool! You're saying, let the "Flashcomm Producer" whose running the setup, switch the camera views within the Flash Interface, as opposed to offering two views to viewers to choose from? Rick -Original Message- From: Mike Chambers [mailto:mchamber@;macromedia.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 8:03 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting > -Original Message- > From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:Rick@;GoLibertyOnline.com] > 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. > fyi if you had two camera's pluged into your laptop, then this would be very simple to do. you would just use ActionScript to switch between the cameras. mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
Cool! You're saying, let the "Flashcomm Producer" whose running the setup, switch the camera views within the Flash Interface, as opposed to offering two views to viewers to choose from? Rick -Original Message- From: Mike Chambers [mailto:mchamber@;macromedia.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 8:03 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting > -Original Message- > From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:Rick@;GoLibertyOnline.com] > 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. > fyi if you had two camera's pluged into your laptop, then this would be very simple to do. you would just use ActionScript to switch between the cameras. mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
> -Original Message- > From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:Rick@;GoLibertyOnline.com] > 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. > fyi if you had two camera's pluged into your laptop, then this would be very simple to do. you would just use ActionScript to switch between the cameras. mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| 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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
Concerning multiple cameras: I would suggest hooking up a couple of cameras and switching the signal "pre-computer". In other words, setup an A-B switcher to change what's going into the computer rather than with the computer. If it's done within the computer, especially if your offering multiple views for selection by a viewer, bandwidth will be a much more serious limitation. The person operating the switcher would act as a producer and determine which camera angle should be shown to viewers. That switching provides an exponentially greater viewer experience than a single view, *even* if neither view is particularly compelling. It maintains interest simply with change. Watch how TV talk shows with panelists do it. It would be nice to be able to choose camera angles as a viewer, but for now that would overly complicate getting the "basics" up to speed. Once a single view (or two if switched pre-computer) is optimized, then multiple angles in the Flash client could be pursued... Rick -Original Message- From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:mdinowit@;houseoffusion.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 7:41 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting I didn't take it as a disparage of the camera. I was trying to point the conversation at the real performance problem when using flashcom; the client hardware and software. Personally, I'd have loved to use the sony digital video camera and from what someone else said of DVid camera quality, it'll be on my list to get when we can find the spare cash. I think you'll find my review of the meeting to be a bit more critical than you were. :) On the other hand, your totally correct about clients seeing it. I'm going to be giving someone at O'Reilly a private showing of the app and will be using my own machine at home as the client. This will show a massive performance gain and will help to make it all 'look good'. In order of importance: Use of the flash client rather than the browser client Good client hardware good microphone good camera There's more to performance, but those are the tops. Now for a real question, how do you set up multiple cameras on a single laptop? I think a special flash component will be needed to sort out the different feeds and send them all. > 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
Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
I didn't take it as a disparage of the camera. I was trying to point the conversation at the real performance problem when using flashcom; the client hardware and software. Personally, I'd have loved to use the sony digital video camera and from what someone else said of DVid camera quality, it'll be on my list to get when we can find the spare cash. I think you'll find my review of the meeting to be a bit more critical than you were. :) On the other hand, your totally correct about clients seeing it. I'm going to be giving someone at O'Reilly a private showing of the app and will be using my own machine at home as the client. This will show a massive performance gain and will help to make it all 'look good'. In order of importance: Use of the flash client rather than the browser client Good client hardware good microphone good camera There's more to performance, but those are the tops. Now for a real question, how do you set up multiple cameras on a single laptop? I think a special flash component will be needed to sort out the different feeds and send them all. > 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 >
RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
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 > > off
Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
Just a side note here, there's a new FlashCom mailing list on HoF. http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=threads&forumid=32 I'd love to get people over there and get talk about all the issues that come up with flashcom. I'll be posting my experiment results there once I'm done. ~| 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
Rick, I've hooked up my Canon MiniDV camcorder via Firewire to my machine and used it for webcam. On two different machines Flash recognized it as a video source in the setting panels. The picture quality was in my opinion great compared to my co-workers connected on their $50 web cams. And with my camera remote I was able to zoom in and out and apply other recording effects like fades and digital effects for no good reason too. But I think that I've read that officially MM doesn't support the use of firewire cameras for webcams, but they do work. So if something doesn't work and you call them they'll probably tell you, that you're right - it doesn't work. t ** Tyler M. Fitch Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer http://isitedesign.com ** -Original Message- From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:Rick@;GoLibertyOnline.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:51 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? 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
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? 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
RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
> -Original Message- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:mdinowit@;houseoffusion.com] > the lag comes up. Something to clear out the text buffer or > store it in some way > is needed. As this is all done in the flash movie, I expect > that it can be fixed > as a patch or update rather than a new release. > this is something that i am going to try to fix. it is an issue with the component and not the actual server. mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
Thanks Mike. That simpleconnect issue is definitely one of the factors we were dealing with as we were typing rather fast to provide text feed to those without speakers. This is actually one of the things I love about the server. Most of the pieces are done in Flash and all you have to do to upgrade is write a modified flash component. Much easier than sending out whole new apps or the like. > i am pretty sure that this is an issue with the text chat component. it > doesn't limit the amount of text that it can hold. the more it holds, > the more CPU it requires. > > the solution is to change the component to only hold so much text. when > i get a chance, i am going to write up some info on how to do this. > > also, just fyi, i noticed that we just released some updated components: > > -- > http://www.macromedia.com/software/flashcom/download/components/> > > Changes (also in the ERRATA.txt inside the .zip): > > This document describes the bug fixes and enhancements that > are included in this revision of the Communication Components. > > CLIENT-SIDE > > -The VideoRecord and VideoPlayback components have been > added. Documentation for these components in the PDF that is > enclosed with the communication components package. > > -The SimpleConnect component no longer has a memory leak on > the client-side; previously, the memory leak occurred if you > typed faster than 1 character every 10 milliseconds. > > -The Presenter Shared Object property of the AVPresence > component has been removed. Flash Communication Server now > sets the value property of the property automatically. You > can use multiple instances of the AVPresence component in one > application without having to set this property for each instance. > > SERVER-SIDE > > -The application.asc and framework.asc files have been > modified to allow garbage collection for applications using > components. > > -A new method, getClientID(client), has been added to the > components framework. This method returns a unique ID for > each client. The server-side scripts of the components provided > have been updated to use this method. > --- > > although i dont think the chat issue was addressed. > > mike chambers > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dan Phillips [mailto:dphillips@;cfxhosting.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:31 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting > > Importance: High > > > > > > Thanks for the comments Dick. I was wondering is maybe > > adjusting the image > > and sound quality on the web cam would work as well. I will > > be playing with > > that myself over the next few days. > > > > I too noticed the 10-15 minute "bug" you mentioned. In our > > office, it got > > the the point where I could not only be on my cam, but on one > > accross the > > office as well because of images freezing. > > > > Audio by itself and video by itself seemed to be ok. Once we did both, > > that's when things would slowly start to lag. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:dicklacara@;mac.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:22 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting > > > > > > I watched last night and had the same reaction. > > > > AFAIK, Michael was using a 1Gig RAM processor and a 48Kb modem? > > > > But the choppiness was better than at DevCon where they had a > > DSL link. > > > > I have been told that there is a memory leak somewhere in the > > system -- > > the choppiness gets worse over time. > > > > Every 10-15 minutes some one (usually me) would complain and > > they would > > refresh the system (whatever that is), and quality would markedly > > improve. > > > > I don't know if it is: Memory Leak, CPU speed, Bandwidth, RAM size, > > Buffering, or what -- but this choppiness is the biggest negative to > > the system, > > > > Once they get that resolved, I expect we will see > > enhancements in image > > size & resolution and other features -- that's just technology. > > > > I certainly hope they get the choppiness fixed -- this could be a > > fantastic solution to a lot of communication needs. > > > > It could change the world of presentations -- for both the presenters > > and the audience. > > > > Dick > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 07:29
Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
> Thanks for the comments Dick. I was wondering is maybe adjusting the image > and sound quality on the web cam would work as well. I will be playing with > that myself over the next few days. Setting the broadcast connection to DSL rather than LAN seems to provide a much better stream. > I too noticed the 10-15 minute "bug" you mentioned. In our office, it got > the the point where I could not only be on my cam, but on one accross the > office as well because of images freezing. > > Audio by itself and video by itself seemed to be ok. Once we did both, > that's when things would slowly start to lag. The typing of text in the chat area is also a factor. The more text, the faster the lag comes up. Something to clear out the text buffer or store it in some way is needed. As this is all done in the flash movie, I expect that it can be fixed as a patch or update rather than a new release. > -Original Message- > From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:dicklacara@;mac.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:22 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting > > > I watched last night and had the same reaction. > > AFAIK, Michael was using a 1Gig RAM processor and a 48Kb modem? > > But the choppiness was better than at DevCon where they had a DSL link. > > I have been told that there is a memory leak somewhere in the system -- > the choppiness gets worse over time. > > Every 10-15 minutes some one (usually me) would complain and they would > refresh the system (whatever that is), and quality would markedly > improve. > > I don't know if it is: Memory Leak, CPU speed, Bandwidth, RAM size, > Buffering, or what -- but this choppiness is the biggest negative to > the system, > > Once they get that resolved, I expect we will see enhancements in image > size & resolution and other features -- that's just technology. > > I certainly hope they get the choppiness fixed -- this could be a > fantastic solution to a lot of communication needs. > > It could change the world of presentations -- for both the presenters > and the audience. > > Dick > > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 07:29 AM, Dan Phillips wrote: > > > I watched the nycfug meeting last night using Flash Com and noticed > > that the > > audio and video were pretty choppy. While doing some internal testing > > of > > Flash Com in the office we have noticed the same kind of performance. > > Anyway > > else using this new feature and seeing the same issues? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Dan Phillips > > Express Technologies, Inc. > > dba HalfPriceHosting, CFXHosting and Invotion. > > www.HalfPriceHosting.com > > www.CFXHosting.com > > www.Invotion.com > > > > > > > > ~| 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
> I watched last night and had the same reaction. > > AFAIK, Michael was using a 1Gig RAM processor and a 48Kb modem? The laptop was the same (400mhz, 128 meg). The line was faster but we also set the connection speed to DSL rather than to LAN. Broadcasting over LAN seems to generate more of a browser problem than using DSL. And for just about any broadcasting need, DSL is more than sufficient as a setting. > But the choppiness was better than at DevCon where they had a DSL link. > > I have been told that there is a memory leak somewhere in the system -- > the choppiness gets worse over time. Looks to be the browser. > Every 10-15 minutes some one (usually me) would complain and they would > refresh the system (whatever that is), and quality would markedly > improve. > > I don't know if it is: Memory Leak, CPU speed, Bandwidth, RAM size, > Buffering, or what -- but this choppiness is the biggest negative to > the system, The task manager reported that the CPU for the browser was at 100% while the ram was small. What exactly this means will be revealed with some experimentation. > Once they get that resolved, I expect we will see enhancements in image > size & resolution and other features -- that's just technology. > > I certainly hope they get the choppiness fixed -- this could be a > fantastic solution to a lot of communication needs. > > It could change the world of presentations -- for both the presenters > and the audience. > > Dick > > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 07:29 AM, Dan Phillips wrote: > > > I watched the nycfug meeting last night using Flash Com and noticed > > that the > > audio and video were pretty choppy. While doing some internal testing > > of > > Flash Com in the office we have noticed the same kind of performance. > > Anyway > > else using this new feature and seeing the same issues? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Dan Phillips > > Express Technologies, Inc. > > dba HalfPriceHosting, CFXHosting and Invotion. > > www.HalfPriceHosting.com > > www.CFXHosting.com > > www.Invotion.com > > > > > > > ~| 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
The biggest problem with the audio-video was the browser. We were using IE to connect to the flashcom server and after 10-15 minutes of use (depending on text typed and all) we would need to refresh the browser. This worked on every occasion and after the refresh always went back up to something that people found acceptable. I've been told that you can generate a flash client for this rather than using the browser and will be testing it heavily today. I expect that this will deal with the choppiness. It may also be the hardware, but the fact that refreshing the browser brought the quality back to acceptable levels points to a software issue. I'll have a report on what we did, need to do and have tried out in the next FA. > I watched the nycfug meeting last night using Flash Com and noticed that the > audio and video were pretty choppy. While doing some internal testing of > Flash Com in the office we have noticed the same kind of performance. Anyway > else using this new feature and seeing the same issues? > > Thank you, > > Dan Phillips > Express Technologies, Inc. > dba HalfPriceHosting, CFXHosting and Invotion. > www.HalfPriceHosting.com > www.CFXHosting.com > www.Invotion.com > > > ~| 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
Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
On Wednesday, Nov 13, 2002, at 07:29 US/Pacific, Dan Phillips wrote: > I watched the nycfug meeting last night using Flash Com and noticed > that the > audio and video were pretty choppy. While doing some internal testing > of > Flash Com in the office we have noticed the same kind of performance. > Anyway > else using this new feature and seeing the same issues? 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
I also watched As more people logged in - the worse it got - giving me the impression that it was a bandwidth issue. After all, the server is in the Netherlands, the meeting was in NYC = Douglas White group Manager mailto:doug@;samcfug.org http://www.samcfug.org = - Original Message - From: "Dan Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:29 AM Subject: Flash Com and CFUG meeting | I watched the nycfug meeting last night using Flash Com and noticed that the | audio and video were pretty choppy. While doing some internal testing of | Flash Com in the office we have noticed the same kind of performance. Anyway | else using this new feature and seeing the same issues? | | Thank you, | | Dan Phillips | Express Technologies, Inc. | dba HalfPriceHosting, CFXHosting and Invotion. | www.HalfPriceHosting.com | www.CFXHosting.com | www.Invotion.com | | | ~| 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
i am pretty sure that this is an issue with the text chat component. it doesn't limit the amount of text that it can hold. the more it holds, the more CPU it requires. the solution is to change the component to only hold so much text. when i get a chance, i am going to write up some info on how to do this. also, just fyi, i noticed that we just released some updated components: -- http://www.macromedia.com/software/flashcom/download/components/> Changes (also in the ERRATA.txt inside the .zip): This document describes the bug fixes and enhancements that are included in this revision of the Communication Components. CLIENT-SIDE -The VideoRecord and VideoPlayback components have been added. Documentation for these components in the PDF that is enclosed with the communication components package. -The SimpleConnect component no longer has a memory leak on the client-side; previously, the memory leak occurred if you typed faster than 1 character every 10 milliseconds. -The Presenter Shared Object property of the AVPresence component has been removed. Flash Communication Server now sets the value property of the property automatically. You can use multiple instances of the AVPresence component in one application without having to set this property for each instance. SERVER-SIDE -The application.asc and framework.asc files have been modified to allow garbage collection for applications using components. -A new method, getClientID(client), has been added to the components framework. This method returns a unique ID for each client. The server-side scripts of the components provided have been updated to use this method. --- although i dont think the chat issue was addressed. mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: Dan Phillips [mailto:dphillips@;cfxhosting.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:31 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting > Importance: High > > > Thanks for the comments Dick. I was wondering is maybe > adjusting the image > and sound quality on the web cam would work as well. I will > be playing with > that myself over the next few days. > > I too noticed the 10-15 minute "bug" you mentioned. In our > office, it got > the the point where I could not only be on my cam, but on one > accross the > office as well because of images freezing. > > Audio by itself and video by itself seemed to be ok. Once we did both, > that's when things would slowly start to lag. > > -Original Message- > From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:dicklacara@;mac.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:22 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting > > > I watched last night and had the same reaction. > > AFAIK, Michael was using a 1Gig RAM processor and a 48Kb modem? > > But the choppiness was better than at DevCon where they had a > DSL link. > > I have been told that there is a memory leak somewhere in the > system -- > the choppiness gets worse over time. > > Every 10-15 minutes some one (usually me) would complain and > they would > refresh the system (whatever that is), and quality would markedly > improve. > > I don't know if it is: Memory Leak, CPU speed, Bandwidth, RAM size, > Buffering, or what -- but this choppiness is the biggest negative to > the system, > > Once they get that resolved, I expect we will see > enhancements in image > size & resolution and other features -- that's just technology. > > I certainly hope they get the choppiness fixed -- this could be a > fantastic solution to a lot of communication needs. > > It could change the world of presentations -- for both the presenters > and the audience. > > Dick > > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 07:29 AM, Dan Phillips wrote: > > > I watched the nycfug meeting last night using Flash Com and noticed > > that the > > audio and video were pretty choppy. While doing some > internal testing > > of > > Flash Com in the office we have noticed the same kind of > performance. > > Anyway > > else using this new feature and seeing the same issues? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Dan Phillips > > Express Technologies, Inc. > > dba HalfPriceHosting, CFXHosting and Invotion. > > www.HalfPriceHosting.com > > www.CFXHosting.com > > www.Invotion.com > > > > > > > > ~| 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
RE: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
Thanks for the comments Dick. I was wondering is maybe adjusting the image and sound quality on the web cam would work as well. I will be playing with that myself over the next few days. I too noticed the 10-15 minute "bug" you mentioned. In our office, it got the the point where I could not only be on my cam, but on one accross the office as well because of images freezing. Audio by itself and video by itself seemed to be ok. Once we did both, that's when things would slowly start to lag. -Original Message- From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:dicklacara@;mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:22 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting I watched last night and had the same reaction. AFAIK, Michael was using a 1Gig RAM processor and a 48Kb modem? But the choppiness was better than at DevCon where they had a DSL link. I have been told that there is a memory leak somewhere in the system -- the choppiness gets worse over time. Every 10-15 minutes some one (usually me) would complain and they would refresh the system (whatever that is), and quality would markedly improve. I don't know if it is: Memory Leak, CPU speed, Bandwidth, RAM size, Buffering, or what -- but this choppiness is the biggest negative to the system, Once they get that resolved, I expect we will see enhancements in image size & resolution and other features -- that's just technology. I certainly hope they get the choppiness fixed -- this could be a fantastic solution to a lot of communication needs. It could change the world of presentations -- for both the presenters and the audience. Dick On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 07:29 AM, Dan Phillips wrote: > I watched the nycfug meeting last night using Flash Com and noticed > that the > audio and video were pretty choppy. While doing some internal testing > of > Flash Com in the office we have noticed the same kind of performance. > Anyway > else using this new feature and seeing the same issues? > > Thank you, > > Dan Phillips > Express Technologies, Inc. > dba HalfPriceHosting, CFXHosting and Invotion. > www.HalfPriceHosting.com > www.CFXHosting.com > www.Invotion.com > > > ~| 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
Re: Flash Com and CFUG meeting
I watched last night and had the same reaction. AFAIK, Michael was using a 1Gig RAM processor and a 48Kb modem? But the choppiness was better than at DevCon where they had a DSL link. I have been told that there is a memory leak somewhere in the system -- the choppiness gets worse over time. Every 10-15 minutes some one (usually me) would complain and they would refresh the system (whatever that is), and quality would markedly improve. I don't know if it is: Memory Leak, CPU speed, Bandwidth, RAM size, Buffering, or what -- but this choppiness is the biggest negative to the system, Once they get that resolved, I expect we will see enhancements in image size & resolution and other features -- that's just technology. I certainly hope they get the choppiness fixed -- this could be a fantastic solution to a lot of communication needs. It could change the world of presentations -- for both the presenters and the audience. Dick On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 07:29 AM, Dan Phillips wrote: > I watched the nycfug meeting last night using Flash Com and noticed > that the > audio and video were pretty choppy. While doing some internal testing > of > Flash Com in the office we have noticed the same kind of performance. > Anyway > else using this new feature and seeing the same issues? > > Thank you, > > Dan Phillips > Express Technologies, Inc. > dba HalfPriceHosting, CFXHosting and Invotion. > www.HalfPriceHosting.com > www.CFXHosting.com > www.Invotion.com > > > ~| 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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Flash Com and CFUG meeting
I watched the nycfug meeting last night using Flash Com and noticed that the audio and video were pretty choppy. While doing some internal testing of Flash Com in the office we have noticed the same kind of performance. Anyway else using this new feature and seeing the same issues? Thank you, Dan Phillips Express Technologies, Inc. dba HalfPriceHosting, CFXHosting and Invotion. www.HalfPriceHosting.com www.CFXHosting.com www.Invotion.com ~| 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
