Community Page
- www.rev2.org/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Try these sites on both search engines: http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/index.html textsfromlastnight.com similarsites.com similar-site.com
- Nice list.I can help you with translation of some of them <A href="http://www.web-translations.com/Languages/spanish_translation.html/">Spanish Translation</A>
- Is Google Apps still free? I see they have a free trial but it sounds like you have to pay $50 a year after that...
- @Correct Theory After looking at both sites, www.similarsite.com seems to be so much better both in looks and in the results it brings I think what Craig said "it’s not a fly-by-night newbie...
- Thanks a lot for sharing
Jump to original thread »
http://www.rev2.org/2007/04/15/ustreamtv-enables-mass-live-streaming-through-webcam/
Started by Sid Yadav · 10 months ago
2 years ago
It also supports live streams and a live streaming encoder is available from Adobe Labs. Even though the player can support direct streams, I think there's a good reason why there aren't many out there. Still, thanks for the heads up! Great blog :)
2 years ago
By the way, did you notice this: www.yourtrumanshow.com? Know anything about them?
James
.
2 years ago
That's the thing -- and that's exactly why, before we see a boom in user-generated content with this kind of live streaming (if we do), we're going to be watching only things we're familiar with -- concerts, events, conferences, etc. etc. And this kind of technology is excellent for that -- much better than the 'watch the U2 concert I taped 3 months ago on YouTube' experience.
James,
While there will be some 'bandwidth wastage,' for example if I create and stream a show for 6 hours striaght and with only 6 viewers, you have to remember Ustream.tv is paying for two different sides of the bandwidth. When footage comes in, they pay to download it -- which they will be for any possible video that ever gets streamed -- and then they pay to upload/stream it -- that is, in respect to the amount of viewers a video has. For something popular, that'll be huge. I can't imagine though, for the rest of the videos with 4 or 5 viewers they'll be paying too much. If we say in total that'll be 20kb/s (3fps, low quality?) that will result in about 72mb/hour -- still pretty managable. Of course, for the ones with 200 or 300 viewers, that'll be more like 500mb/hour (ouch!).
2 years ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago