|
|
 |
RE: FN-FORUM Live (Webcast) Video Streaming
date posted 27th June 2002 13:24
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C21DDE.44B80110
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
thanks for that - I may get back to you if /m when things firm up.
Andrew
_________________________
Andrew Wilson Productions
Web Design & Hosting - Print design
South Lanarkshire, Scotland
tel: 01899 220 300
mob: 07785 248 554
web: www.awp.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL REMOVED]
[EMAIL REMOVED] Behalf Of Felix Ritchie
Sent: 27 June 2002 12:56
To: [EMAIL REMOVED]
Subject: RE: FN-FORUM Live (Webcast) Video Streaming
Hi Andrew,
Audience location doesn't matter unless you have an enormous audience and
need edge-delivery (choosing the distributed server located closest to you).
Or if you are targeting a low-bandwidth viewer (in Poland at Easter I was
running a webcast over a 14kbps modem).
Hosting costs are charged on a mix of bandwidth or bandwidth/users. Most
companies will offer usage bands. Some are tight and some can be flexible
upwards - big companies are more flexible because their costs have gone on
the infrastructure and they need to cover their marginal costs. I can give
you a rough idea of costs if you tell me the sort of end user market. I
don't imagine prices are going to go up much - if anything, there is a lot
of new capacity coming on stream which should drive down prices over the
next couple of years.
Lots of places will do up to 100 simultaneous users for a relatively small
amount. 100 is a popular number because it's the smallest RealServer which
can be chained to other servers. Hence, it's a good way for companies to
offer unlimited users when they only have a small capacity themselves.
However, be careful - some of these are offering shared services ie 100
streams for you and anyone else on their network.
Video is more expensive both to do and to host. Think about whether video
will really add to the event - is it just a talking head? You can improve
the user experience in other ways - for example, if the presenter is showing
slides, get them in advance, integrate them into the web page, and get
someone at the event to change slides as necessary (remembering streaming
lag). This is far more effective then trying to video someone in front of an
OHP.
Good news is that you only need to worry about bandwidth from your PC to
the server, so if you're using a professional conference venue or an
academic setting that shouldn't be a concern. If you are concerned about
failures of the stream/equipment then have dummy computers/cameras/mikes
standing by. It's the easiest way to get redundancy and you don't have any
time to reboot machines etc during a live broadcast.
If you archive the live broadcast then you can increase your ROI
substantially: you've already done the work, you've got the website setup,
and your peak demand for archive viewing will be much much lower; but you've
now got something extra to up on any post-conference website. You can also
link in presenter clips, website, presentation graphics etc to reproduce any
presentation, making it much more than a talking head.
If you can't run to a live broadcast, then consider just archiving. It can
be cost-effective where webcasting isn't, and it's rather less stressful. If
necessary you can have archives up within minutes of the presenter sitting
down, although synchronised presentations could take rather longer.
Hope this helps.
Felix
I'm working on a large project - website / print design etc for a large
event in Edinburgh in Autumn 2003. There is talk of web casting one of
the
events - live. Is this possible within a reasonable budget - or would
it
cost the earth? Audience would be unknown size but global.
Thanks for any info you can provide.
Andrew
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 13/06/2002
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C21DDE.44B80110
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
thanks=20
for that - I may get back to you if /m when things firm =
up.
Andrew_________________________Andrew Wilson=20
ProductionsWeb Design & Hosting - Print designSouth =
Lanarkshire,=20
Scotlandtel: 01899 220 300mob: 07785 248 554web:=20
www.awp.co.uk
-----Original Message-----From:=20
[EMAIL REMOVED]
[EMAIL REMOVED] Behalf Of Felix=20
RitchieSent: 27 June 2002 12:56To:=20
[EMAIL REMOVED] RE: FN-FORUM Live =
(Webcast)=20
Video StreamingHi Andrew,Audience =
location=20
doesn't matter unless you have an enormous audience and need =
edge-delivery=20
(choosing the distributed server located closest to you). Or if you =
are=20
targeting a low-bandwidth viewer (in Poland at Easter I was running a =
webcast=20
over a 14kbps modem).Hosting costs are charged on a mix of =
bandwidth=20
or bandwidth/users. Most companies will offer usage bands. Some are =
tight and=20
some can be flexible upwards - big companies are more flexible because =
their=20
costs have gone on the infrastructure and they need to cover their =
marginal=20
costs. I can give you a rough idea of costs if you tell me the sort of =
end=20
user market. I don't imagine prices are going to go up much - if =
anything,=20
there is a lot of new capacity coming on stream which should drive =
down prices=20
over the next couple of years.Lots of places will do up to 100 =
simultaneous users for a relatively small amount. 100 is a popular =
number=20
because it's the smallest RealServer which can be chained to other =
servers.=20
Hence, it's a good way for companies to offer unlimited users when =
they only=20
have a small capacity themselves. However, be careful - some of these =
are=20
offering shared services ie 100 streams for you and =
anyone else=20
on their network.Video is more expensive both to do and to =
host. Think=20
about whether video will really add to the event - is it just a =
talking head?=20
You can improve the user experience in other ways - for example, if =
the=20
presenter is showing slides, get them in advance, integrate them into =
the web=20
page, and get someone at the event to change slides as necessary =
(remembering streaming lag). This is far more effective then trying to =
video=20
someone in front of an OHP.Good news is that you only need to =
worry=20
about bandwidth from your PC to the server, so if you're using a =
professional=20
conference venue or an academic setting that shouldn't be a concern. =
If you=20
are concerned about failures of the stream/equipment then have dummy=20
computers/cameras/mikes standing by. It's the easiest way to get =
redundancy=20
and you don't have any time to reboot machines etc during a live=20
broadcast.If you archive the live broadcast then you can =
increase your=20
ROI substantially: you've already done the work, you've got the =
website setup,=20
and your peak demand for archive viewing will be much much lower; but =
you've=20
now got something extra to up on any post-conference website. You can =
also=20
link in presenter clips, website, presentation graphics etc to =
reproduce any=20
presentation, making it much more than a talking head.If you =
can't run=20
to a live broadcast, then consider just archiving. It can be =
cost-effective=20
where webcasting isn't, and it's rather less stressful. If necessary =
you can=20
have archives up within minutes of the presenter sitting down, =
although=20
synchronised presentations could take rather longer.Hope this=20
helps.Felix
I'm working on a large =
project -=20
website / print design etc for a largeevent in Edinburgh in =
Autumn 2003.=20
There is talk of web casting one of theevents - live. Is =
this=20
possible within a reasonable budget - or would itcost the =
earth? =20
Audience would be unknown size but global.Thanks for any =
info you=20
can provide.Andrew
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C21DDE.44B80110--
|
|
|
