1. Video Streaming
© Nanda Ganesan, Ph.D.

2. Video Streaming Video Streaming Objective Streaming Advantages
Video Streaming Architecture
Compression and Decompression-codec
MPEG 1-4 Introduction
Major Products and Features Comparison

3. Video Streaming Objective
The object is to overcome the negative effects of physical distance and network technology limitation.

4. Streaming Advantages Reduce setup time
Reduction in client storage requirement
Video can be viewed in real time
Transmission signals over low bandwidth facilities

5. Video Streaming Architecture
Content Creation/Capture
Content Management
Content Formatting (Compression)
Delivery
Distribution
Presentation (Viewing)
View Control

6. Video Capture Converting analog to video signals
A special video capture card to convert the analog signals to digital form and compresses the data.
Also digital video devices that can capture images and transfer to a computer

7. Content Management Critical in video server
The purpose including create, collect, catalog, organize, store, and access to massive multimedia information database

8. Video Input Formats AVI ActiveMovie Cinepak Indeo motion-JPEG MPEG
QuickTime
RealVideo
Video for Windows
XGA

9. Video Formats AVI & ASF Developed by Microsoft
AVI (Audio Video Interleaved)
- limited to 320x240 resolution
- 30 frames per second
ASF (Advanced Streaming Format)
- Has been submitted to ISO for standardization
- Expected to replace AVI format

10. Standard Window Size
320X240
640X480

11. Frame Rates 4-6 fps 11-14 fps 30 fps
Absolute minimum for video conferencing
11-14 fps
The norm for video conferencing
30 fps
Full motion video

12. Codec (Compressor/Decompressor)
Coding techniques to compress video data
The newest codec change their sampling rate as they run
Choice of codec is the biggest factor to determine the bandwidth needed to connect the server and receive content
Many of the codecs follow international standards

13. Content Compression MPEG (A working group of ISO)
- The most common standard for video
compression and file formats
- Generally produce better quality video than other
formats
- High compression rate
- MPEG1, MPEG2, MPEG3 and MPEG4

14. MPEG-1
MPEG-1 was designed for coding progressive video at a transmission rate of about million bits per second.
It was designed specifically for Video-CD and CD-i media.
MPEG-1 audio layer-3 (MP3) has also evolved from early MPEG work.

15. MPEG-2
MPEG-2 was designed for coding interlaced images at transmission rates above 4 million bits per second.
MPEG-2 is used for digital TV broadcast and
DVD.
An MPEG-2 player can handle MPEG-1 data as well.

16. MPEG-3
A proposed MPEG-3 standard, intended for High Definition TV (HDTV), was merged with the MPEG-2 standard when it became apparent that the MPEG-2 standard met the HDTV requirements.

17. MPEG-4
An MPEG-4 standard is in the final stages of development and release.
It is a much more ambitious standard and addresses speech and video synthesis, fractal geometry, computer visualization, and an artificial intelligence (AI) approach to reconstructing images.

18. Video Streaming Standards
H.261
H.263
MPEG1
MPEG2
MPEG4

19. H.261
H.261 is use for teleconferencing applications and is intended for carrying video over ISDN.
H.261 needs substantially less CPU power for real-time encoding than MPEG.
H.261 uses constant-bit-rate encoding.

20. H.263 H.263 is design for low bitrate communication.
H.263 expected to be use for wide range of bitrate and expected to replace H.261.
H.263 supports 5 resolutions, able to compete with MPEG standards.

21. TCP Transmission Control Protocol
Protocol used for reliable document transfer
HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) uses TCP as the protocol for reliable document transfer.
Unsuitable for video and audio because:
Imposes flow control
Unnecessary Message delivery

22. UDP User Datagram Protocol
UDP is the alternative to TCP.
UDP forsakes TCP's error correction and allows packets to drop out if they're late or damaged.
Access Problems (firewalls).

23. Some Real-Time Transmission Related Protocols
RTP
VDP
RTSP
RSVP

24. Major Products Microsoft Windows Media Technologies
RealSystem G2

25. Comparison WMT –vs- RealSystem G2
Head to head comparison
Feature Comparison
More Information

26. Comparison WMT –vs- RealSystem G2
Cost Analysis
- Prepared by Approach, Inc.,
Key findings
- Both streaming products results in positive
returns on investment
- Microsoft solution is more economical than the
RealNetwork solution
Download in Word format

27. Audio Streaming Architecture
Creating Audio File
Demonstration of Streaming Software
Demo of Streaming Process
Windows Media Encoder
RealProducer 7 Basic
Play the Audio File