analog video stream



  • So these are the stream settings I can find in OBS (nothing listed for a local stream)

    0_1479849041560_2016-11-22_16-08-51.png

    Now this doesn't mean you couldn't output to a local streaming server (but this adds complexity and cost)



  • @stacksofplates said in analog video stream:

    I would stay away from IP cameras. Use a real camera with a real mic, or its going to sound like garbled mush. It shard enough to get good sounding sanctuaries let alone using a junk camera/ mic to record with.

    Or just put the microphone on the stage and feed that in. An IP mic would work just as well.



  • Of course there are people who setup their own RTMP systems to capture and broadcast the stream.

    But this goes away from the direction of simple, click and go.



  • How far apart are the sanctuary and places they want the feed?





  • @scottalanmiller said in analog video stream:

    http://www.tp-link.com/us/faq-304.html

    A wonderfully simple approach to the problem. Just need a web browser. I wonder if there is a time out that needs to be watched out for.



  • @stacksofplates Can you give me an example of a real camera?



  • @DustinB3403 said in analog video stream:

    @stacksofplates said in analog video stream:

    I would stay away from IP cameras. Use a real camera with a real mic, or its going to sound like garbled mush. It shard enough to get good sounding sanctuaries let alone using a junk camera/ mic to record with.

    Or just put the microphone on the stage and feed that in. An IP mic would work just as well.

    On stage would be really hard to do because you can't get the full range of everything, and if you directly feed in the aux from the mixer you will pick up every pop and hum and off tone person.



  • THe audio is definitely a totally different thing. You don't just record anything from a simple camera.



  • @stacksofplates said in analog video stream:

    @DustinB3403 said in analog video stream:

    @stacksofplates said in analog video stream:

    I would stay away from IP cameras. Use a real camera with a real mic, or its going to sound like garbled mush. It shard enough to get good sounding sanctuaries let alone using a junk camera/ mic to record with.

    Or just put the microphone on the stage and feed that in. An IP mic would work just as well.

    On stage would be really hard to do because you can't get the full range of everything, and if you directly feed in the aux from the mixer you will pick up every pop and hum and off tone person.

    True... but that is where mic guards come in and audio software. If the end goal is to broadcast the sermon to the audience in different parts of the church than audio will have to be scarified a bit without going to audio studio production types of solutions.

    Which is outside of the scope and budget for the project.



  • @Mike-Davis said in analog video stream:

    @stacksofplates Can you give me an example of a real camera?

    Canon EOS or Nikon D3100, something not expensive but you can actually get good video with, esp with optical zoom.


  • Banned

    @stacksofplates said in analog video stream:

    @DustinB3403 said in analog video stream:

    @stacksofplates said in analog video stream:

    I would stay away from IP cameras. Use a real camera with a real mic, or its going to sound like garbled mush. It shard enough to get good sounding sanctuaries let alone using a junk camera/ mic to record with.

    Or just put the microphone on the stage and feed that in. An IP mic would work just as well.

    On stage would be really hard to do because you can't get the full range of everything, and if you directly feed in the aux from the mixer you will pick up every pop and hum and off tone person.

    Yup you need a sub-mix (digital boards can do this as a matrix, Send etc, analog would have to use an aux mix) but you need an audience mic or two to mix in with it... but they must be delayed based on placement from the speakers



  • @stacksofplates said in analog video stream:

    @Mike-Davis said in analog video stream:

    @stacksofplates Can you give me an example of a real camera?

    Canon EOS or Nikon D3100, something not expensive but you can actually get good video with, esp with optical zoom.

    These are not the type of camera needed . . . .



  • I can probably grab audio from the sound board. It looks like a computer will be involved one way or another, so it will probably be in the sound booth anyways.


  • Banned

    Personally I'd recomend getting a used Sony FS100 or a Panasonic HMC150 used. connecting up HDMI out and sending that over a long HDMI or CAT6 to HDMI system to the TV.


  • Banned

    and if they have money to blow:

    http://www.vaddio.com/category/live-production-solutions

    http://www.vaddio.com/category/vaddio-hd-ptz-cameras

    but you will never get the same motion with a PTZ as you will a real camera. They look robotic and fake.



  • @DustinB3403 said in analog video stream:

    @stacksofplates said in analog video stream:

    @Mike-Davis said in analog video stream:

    @stacksofplates Can you give me an example of a real camera?

    Canon EOS or Nikon D3100, something not expensive but you can actually get good video with, esp with optical zoom.

    These are not the type of camera needed . . . .

    Many places use them and they are fine.



  • @Jason said in analog video stream:

    Personally I'd recomend getting a used Sony FS100 or a Panasonic HMC150 used. connecting up HDMI out and sending that over a long HDMI or CAT6 to HDMI system to the TV.

    Sadly, this is sounding like the simpliest solution at this time.



  • @Dashrender said in analog video stream:

    @Jason said in analog video stream:

    Personally I'd recomend getting a used Sony FS100 or a Panasonic HMC150 used. connecting up HDMI out and sending that over a long HDMI or CAT6 to HDMI system to the TV.

    Sadly, this is sounding like the simpliest solution at this time.

    Its for a church so most likely all ran by volunteers, the simpler it is the better.



  • @brianlittlejohn said in analog video stream:

    @Dashrender said in analog video stream:

    @Jason said in analog video stream:

    Personally I'd recomend getting a used Sony FS100 or a Panasonic HMC150 used. connecting up HDMI out and sending that over a long HDMI or CAT6 to HDMI system to the TV.

    Sadly, this is sounding like the simpliest solution at this time.

    Its for a church so most likely all ran by volunteers, the simpler it is the better.

    It's just that it's so limited - thinking in old terms. How many times have you solved a problem like this only to be asked to make a podcast out of the stream in the future - sure we can do that, we just have to throw away everything we already have and start over, because our analog system wasn't meant for that, or worse, trying to cobble together some solution that's a hack job.



  • @Dashrender said in analog video stream:

    @brianlittlejohn said in analog video stream:

    @Dashrender said in analog video stream:

    @Jason said in analog video stream:

    Personally I'd recomend getting a used Sony FS100 or a Panasonic HMC150 used. connecting up HDMI out and sending that over a long HDMI or CAT6 to HDMI system to the TV.

    Sadly, this is sounding like the simpliest solution at this time.

    Its for a church so most likely all ran by volunteers, the simpler it is the better.

    It's just that it's so limited - thinking in old terms. How many times have you solved a problem like this only to be asked to make a podcast out of the stream in the future - sure we can do that, we just have to throw away everything we already have and start over, because our analog system wasn't meant for that, or worse, trying to cobble together some solution that's a hack job.

    I think Dash is right. I totally get the "keep it simple" point, but that's just setting yourself for being blamed for problems in a few days or years.



  • @scottalanmiller said in analog video stream:

    @Dashrender said in analog video stream:

    @brianlittlejohn said in analog video stream:

    @Dashrender said in analog video stream:

    @Jason said in analog video stream:

    Personally I'd recomend getting a used Sony FS100 or a Panasonic HMC150 used. connecting up HDMI out and sending that over a long HDMI or CAT6 to HDMI system to the TV.

    Sadly, this is sounding like the simpliest solution at this time.

    Its for a church so most likely all ran by volunteers, the simpler it is the better.

    It's just that it's so limited - thinking in old terms. How many times have you solved a problem like this only to be asked to make a podcast out of the stream in the future - sure we can do that, we just have to throw away everything we already have and start over, because our analog system wasn't meant for that, or worse, trying to cobble together some solution that's a hack job.

    I think Dash is right. I totally get the "keep it simple" point, but that's just setting yourself for being blamed for problems in a few days or years.

    Why over complicate (and possibly overspend) on something for a situation that may or may not happen?



  • @brianlittlejohn said in analog video stream:

    @scottalanmiller said in analog video stream:

    @Dashrender said in analog video stream:

    @brianlittlejohn said in analog video stream:

    @Dashrender said in analog video stream:

    @Jason said in analog video stream:

    Personally I'd recomend getting a used Sony FS100 or a Panasonic HMC150 used. connecting up HDMI out and sending that over a long HDMI or CAT6 to HDMI system to the TV.

    Sadly, this is sounding like the simpliest solution at this time.

    Its for a church so most likely all ran by volunteers, the simpler it is the better.

    It's just that it's so limited - thinking in old terms. How many times have you solved a problem like this only to be asked to make a podcast out of the stream in the future - sure we can do that, we just have to throw away everything we already have and start over, because our analog system wasn't meant for that, or worse, trying to cobble together some solution that's a hack job.

    I think Dash is right. I totally get the "keep it simple" point, but that's just setting yourself for being blamed for problems in a few days or years.

    Why over complicate (and possibly overspend) on something for a situation that may or may not happen?

    And it's not even an issue . @Jason already posted HDMI to Ethernet adapters.



  • @brianlittlejohn said in analog video stream:

    @scottalanmiller said in analog video stream:

    @Dashrender said in analog video stream:

    @brianlittlejohn said in analog video stream:

    @Dashrender said in analog video stream:

    @Jason said in analog video stream:

    Personally I'd recomend getting a used Sony FS100 or a Panasonic HMC150 used. connecting up HDMI out and sending that over a long HDMI or CAT6 to HDMI system to the TV.

    Sadly, this is sounding like the simpliest solution at this time.

    Its for a church so most likely all ran by volunteers, the simpler it is the better.

    It's just that it's so limited - thinking in old terms. How many times have you solved a problem like this only to be asked to make a podcast out of the stream in the future - sure we can do that, we just have to throw away everything we already have and start over, because our analog system wasn't meant for that, or worse, trying to cobble together some solution that's a hack job.

    I think Dash is right. I totally get the "keep it simple" point, but that's just setting yourself for being blamed for problems in a few days or years.

    Why over complicate (and possibly overspend) on something for a situation that may or may not happen?

    And herein lies the dilemma. Scott is often preaching for not spending for the future, unless that's a forgone conclusion in the very short term. So spending some money today on a fairly basic off the shelf video cameras from BB that output live streams to HDMI, connected to some extender boxes linked to by @Jason earlier, then connected to a TV vs buying a modern AV setup that allows for streaming.

    Which way is better?

    Personally I think it comes down to cost. If it costs $1000 to do the old school way, and $2000 to do it the modern way, I'd probably skip the modern way, and hopefully in 6 months to a year or more when they ask about modern addons like podcasting, you just start over and hopefully things will be cheaper.

    But if we're talking about $500 for the old way and $700 for the modern way, then I'd go the modern way.

    These numbers are only meaningful to me personally, not even my company, and especially not anyone else's.



  • @Dashrender said in analog video stream:

    @brianlittlejohn said in analog video stream:

    @scottalanmiller said in analog video stream:

    @Dashrender said in analog video stream:

    @brianlittlejohn said in analog video stream:

    @Dashrender said in analog video stream:

    @Jason said in analog video stream:

    Personally I'd recomend getting a used Sony FS100 or a Panasonic HMC150 used. connecting up HDMI out and sending that over a long HDMI or CAT6 to HDMI system to the TV.

    Sadly, this is sounding like the simpliest solution at this time.

    Its for a church so most likely all ran by volunteers, the simpler it is the better.

    It's just that it's so limited - thinking in old terms. How many times have you solved a problem like this only to be asked to make a podcast out of the stream in the future - sure we can do that, we just have to throw away everything we already have and start over, because our analog system wasn't meant for that, or worse, trying to cobble together some solution that's a hack job.

    I think Dash is right. I totally get the "keep it simple" point, but that's just setting yourself for being blamed for problems in a few days or years.

    Why over complicate (and possibly overspend) on something for a situation that may or may not happen?

    And herein lies the dilemma. Scott is often preaching for not spending for the future, unless that's a forgone conclusion in the very short term. So spending some money today on a fairly basic off the shelf video cameras from BB that output live streams to HDMI, connected to some extender boxes linked to by @Jason earlier, then connected to a TV vs buying a modern AV setup that allows for streaming.

    Which way is better?

    Personally I think it comes down to cost. If it costs $1000 to do the old school way, and $2000 to do it the modern way, I'd probably skip the modern way, and hopefully in 6 months to a year or more when they ask about modern addons like podcasting, you just start over and hopefully things will be cheaper.

    But if we're talking about $500 for the old way and $700 for the modern way, then I'd go the modern way.

    These numbers are only meaningful to me personally, not even my company, and especially not anyone else's.

    Keep in mind that the "modern way" is decades old here. It's the old way by now.


  • Banned

    Keep in mind this is not the modern way. Any professional AV company suggesting a solution like Scotts should be fired immediately. It's so freaking oblivious he has no professional AV experience but keeps pretending like his is the expert on the matter. Dude get over it. This forum is official worse than Spiceworks. So many idiotic suggestions that are lower than consumer level.



  • @Jason said in analog video stream:

    Keep in mind this is not the modern way. Any professional AV company suggesting a solution like Scotts should be fired immediately. It's so freaking oblivious he has no professional AV experience but keeps pretending like his is the expert on the matter. Dude get over it. This forum is official worse than Spiceworks. So many idiotic suggestions that are lower than consumer level.

    Really? Because companies like Adobe, Cisco and Citrix have GoTo Meeting, Webex, and whatever Adobe's presentation software is called now. The world has been moving in this direction, as far as live feeds, broadcasting, etc. And "it's so freaking oblivious" that you are actually the one who is demonstrating how oblivious you are. Spending more now to ensure you are ready for the future makes every sense. Implementing admittedly outdated systems because they are cheaper now is a, at best, short-term gain (because of cost-savings) with a long-term loss. Implement a modern system now and then you are ready for future adjustments/additions.



  • @Jason said in analog video stream:

    Keep in mind this is not the modern way. Any professional AV company suggesting a solution like Scotts should be fired immediately. It's so freaking oblivious he has no professional AV experience but keeps pretending like his is the expert on the matter. Dude get over it. This forum is official worse than Spiceworks. So many idiotic suggestions that are lower than consumer level.

    Ah, but this isn't a professional AV situation, so what is the purpose of that comment? I think you've missed the boat. This is about getting a quick, easy and cheap feed from the sanctuary into two other rooms. If a professional AV company was involved, someone would have seriously missed the goals. So I take that as a compliment that I stayed focused to the goal and wasn't just showboating that I know AV. I'm trying to solve a business problem, but prove that I know AV club skills.



  • You need to define a goal. At the start, you were looking for something that wouldn't grow, wasn't flexible and would just get the job done. We pointed out that for less money and less wiring you could do something simpler that was more flexible. Then it spiraled into a professional video production with high end cameras, mixing boards and all kinds of things. This isn't the conversation that we started with. So @Mike-Davis needs to define the goal and come back to this. It's gone down the rabbit hole and went from "what can we slap together" to "how can we be an enterprise production studio."


  • Banned

    @thanksajdotcom said in analog video stream:

    @Jason said in analog video stream:

    Keep in mind this is not the modern way. Any professional AV company suggesting a solution like Scotts should be fired immediately. It's so freaking oblivious he has no professional AV experience but keeps pretending like his is the expert on the matter. Dude get over it. This forum is official worse than Spiceworks. So many idiotic suggestions that are lower than consumer level.

    Really? Because companies like Adobe, Cisco and Citrix have GoTo Meeting, Webex, and whatever Adobe's presentation software is called now. The world has been moving in this direction, as far as live feeds, broadcasting, etc. And "it's so freaking oblivious" that you are actually the one who is demonstrating how oblivious you are. Spending more now to ensure you are ready for the future makes every sense. Implementing admittedly outdated systems because they are cheaper now is a, at best, short-term gain (because of cost-savings) with a long-term loss. Implement a modern system now and then you are ready for future adjustments/additions.

    You mean meeting presentation software? yeah that has nothing to do with live broadcast.


Log in to reply