[Liverpool] Linux CCTV
Ste
ste at enzy.me.uk
Thu Nov 4 13:07:12 UTC 2010
On 04/11/2010 12:50, Sebastian wrote:
> I found the following page useful to work out my options for
> streaming. If you look under the second section - "Output method /
> muxer matrix" - under the HTTP column - you will see your choices:
>
> http://www.videolan.org/streaming-features.html
>
> Once you choose your encapsulation, (TS/ASF/PS etc.) - on the same
> page you can work out your codec options.
>
> Keep in mind that mjpeg is an inefficient format (in terms of
> bandwidth). In terms of codec - mpeg4 with h264 seems to be the
> preferred option nowadays. You will just have to choose your
> encapsulation/container.
>
> One day maybe the Google open-sourced VP8/WebM codec will be the thing
> to use - but as the browser support is minimal at the moment - I'm
> afraid it doesn't seem like a viable option just now.
>
> Then again - if you use VLC or some other player on the client (and
> not a web browser) - things are a bit different then. I think the
> current VLC already has WebM support.
>
> Sebastian
Cheers for that - sounds interesting. I certainly wouldn't be adverse to
making a modern browser a requirement to view the stream. On the grand
scale of things, it certainly doesn't seem like too much to ask. Doesn't
Chrome support h.264 out-the-box these days?
The only other thing I'd need is a 4-up or 6-up or 8-up display (that
is, 4, 6 or 8 feeds on the screen at once) rather than cycling through
each feed every few seconds. Off the top of my head, I can think of two
ways of doing this:
a) Have the CCTV box encode an extra stream which is effectively
generated from all the other streams in a grid pattern, and just stream
that feed over HTTP or RTP or whatever, or b) have the CCTV box serve up
an html5 web page containing 4, 6 or 8 seperate <video> tags, with each
one showing a stream from a different camera.
There are pros and cons to both, I suppose!
Ste
More information about the Liverpool
mailing list