Anyone else seeing the courtney cam in fastforward? Does 2second+ per second. Look at the time at the top of the screen, also notice the way people walk. Had this problem from corporate lan at work and also from home on 128k jetstart. Barry
Fast-Forward nope., but a lot more jerkier than the original streaming MJPG streaming from Wellington. Still about the same amount of Bandwidth used (about 1Mbit viewing it) but its loosing a lot of the pictures randomly. All these problems I guess they are still working on fixing. See: http://www.spam.co.nz/video.jpg Thanks Craig Whitmore _____ From: Barry Murphy [mailto:barry(a)unix.co.nz] Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 1:34 PM To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [nznog] lotr webcam in fast forward? Anyone else seeing the courtney cam in fastforward? Does 2second+ per second. Look at the time at the top of the screen, also notice the way people walk. Had this problem from corporate lan at work and also from home on 128k jetstart. Barry
At 13:41 28/11/2003 +1300, Craig Whitmore wrote:
Fast-Forward nope., but a lot more jerkier than the original streaming MJPG streaming from Wellington. Still about the same amount of Bandwidth used (about 1Mbit viewing it) but its loosing a lot of the pictures randomly. All these problems I guess they are still working on fixing.
See: http://www.spam.co.nz/video.jpghttp://www.spam.co.nz/video.jpg
I see the same thing too. Seems to be rather slow and jerky considering its using nearly 1Mbit, at a guess I'd say I'm seeing 2 to 4 frames per second with quite a few dropped or incomplete frames like the one in Craig's snapshot, despite local measuring showing its downloading at nearly 1Mbit... the 300Kbit/sec streams from xtra's "broadband" site by comparision play smoothly and look pretty good despite using 1/3 of the bandwidth. Regards, Simon
I see somewhat jerky video, about 2 - 3 seconds between frames, but always get a complete pic as opposed to the previous poster who got some incomplete frames. Looks good though, especially since my link is very busy at present and is a skinny pipe... Is the camera slightly out of focus, or is it a bit misty in Wellywood today? I could have sworn that Xtra had an advert up where the CityLink hoarding is now placed too :-) traceroute to palantir.citylink.co.nz (202.7.4.7), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 tui (202.27.208.254) 3.774 ms 3.825 ms 3.096 ms 2 210.54.59.57 (210.54.59.57) 30.386 ms 38.631 ms 38.291 ms 3 210.55.12.252 (210.55.12.252) 37.331 ms 17.360 ms 69.877 ms 4 fe0-0-0.dom-vrf.orcon.net.nz (210.55.12.254) 77.582 ms 58.731 ms 45.759 ms 5 cl-anycast.ape.net.nz (192.203.154.5) 39.937 ms 53.701 ms 55.559 ms 6 palantir.citylink.co.nz (202.7.4.7) 41.932 ms 36.061 ms 43.397 ms Keith Davidson
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 03:18:05PM +1300, Simon Byrnand said:
At 13:41 28/11/2003 +1300, Craig Whitmore wrote:
Fast-Forward nope., but a lot more jerkier than the original streaming MJPG streaming from Wellington. Still about the same amount of Bandwidth used (about 1Mbit viewing it) but its loosing a lot of the pictures randomly. All these problems I guess they are still working on fixing.
Yup. There's a jpeg frame corruption problem somewhere in the stream FTP from the master server (webcam.citylink.co.nz) out to the anycast servers. We've bodged the copy so that it drops the bung frames, which eases the nasty grey flashing in IE, but it does make the motion jerky. I'm pretty confidant that the race will be sorted out today, and we'll be back to full frame rates soon (at least in Akld and Wgtn - out of NZ users will almost certainly still have a reduced frame rate).
See: http://www.spam.co.nz/video.jpghttp://www.spam.co.nz/video.jpg
I see the same thing too. Seems to be rather slow and jerky considering its using nearly 1Mbit, at a guess I'd say I'm seeing 2 to 4 frames per second with quite a few dropped or incomplete frames like the one in Craig's snapshot, despite local measuring showing its downloading at nearly 1Mbit... the 300Kbit/sec streams from xtra's "broadband" site by comparision play smoothly and look pretty good despite using 1/3 of the bandwidth.
Yup. That's joy of Axis webcams using motion jpeg versus proper mpeg. Motion jpeg is horribly inefficient, as it's basically standard jpeg frames mashed together with some mime glue, so it can't do frame to frame compression tricks. On the upside, it's supported directly by most any browser, and is pretty easy to implement (all you need is an FTP server and gob loads of bandwidth). There'll be MMS streams of the host broadcast on the day, they'll be a lot smoother than the cameras. They do require a significantly more backend infrastructure to get going (think van loads of encoding PC's and generators :-). Cheers Si
participants (5)
-
Barry Murphy -
Craig Whitmore -
Keith Davidson -
Simon Blake -
Simon Byrnand