self-hosted, high quality video podcast. How?

[superboyac]

I've come back around to toying with this idea.  I need help thinking through the technical details.  The first thread I did on this last year is here:
http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=29624.50

I know that the online hosts like ustream are very good, very easy to use, sign up and forget it.  But...as usual, I want to know how to setup an independent solution.

Bandwidth:
Any bandwidth experts?  Please describe the bandwidth requirements needed.  I'm almost certain that a typical residential ISP can't provide the bandwidth.  Even the best residential services like FIOS only offer about 5 Mbps (~600 kilo-BYTES per sec) which is not enough for high quality video streaming.  So I'm assuming, bare minimum, I need a company to host the server for me.  But I want to know how to judge whether a host can provide the bandwidth I want.  For example, let's say I have a video podcast that 30 people are tuning in to.  Which companies can provide that best bang for the buck?  I already use a company for websites, and the easiest thing would be to upgrade the service to make up for the necessary bandwidth.  Then, I would compare that price to the price of actual hosted podcast sites.  My guess is that the ustream pro services (which are crazy expensive....like $200-400/month) are still more expensive.

Once I've figure that part out, then I will have to search for the best portable setup for this.  OS, software, etc.

[rgdot]

mp3 can be as low as 128kbps, a one hour one will be 56MB (for the 128, instead of for example 192 or 256), depending on number of listeners one calculate bandwidth

These days bandwidth is cheap, even some of those hosts who offered "unlimited" but made you wary of the claim are more relaxed about it.

[superboyac]

I found this on another forum:

704x480 x60 != 4x 704x480 x15

If you have 4 different camera, you have 4 different video stream.
1. calculate avg bandwith to 1 camera:
-codec? mpg2, mpg4, wmv, x264, other?
-keyframes every 10-15-20-30 frame?
Sample video 720x404 x24 700-2600kbps included audio channel
If your camera send audio+video 704x480 x15, and your video picture not change a lot... 700-1200 kbps = 100-150KB/s (good quality)

2. calculate upload speed and server download speed requirement:
Upload bandwidth: 150KB/s / camera => 4 camera 600KB/s => 6-7 megabit/s
Server download bandwidth: 30 users x 150KB/s (1 camera) = 4500KB/s ~ 50 megabit/s => 4 cameras/30 users ~ 200Mbit/s (peek time)
Avg speed 20Mbps.

3. calculate monthly traffic:
Avg 3 users and 4 camera use 12 hours each day, and 5 days per week:
3 users X 4*150KB X 4weeks*5days*12hour*60minutes*60seconds (monthly bandwidth usage)= 1555200000KB ~ 1518750MB ~ 1484GB / month ~ 1.5TB/mo
If you calculate your packet header, and your upload stream, other bandwidth...

3-5TB/mo enough
Avg bandwidth 20Mbps
Maximum bandwidth 30 users 4 cameras = 200Mbps


I think gigabit network speed with 5TB monthly traffic is enough.

I can probably use a similar formula (and post later).  My goal is to have a portable setup to be easily used with small audiences (less than 50 people, maybe even 10).

I don't know if this is a valid question, but even if a host claims to provide a certain amount of monthly traffic and bandwidth speed (5TB/month, 20Mbps), do I also have to worry about additional quality/reliability concerns?  And what do I need to ask them or know to ensure myself that it will work?  Let's say the specs are more than enough, but all of a sudden 100 people join and that screws something up because of some technical connectivity issue, blah blah.

[rgdot]

I just realized I replied regarding audio 

I guess the answer to bandwidth is in the post you quoted.

You should ask hosts if they allow and support video podcasts, that takes care of the initial step. The looking at quality and reliability is by searching places like webhostingtalk for reviews on the hosts, not necessarily by asking the hosts themselves.

[Renegade]

Why don't you just upload to YouTube? It's pretty darn hard to beat their CDN for video. Or Vimeo? They're also excellent.

If you want to gain attention, YouTube is the way to go.

[superboyac]

I just learned about an open source video streaming software called Open Broadcasting Software.  I'll check it out later.

Ren, I'm not trying to get exposure or upload anything right now.  I'm exploring the video streaming technology and trying to see how much of it can be done independently, how much it costs, how does it compare to hosted (easier) solutions.

It may very well turn out that it's just way easier to use ustream or stageit or something like that.  But the way I see it, I should be able to do it myself.  I have all the equipment for sure, the software is either free or relatively cheap.  The thing I'd need services for is bandwidth if there were more than a few people watching, which probably means a little bit more expensive webhost plan.  The other additional problem may be trying to do things like embedding a live cast in facebook or youtube.  First thing I'd try is to have a blank webpage with just a video stream in it, and I'll expand from there.

[Renegade]

So, you're interested in live streaming primarily? The title led me to believe something different.

[superboyac]

So, you're interested in live streaming primarily? The title led me to believe something different.

Yes exactly.  I want to see how "good" I can make it without any services or minimal services from others.  Just live.

Once recorded, there are zillions of options, no big deal.  I already have youtube channels, vimeo channels, websites, etc.  But to do something live is another dimension.

[Renegade]

YouTube does have some kind of live streaming. Every now and then I see some rock concert or something streamed live on it. You might want to check that. Not sure how it works though.

[40hz]

I don't know how ambitious you are, but Jupiter Broadcasting (producers of the Linux Action Show, CodeSnap, Unfilter, etc.) like these guys a lot. I'm a fairly regular watcher of their shows and I have to admit the quality and speed of the video stream coming through this new supplier is vastly superior to anything they had before. It even works great streaming to an iPhone on a 3G network.

I don't know how pricing works in this market. But from what I looked at, they seemed quite reasonable. They also have a comparison of their prices to about a dozen other streaming media services you can look at.

I really liked that opening line - Consider this: "You don't get what you pay for, you get what you get".

So true...so true.

Price Comparisons

Consider this: "You don't get what you pay for, you get what you get". Below you will find tables comparing our rates to those of our major competitors, as well as some notes explaining the differences between their service and ours. Tweet

   BrightSign
   Streamzilla
   UStream
   BrightCove
   LimeLight
   Wistia
   Dacast
   Amazon CloudFront and S3
   Rackspace CloudFiles
   CacheFly
   SoftLayer
   EdgeCast
   Voxel VoxCAST
   MaxCDN
   Microsoft Azure CDN

Might be worth checking out.

[superboyac]

I don't know how ambitious you are, but Jupiter Broadcasting (producers of the Linux Action Show, CodeSnap, Unfilter, etc.) like these guys a lot. I'm a fairly regular watcher of their shows and I have to admit the quality and speed of the video stream coming through this new supplier is vastly superior to anything they had before. It even works great streaming to an iPhone on a 3G network.

This looks like a great suggestion, I would have never come across it.  I'm completely open to using services, I just am very wary of most popular ones because they tend to have more ads, are more expensive, and make me feel duped.

I was just looking at their pricing schemes:
https://www.scaleengine.com/pricing/

I like it a lot, very fair, very flexible.  This may be the one.

[superboyac]

Here's a question:
For that video content delivery service, the maximum video bitrate in the pricing calculator is 3072 kbps.  Now, from what I understand, 1080p streaming requires at least 10Mbps.  I'm just going strictly by the bytes per second of video for that resolution.  SO I'm not understanding something about compression as it relates to streaming.  How can a company deliver 1080p with just 3Mbps?  But ultimately, I want to know how the kbps that I am paying for ends up looking like.  So...

How many kbps do I need to pay for to get:
480p?
720p?
1080p?

because obviously it's not the same as the kbps calculated for a normal 1080p file, which is a lot more than most isp's even provide residentially, yet all these people are able to stream 720p and 1080p.

[Vurbal]

Here's a question:
For that video content delivery service, the maximum video bitrate in the pricing calculator is 3072 kbps.  Now, from what I understand, 1080p streaming requires at least 10Mbps.  I'm just going strictly by the bytes per second of video for that resolution.  SO I'm not understanding something about compression as it relates to streaming.  How can a company deliver 1080p with just 3Mbps?  But ultimately, I want to know how the kbps that I am paying for ends up looking like.  So...

How many kbps do I need to pay for to get:
480p?
720p?
1080p?

because obviously it's not the same as the kbps calculated for a normal 1080p file, which is a lot more than most isp's even provide residentially, yet all these people are able to stream 720p and 1080p.

I don't have time to answer with anything approaching the level of detail this discussion deserves ATM so for the moment I'll be shockingly brief. 

As long as there isn't a lot of motion to encode and you don't have to meet a standard like Blu-ray with severe restrictions on GOP length you can actually encode extremely high quality 1080p H.264 at extremely low bitrates. Screen captures from normal computer activity, typically the lowest complexity video you'll run across, can actually end up with a lower bitrate than CD Audio. Presumably you're talking about regular live video (talking heads or the like) which would be less compressible but if you use a good camera still not horrible.

The really tricky part is the streaming bit because it's a lot trickier than encoding for physical media. Essentially it comes down mostly to buffer calculations and understanding the streams and server technology involved. I recommend a trip over to the Doom9 forums where you can pick the brains of some of the best minds in digital video.

http://forum.doom9.org/forumdisplay.php?f=77

[Renegade]

This is sort of off-topic (i.e. not about bandwidth for streaming), but on-topic for video podcasting:

http://www.corbettreport.com/episode-283-solutions-make-your-own-media/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t2yh1fuVfY

Show notes minus embedded links

Documentation

APPerspective.net
Time Reference: 01:39

Blogger.com
Time Reference: 05:30

WordPress.com
Time Reference: 05:49

Desmogblog lies about Climategate.tv
Time Reference: 07:00

Free teleprompter software
Time Reference: 10:53

Final Cut Pro
Time Reference: 19:22

Audacity
Time Reference: 20:12

Levelator
Time Reference: 20:39

HV30
Time Reference: 21:39

EOS 70D
Time Reference: 22:03

Zoom H6
Time Reference: 23:00

AT803 Omnidirectional Condenser Lavalier Microphone
Time Reference: 23:13

Shure SM58
Time Reference: 23:29

JuicedLink
Time Reference: 24:08

“Do It Yourself” Original song by David C Russell
Time Reference: 49:28

[superboyac]

Here's a question:
For that video content delivery service, the maximum video bitrate in the pricing calculator is 3072 kbps.  Now, from what I understand, 1080p streaming requires at least 10Mbps.  I'm just going strictly by the bytes per second of video for that resolution.  SO I'm not understanding something about compression as it relates to streaming.  How can a company deliver 1080p with just 3Mbps?  But ultimately, I want to know how the kbps that I am paying for ends up looking like.  So...

How many kbps do I need to pay for to get:
480p?
720p?
1080p?

because obviously it's not the same as the kbps calculated for a normal 1080p file, which is a lot more than most isp's even provide residentially, yet all these people are able to stream 720p and 1080p.

I don't have time to answer with anything approaching the level of detail this discussion deserves ATM so for the moment I'll be shockingly brief. 

As long as there isn't a lot of motion to encode and you don't have to meet a standard like Blu-ray with severe restrictions on GOP length you can actually encode extremely high quality 1080p H.264 at extremely low bitrates. Screen captures from normal computer activity, typically the lowest complexity video you'll run across, can actually end up with a lower bitrate than CD Audio. Presumably you're talking about regular live video (talking heads or the like) which would be less compressible but if you use a good camera still not horrible.

The really tricky part is the streaming bit because it's a lot trickier than encoding for physical media. Essentially it comes down mostly to buffer calculations and understanding the streams and server technology involved. I recommend a trip over to the Doom9 forums where you can pick the brains of some of the best minds in digital video.

http://forum.doom9.org/forumdisplay.php?f=77

That's kind of what I was assuming.  I thought the buffers had something do do with getting around bandwidth issues.  I don't know how it translates calculation-wise...the question is still "How much kbps do I need?"

[Vurbal]

That's kind of what I was assuming.  I thought the buffers had something do do with getting around bandwidth issues.  I don't know how it translates calculation-wise...the question is still "How much kbps do I need?"

Unfortunately the only good answer based on the information you're able to provide right now would appear to be, "It depends."

If you want to be realistic the better question to ask is what resolution and quality combination is viable within the restrictions imposed by your recording equipment/conditions and the bandwidth you can afford? Under optimal conditions 3Mbps for 1080p podcasts is entirely reasonable. Presumably optimal isn't an option. Until you know just how far off you're looking at you haven't really even formulated a question yet.

It seems like you have a pretty good idea about the content so that's a start. Next you should probably focus on the camera and lighting.

Do you have a camera already? If not do you have any in mind? If not what kind of money are you willing and able to spend?

Do you have an environment available with a good backdrop and lighting conditions? How about just the backdrop and a budget for some simple lighting? One trick I learned while working as a musician many moons ago was the creative application of cheap track lighting. Add in some dimmer switches and DIY lighting gels and you can manage surprisingly good quality for not too much money.

And don't forget to figure audio into your budget. There are a lot of options, depending of course on the physical constraints of the recording environment. This isn't directly relevant to answering your question but if you have a starting budget make sure to figure in something for microphones. Fortunately you can get surprisingly good results for not too much money. The CAD Audio U1 podcasting mike I use cost me $25. Eventually I want better but it's a great starting point.