How would you change the Meetinghouse Webcast software?

I've only been using the dedicated box so far and only quickly glanced at the software but if there is any way to add a second audio channel it would be greatly appreciated. Not knowing the entire encoding path it may be the encoder that is the limiting factor but if not, the ability to add a second audio feed for translation purposes would alleviate a significant burden on our stake.

We have 3 locations requiring translation services and that's difficult to manage. If we could do it at the source and mix it into the feed as a second audio channel that would be great.

starkjs wrote:With the upcoming release of the Meetinghouse Webcast 3.0 Software, we would like to know what changes you would make.

We would like to originate from two locations during the same event and feed to all meetinghouses.

Provide for the bouncing ball for music, overlays, the use of charts and graphics, and playing short video clips (etc.)

Transmitting English (en) on one part of the audio channel and Español (es) on the other part of the audio channelDelay the broadcasting stream, if it would improve the quality

If you could add some of the features that were found in 2.1 such as the bandwith speed options or list what the low, medium, and high option speeds would translate to that would be great. Also with version 3.0 when you upgrade from the 2.1 it asks you to assign an event ID which makes the computers think for a long time and to terminate it you must go into the settings and click ok. If you could resolve that issue it would be greatly appreciated.

Encode streams that are iPad, h.264 friendly and don't require Windows Media Player to view.

Allow an option for those that have Encoder 4 Pro to do IIS smooth streaming with multiple bit rates. This would allow a lower bit rate to be selected automatically if the speed to the internet drops in a location. But this would require the Encoder PC to have substantially more power to encode multiple bits with out dropping frames. Maybe make it an "Advanced feature"

I do have to say what has been delivered already is an excellent simple product,. kudos to the product team!

ursenj wrote:Allow an option for those that have Encoder 4 Pro to do IIS smooth streaming with multiple bit rates. This would allow a lower bit rate to be selected automatically if the speed to the internet drops in a location. But this would require the Encoder PC to have substantially more power to encode multiple bits with out dropping frames. Maybe make it an "Advanced feature"

Doesn't v2 do that? We had someone receiving on a aircard type connection who said that they were dropped to a audio only stream shortly after connecting.

Aaron Z

* Simple feature: A pre-loaded list of hymn overlays to allow users to select a hymn and have the words come in like on a power point overlay with the user choosing when to switch slides
* Complicated feature: Allow multiple cameras to be used, have both video streams come into the program and be able to select camera 1, camera 2 or picture in picture of both 1 and 2 (for crowd/conductor shots ala general conference during hymns) during the broadcast

Aaron Z

Aczlan wrote:* Simple feature: A pre-loaded list of hymn overlays to allow users to select a hymn and have the words come in like on a power point overlay with the user choosing when to switch slides
* Complicated feature: Allow multiple cameras to be used, have both video streams come into the program and be able to select camera 1, camera 2 or picture in picture of both 1 and 2 (for crowd/conductor shots ala general conference during hymns) during the broadcast

Aaron Z

Aaron, for me this sounds great. I don't work for the church or have any say in the matter, but with multiple cameras, why not get a $1,000 video switcher that is already on the market? For me, to do what you are asking, would require multiple capture cards in the web casting server and I believe that would be a nightmare to handle.

What I would like is the powerpoint/titles at the bottom of the screen indicating who is speaking.

harddrive wrote:Aaron, for me this sounds great. I don't work for the church or have any say in the matter, but with multiple cameras, why not get a $1,000 video switcher that is already on the market? For me, to do what you are asking, would require multiple capture cards in the web casting server and I believe that would be a nightmare to handle.

For $120-$170 I can get a pair of USB capture cards or an Osprey 100 multichannel video capture card.
If it costs $20k in development time to add this feature and 60 units worldwide use it (instead of spending $1k on a video switcher and the associated accessories), it would more than pay for itself.
In our case, the stake is thinking of being able to broadcast from one of several locations. It would be nice to reduce the amount of equipment needed.
With a software switch you eliminate the need for:

1. 3 TV monitors (Camera 1, Camera 2 and Output)
2. A video mixer
3. A whole bunch of cables

It would also (IMO) be LESS complicated for someone who is marginally tech savvy to plug 2 cameras into a computer than to hook up and run a video mixer.

Aaron Z

Thinking a little more, one area where a video mixer would be better is to mix video for use inside the building as the delay in running through a computer could make the audio and video not in sync...

Aaron Z

Another concern I'd have is putting too many functions on one computer. Then you end up with one person trying to do it all. That could be overwhelming.

RussellHltn wrote:Another concern I'd have is putting too many functions on one computer. Then you end up with one person trying to do it all. That could be overwhelming.

True, I did sound, broadcasting and a controlled the video camera for the last stake conference and it was a little too much.

I could see the following setup for two cameras:

• Cameraman 1*
• Cameraman 2*
• Video Mixer/Broadcast person
• Sound mixing person+

For one remote controlled camera I could see:

• Cameraman 1*
• Broadcast person*
• Sound mixing person+

The positions with a * next to them could be combined if using remote controlled cameras (such as the EVI-D70).
The positions with a + next to them would only be needed if using extra microphones (such as for a choir)

Aaron Z

Aczlan wrote:True, I did sound, broadcasting and a controlled the video camera for the last stake conference and it was a little too much.

I was only "broadcasting" to our overflow area, but I found working the camera and the sound a bit much. At the start of any musical number, I had to pot down the podium mic and bring up the choir mics with one hand and manually reposition our one camera with another. I quickly decided this was a two person job. If I had a remote camera with presets, that might be workable.

This feedback is great. Please keep it coming!

RussellHltn wrote:I was only "broadcasting" to our overflow area, but I found working the camera and the sound a bit much. At the start of any musical number, I had to pot down the podium mic and bring up the choir mics with one hand and manually reposition our one camera with another. I quickly decided this was a two person job. If I had a remote camera with presets, that might be workable.

I had a Canon camera (similar to a Sony EVI-D30) and I was using the presets on it. I wouldn't do it alone without the presets.
On the sound end, I had the 3 choir mics and the piano mics going through an external box (Expander/Noisegate), then coming back in on a single fader. That made it much easier to run them by myself.

Aaron Z

starkjs wrote:

What additional features would you add?

It would be not bad to have controls for output audio level. With indicators. As well as working for the input ones. In current version it doesn't provide real control.
And also agree that the bandwith speed options from v.2.0 would be helpfull. Possibility for 2nd audio channel would be a great bonus .

Thanks for the product, by the way. is very useful.

Indicators are always welcome, but I'd be cautious about too many level controls. It creates another control that needs to be set and could be mis-set. In this situation, I'd rather not have an output level control. The levels would be set by the sending end. If the level is wrong, it needs to be fixed by the origination point and the damage is already done (distortion/noise) by the time it gets to the receiver.

It's up to the next piece of equipment (crab box?) to adjust the level into the sound system. If the level coming out of the computer is "too hot" then it's going into the wrong kind of input.

That said, how about a limiter on the transmitting side? Sooner or later, you're going to get someone who likes to yell into the microphone.

It would be great if every building that handled multi-camera webcasts just had a Tri-Caster. I use one at work and it's brilliant!
It does much of the stuff that is being asked for.

MattWorley wrote:It would be great if every building that handled multi-camera webcasts just had a Tri-Caster. I use one at work and it's brilliant!
It does much of the stuff that is being asked for.

That would be a great item, because I have been looking at that. However, the cost to install one is very expensive and for our stake it would take nearly a quarter of the budget to purchase it. The unit retails at $9,000. That is before you purchase cameras and other items.

Would be nice to even have a budget... But I gotta say, the Tri-caster is pretty solid.

MattWorley wrote:It would be great if every building that handled multi-camera webcasts just had a Tri-Caster. I use one at work and it's brilliant!
It does much of the stuff that is being asked for.

The Tri-Caster is a nice unit, but I doubt that most wards or even stakes could justify spending the money for something they would only use a couple times a year. The best price I've been able to find on even a used tri-caster is $5k.

Thanks for opening up this thread. We have been working on doing our first webcast using the software-only option. Here are our findings.

1) Win 7 didn't work. We had to go back to Win XP. It would be really nice if the webcasting client was Win 7 and MacOS X compatible. Really, truly compatible. This caused a lot of frustration in the initial setup. It wasn't even a driver issue with the cards. We purchased 3 different analog video capture cards and tried them all on Windows 7 with no luck.

2) Build in a few simple "producer" functions into the webcast software. Check out Wirecast or UStream Producer for great examples of how to do this. They have great applications for producing a webcast from a single computer and sending it to different web services (i.e. ustream.com). Here's how I would describe the features they have:
a) allow switching between multiple sources that can be video, photos, music, powerpoint, etc.
b) allow lower 3rd graphics (can be used for titles, hymns, etc)

3) Support for IP/network cameras or RTP/RTSP streams. This would greatly lower the disruption to the meeting. (no big bank of computers and monitors and cameras in the overflow or chapel area) You could very easily install nice IP cameras inside the chapel and then produce the webcast from a room outside the chapel. The camera 'operators' don't even need to be in the room to get a good shot. Especially since most of these meetings can be accomplished with a single stationary camera.

4) Better enable cameras with HDMI or other digital signals. I know I'm going a little over the edge with this one since the hardware support for HD/HDMI/Component is still expensive and nascent, but it would be very nice to have an end-to-end digital webcasting system, allowing the producer to easily connect one or two cameras with component or hdmi outputs, then switch between them. I'm using a fairly new HD camera from Canon, and it really looks bad when converted to analog and run through an analog capture card.

5) Audio. We're really struggling with the audio in our setup. We're finding that the 'record out' jack near the clerk's desk rarely (if ever) works, the assisted listening devices are difficult to control the volume (too many knobs), and we couldn't even get a wireless lapel mic attached to the church system to work correctly (too many adaptors and volume controls). I dont' have a great suggestion for this one, but it's a problem.

One thing that would help is being able to adjust the volume during a webcast from the webcast software. We think we can adjust the volume using the windows volume controls, but we're not sure if it's taking in the webcast (since you can't access volume controls after you start a webcast)

Parting words of advice - check out the 'competitive' offerings out there. Ustream is one among many sites who are doing a great job with their webcast tools. Perhaps the church could white-label someone else's technology rather than developing it all in-house? I only say this because it's kind of frustrating when the church creates a policy that locks us into using church-only services, when the commercial offerings are so much more advanced. It's hard to explain to a church leaders and members who want to use the technologies around us, but be bound as the technologist by the policies set by the church.

Hmm. That's all I can think of for now. Thanks for the great work on this product, and thanks for your continued work to improve it. I'm really glad the church is enabling technology like this, and hope we (as a community) can be helpful in giving you the proper feedback to make it great.

sammythesm wrote:a) allow switching between multiple sources that can be video, photos, music, powerpoint, etc.

That gives me an idea. How about some graphics and prelude music that can be streamed before/after? Make it easy. Preferably last in stream so that the operators can work out kinks in the video and audio without broadcasting it, but still stream something for the other sites to check out their systems.

sammythesm wrote:1) Win 7 didn't work. We had to go back to Win XP. It would be really nice if the webcasting client was Win 7 and MacOS X compatible. Really, truly compatible. This caused a lot of frustration in the initial setup. It wasn't even a driver issue with the cards. We purchased 3 different analog video capture cards and tried them all on Windows 7 with no luck.

What version of the webcast software did you use? I have been using a Win7 (x64) laptop with the V2 software and it has performed perfectly.

3) Support for IP/network cameras or RTP/RTSP streams. This would greatly lower the disruption to the meeting. (no big bank of computers and monitors and cameras in the overflow or chapel area) You could very easily install nice IP cameras inside the chapel and then produce the webcast from a room outside the chapel. The camera 'operators' don't even need to be in the room to get a good shot. Especially since most of these meetings can be accomplished with a single stationary camera.

We are currently planning on using a Sony EVI-D70 with the Vaddio control kit to remotely control/power the camera that over a pair of (dedicated) CAT5 cables. That will allow us to get decent results (videowise) from non-expert camera operators.
We will be running it from the stake clerks office and thus the most visible part of the operation will be the camera mounted to the wall or the choir mics (if there is a choir singing).
If you want to go to a network camera, it appears that the AXIS 214 camera (which is based on the Sony EVI-D70) has a driver available that would let their network cameras be seen as a video capture device on Windows, but it probably wont work with the webcast communicator box.

4) Better enable cameras with HDMI or other digital signals. I know I'm going a little over the edge with this one since the hardware support for HD/HDMI/Component is still expensive and nascent, but it would be very nice to have an end-to-end digital webcasting system, allowing the producer to easily connect one or two cameras with component or hdmi outputs, then switch between them. I'm using a fairly new HD camera from Canon, and it really looks bad when converted to analog and run through an analog capture card.

Personally, we are running SD cameras, we dont have bandwidth to stream HD video and so anything better than an S-Video connection is overkill.

5) Audio. We're really struggling with the audio in our setup. We're finding that the 'record out' jack near the clerk's desk rarely (if ever) works, the assisted listening devices are difficult to control the volume (too many knobs), and we couldn't even get a wireless lapel mic attached to the church system to work correctly (too many adaptors and volume controls). I dont' have a great suggestion for this one, but it's a problem.

I would recommend that you do two things:
1. Find an audio person in your stake and recruit them to handle the audio
2. If the audio person agrees that the problem is in the chapel sound system, ask your FM group to get it fixed

One thing that would help is being able to adjust the volume during a webcast from the webcast software. We think we can adjust the volume using the windows volume controls, but we're not sure if it's taking in the webcast (since you can't access volume controls after you start a webcast)

I have always adjusted the sound levels outside of the webcast program (via a mixer and the Windows volume levels). That has worked great for the 3 meetings which I have broadcast for our stake.

Aaron Z

Thanks for your thoughtful replies, Aaron.

We actually had our first webcast last night, and it went all right.

Really, there was one major thing we needed that we didn't have, and that was a way to put the PPT slides directly on the webcast - so let me reprioritize that to be the #1 feature request. Other than that, the webcast was a success.

Now, to respond to a few of your ideas and questions...

Aczlan wrote:What version of the webcast software did you use? I have been using a Win7 (x64) laptop with the V2 software and it has performed perfectly.

It was Win 7 32-bit with latest version 2 webcasting software. Still not sure why we had problems. Perhaps we should try x64 with the instructions/learnings other have posted. End of the day, WinXP worked out OK.

We are currently planning on using a Sony EVI-D70 with the Vaddio control kit to remotely control/power the camera that over a pair of (dedicated) CAT5 cables. That will allow us to get decent results (videowise) from non-expert camera operators.
We will be running it from the stake clerks office and thus the most visible part of the operation will be the camera mounted to the wall or the choir mics (if there is a choir singing).
If you want to go to a network camera, it appears that the AXIS 214 camera (which is based on the Sony EVI-D70) has a driver available that would let their network cameras be seen as a video capture device on Windows, but it probably wont work with the webcast communicator box.

Personally, we are running SD cameras, we dont have bandwidth to stream HD video and so anything better than an S-Video connection is overkill.

The Axis solution you mention would be cool to try. I have access to some Axis equipment, so I'll give it a look.

What prompted the use of the webcasting software (vs communicator appliance) was the Stake's desire to save money. If they didn't want to spend $800 on a webcasting appliance, they certainly don't want to purchase an audio mixer, video mixer, multiple cameras, choir microphones, etc. So we were trying to do the most with the least investment. My personal gear is not too shabby, so I was hoping to utilize the more advanced digital capabilities of the gear I had.

Enabling the digital endpoints (IP cameras, or HDMI capture) would just make setting up the equipment easier (fewer cables, fewer adapters, more integrated operation) and produce a better end product (i.e. the software could detecting the aspect ratio, more gracefully down sample for webcast, etc) A better origination image just makes for a better webcast overall, no matter what the bandwidth limitations.

I recognize the industry is still in transition and all the tools aren't quite there yet, especially at a reasonable price point.

I would recommend that you do two things:
1. Find an audio person in your stake and recruit them to handle the audio
2. If the audio person agrees that the problem is in the chapel sound system, ask your FM group to get it fixed

I have always adjusted the sound levels outside of the webcast program (via a mixer and the Windows volume levels). That has worked great for the 3 meetings which I have broadcast for our stake.

Sadly, I AM the audio guy... It's not that I'm unable to find a solution - it's just that all the solutions I have feel like bailing wire and duct tape. Maybe I should be OK with that - it is, after all a temporary setup and not a permanent installation.

The suggestion was more to promote thinking outside of the box as a community and thinking of a way to capture the audio without necessitating a bunch of extra mics, an audio mixer, and a dedicated audio guy to mix it all live. I still don't have a great idea, though, so I'm stuck in the boat with everyone else.

Thankfully, our FM group did get the record out fixed in time for the webcast, but it was still a bear to run and conceal a cable from the front of the chapel to the overflow where we were webcasting from.

At any rate - our first webcast was a success. Hopefully we can keep getting better from here, and as the leadership uses it more they will see the benefit from investing a bit in it.

sammythesm wrote:Thanks for your thoughtful replies, Aaron.
We actually had our first webcast last night, and it went all right.

You are welcome. I am glad to hear that it went well.

It was Win 7 32-bit with latest version 2 webcasting software. Still not sure why we had problems. Perhaps we should try x64 with the instructions/learnings other have posted. End of the day, WinXP worked out OK.

Out of curiosity, did Windows Media Encoder work outside of the communicator software? If not, do you have the x32 version of Windows Media Encoder 9 installed?

The Axis solution you mention would be cool to try. I have access to some Axis equipment, so I'll give it a look.

It looked nice, but I dont know that it will work with the communicator (which we are probably going to use).

What prompted the use of the webcasting software (vs communicator appliance) was the Stake's desire to save money. If they didn't want to spend $800 on a webcasting appliance, they certainly don't want to purchase an audio mixer, video mixer, multiple cameras, choir microphones, etc. So we were trying to do the most with the least investment. My personal gear is not too shabby, so I was hoping to utilize the more advanced digital capabilities of the gear I had.

I know what you mean. I have run the webcasts that we have done up to this point mostly with my own gear (or gear that has been lent to me). It makes it easier sometimes, but interfacing it with the church equipment can be problematic.

Enabling the digital endpoints (IP cameras, or HDMI capture) would just make setting up the equipment easier (fewer cables, fewer adapters, more integrated operation) and produce a better end product (i.e. the software could detecting the aspect ratio, more gracefully down sample for webcast, etc) A better origination image just makes for a better webcast overall, no matter what the bandwidth limitations.
I recognize the industry is still in transition and all the tools aren't quite there yet, especially at a reasonable price point.

I think that the biggest issue with IP cameras is that they all have their own propitiatory way to view the video. There is no good standard to work with. That is why I suggested Axis because their driver should allow their network cameras to be seen as a camera by Windows. If I could get a demo and they worked, we might go that route, but I dont think that we will.

Sadly, I AM the audio guy... It's not that I'm unable to find a solution - it's just that all the solutions I have feel like bailing wire and duct tape. Maybe I should be OK with that - it is, after all a temporary setup and not a permanent installation.
The suggestion was more to promote thinking outside of the box as a community and thinking of a way to capture the audio without necessitating a bunch of extra mics, an audio mixer, and a dedicated audio guy to mix it all live. I still don't have a great idea, though, so I'm stuck in the boat with everyone else.
Thankfully, our FM group did get the record out fixed in time for the webcast, but it was still a bear to run and conceal a cable from the front of the chapel to the overflow where we were webcasting from.

Our FM had a record out and a line in installed in the stake clerks office (not sure why). That is where we are planning to run the webcasts from. It is on the other side of the wall from the chapel and should work well to feed audio in from the stage if we need the choir microphones.

At any rate - our first webcast was a success. Hopefully we can keep getting better from here, and as the leadership uses it more they will see the benefit from investing a bit in it.

We have had 3 successful webcasts so far. At the last one, one of the members of the Stake Presidency wasn't feeling too well, so he spent most of the Sunday session in the clerks office. That really impressed him and helped to jumpstart the current project (to setup so that we can webcast from the Stake Center, or another building via the webcast communicator).

When we get the details hammered out, I will start a thread on the project.

Aaron Z

I would suggest that if possible, hymn text overlays be made available by using the feature built into the webcast software of .jpg files on the lower-right corner of the software where the pictures of Lehi on the boat, sacrament, temple and Second Coming pictures are provided by changing the website interface radio buttons to check boxes as well as the radio button in the lower-left corner of the screen for the camera video feed. Using check boxes may allow the operator to select the incoming camera video feed as well as graphic files of words to a hymn (2 lines per graphic) with the graphic having a transparent background. The graphics would probably have to be .gif files to allow a transparent background just as in web pages? The types of file formats may need to be expanded that the webcast screen will accept. Mixing the two may allow the video of the choristor for example to show through the transparent background on the top of the screen with the words to the song showing on the bottom of the screen. If something like this or similar could be made to work, it might remove the need for some expensive mixing equipment in order to have text over video capability. It would also be great if the webcast software would handle more than one video feed and allow the switching between 2-3 cameras.

We purchased a Mackie 402-VLZ3 Premium 4-Channel Ultra-Compact Audio Mixer for $99.99 on Amazon and connected the incoming building sound we tapped into inside the sattelite cabinet and then went from it to the computer sound card input. We used some headphones connected into it and can adjust the sound before going into the computer.

The two most reasonable things I would like to see in the software are:
1. The ability to inject a video into the stream directly (for preshow, post-show videos). Currently we hook a DVD player to our video switcher and play a DVD for pre/post-show. I would like to eliminate this hardware.
2. The ability to do text and/or graphic overlays on the video (speaker names, words to hymns, etc.). We currently do this in our video switcher via lumakey and powerpoint.

- James

jbrown561 wrote: 1. The ability to inject a video into the stream directly (for preshow, post-show videos). Currently we hook a DVD player to our video switcher and play a DVD for pre/post-show. I would like to eliminate this hardware.

Have you tried the new 3.0 beta? It has the ability to add audio or video files as well as broadcast whatever you are showing on your desktop.

I was also think about another change. I will probably use a mixer to get the amount of sound correct before it goes to the sound card. It would be great to be able to adjust that in the software on the fly while I'm encoding the stream. So I will be working on this to make sound be the best part.

harddrive wrote:I was also think about another change. I will probably use a mixer to get the amount of sound correct before it goes to the sound card. It would be great to be able to adjust that in the software on the fly while I'm encoding the stream. So I will be working on this to make sound be the best part.

Having a working sound level meter would be nice as well. On Win 7 you can get around it somewhat by using system software mixer, but that is not an option in XP.

Aaron Z

We just had stake Conference over the weekend. This was our Stake's first time trying to broadcast over the internet. Looking at a couple of the posts on here maybe we didn't understand the software good enough. Here is some ways I would suggest to improve the program.

1. Receiving Machine. The computer that is getting the Web Cast -- If there was a way to test which web casting speed that machine/Internet could handle. In the end the problem was really with the machine in one of our ward buildings (in Layton, UT). The DSL there for what ever reason was all over. Jumping from 400kps down to 100kps. When we tested it the Thursday before we didn't see any lag or problems. I'm guessing they never fully tested the internet in that building (I tested the internet in the stake center, and it was getting 8mps upload and 5mps download). If there was a way for the streaming to computer to in a way run some test... the program come back and say. "You should stream at 100k" or "Streaming from this location seems to be unlikely, either find a different internet access point" something along those line. Meaning this computer would be able to do an independent stream test. Just stream some file that is on the church's streaming computer. This would help us narrow down problems.

2. Test from the Streaming computer. When we did our test from the stake center to ward building we never saw any problems. But then again we didn't do that long of test. Because of the delay (around a 1min 30 seconds) we just had some guy in the stake center read scriptures for around 5 mins. The problem we had is with the slow DSL in the ward building, 5 mins was about as much as the internet could handle before it would have to re-buffer again. Really we didn't test it long enough. What I wish we could have done is I guess send some video file over as our test Stream. I don't know how long such a video needs to be, but even having the option to loop the video would help. It wasn't until the Saturday evening season when we tested it at the other building did we realize how bad things were. If I did this in the future I would almost have to do a Test of Sacrament meeting. Something longer then 5-10 mins. I do see from looking in this thread that I guess there is a way to send a video over? I did not see that option, and will have to look for it in the future.

3. Audio streaming never worked for us. After the lowest streaming video setting (51kps) but sending it at like 28kps didn't work. I tried to switch to just audio. I stopped the streaming, I went into the settings and switched it to like 60? kps when I clicked Okay, I got an error had occurred. I had to close the program down. When I logged back in it also gave me an error. But I was able to go into the settings and change it.

4. We did our tests on the Event as "Stake Test", But when it came time to stream we changed it to "Stake Conference". The problem is we didn't know if that was part of our problem. That list seems bigger then it needs to be. I'm not sure why you need all those options or how that effects the streaming video? Can't you just have it be Streaming what: Stake/District, Ward/Branch, General Conference. Fireside

5. One last thing about Sound. in windows 7 when I would start the Streaming broadcast for some reason the program would Jump the Mic volume to 80. That sounded fine on the computer (probably because of the volume) but when we looked at the streaming it showed it was jumping off the bar into the "to loud" section. I would then go back into the recording sound settings and change the Mic volume down to like 15. even that seemed kind of loud (from the bar). we were going from the video out on the back of the VCR to the a mic port on the front of the laptop.



Another part the church needs to address is about the Video in the Stake Centers. We learned that the satellite is on Channel 3, to use local video we had to change the channel to 6. Video out (which is what we should be using) has no channels. The guy in charge called some support guy and he said you need a VCR to change the channel. That means we go from the video camera over video out. To Coax cable to VCR (to Channel 6) to Video out to Projector. Some TV's just took the Coax cable. (even that didn't look that great on an HDTV) Yes this works while we still have VCR's in the building but VCR's are dieing off. Has the church looked into solving this problem? (Install some switch in the satellite box to switch the signal either local or satellite.) There has to be an easier way of doing this.

Also do we keep a list of Camera that work the best for Streaming? We were going to buy a camera but two weeks really wasn't enough time to find the right camera. we considered just buying the Sony camera that was listed in the wiki, but that has to be ordered online. Is there other a way we can keep a list of Camera's that are on the market that would work?

tubaloth wrote:Also do we keep a list of Camera that work the best for Streaming? We were going to buy a camera but two weeks really wasn't enough time to find the right camera. we considered just buying the Sony camera that was listed in the wiki, but that has to be ordered online. Is there other a way we can keep a list of Camera's that are on the market that would work?

Any camera that meets the requirements should work. The camera listed is available on Ebay and Amazon.
One that looks like it should work is the Sony DCR-SX44. It lists for $180 at B&H
If you order from a reputable supply house, 2 weeks should be plenty of time.

Aaron Z

tubaloth wrote:5. One last thing about Sound. in windows 7 when I would start the Streaming broadcast for some reason the program would Jump the Mic volume to 80. That sounded fine on the computer (probably because of the volume) but when we looked at the streaming it showed it was jumping off the bar into the "to loud" section. I would then go back into the recording sound settings and change the Mic volume down to like 15. even that seemed kind of loud (from the bar). we were going from the video out on the back of the VCR to the a mic port on the front of the laptop.

This was probably because the computer was expecting Mic level audio (-56 to -40 dbm), not line level audio (-10 to 4 dbm).

Another part the church needs to address is about the Video in the Stake Centers. We learned that the satellite is on Channel 3, to use local video we had to change the channel to 6. Video out (which is what we should be using) has no channels. The guy in charge called some support guy and he said you need a VCR to change the channel. That means we go from the video camera over video out. To Coax cable to VCR (to Channel 6) to Video out to Projector. Some TV's just took the Coax cable. (even that didn't look that great on an HDTV) Yes this works while we still have VCR's in the building but VCR's are dieing off. Has the church looked into solving this problem? (Install some switch in the satellite box to switch the signal either local or satellite.) There has to be an easier way of doing this.

The problem with sending audio/video as anything but coax is that then you have to have 3 feeds that you have to choose from on the satellite cabinet end:
1. English Satellite
2. Spanish Satellite
3. CCTV from the camera
Whereas the way they do it, you just choose a channel at the receiving end and off you go.

Aaron Z

Aczlan wrote:This was probably because the computer was expecting Mic level audio (-56 to -40 dbm), not line level audio (-10 to 4 dbm).


The problem with sending audio/video as anything but coax is that then you have to have 3 feeds that you have to choose from on the satellite cabinet end:
1. English Satellite
2. Spanish Satellite
3. CCTV from the camera
Whereas the way they do it, you just choose a channel at the receiving end and off you go.

Aaron Z

I agree they still need to split the signal. I'm saying either we need to invent something that doesn't go through a VCR. Either have some switch inside the Satellite box that allows you to switch the signal locally. Or something that replaced the VCR all together.


HAs the Church looked into either Renting or Borrowing some of this equipment. I assume the Web Cast thing you buy has to be installed in the stake center (and ward buildings). But if they had some Kit with the camera and cables, that the church ships to a stake (or can be picked up in SLC). Would be nice. We used a members camera but ended up buying a bunch of cables (which aren't that much money). But I'm sure we would be happy to let other Stakes use some of all we bought. Like even the little adapter to go from the VCR to the Computer to Stream was over $60. I'm not sure if they needed the pre-built software. We used it, but I uninstalled it, to reinstall it again but never did. I'm sure a lot of Ogden/Layton Stakes are trying to figure out what to do for Stake Conference now that the Tabernacle is closed. Their is no reason for all of these stakes to buy all the same equipment.

tubaloth wrote:I agree they still need to split the signal. I'm saying either we need to invent something that doesn't go through a VCR. Either have some switch inside the Satellite box that allows you to switch the signal locally. Or something that replaced the VCR all together.

Tubaloth, I have read this and to me it sounds way to complicated. I have been working for the last 6 months to 9 months on getting my stake ready for webcasting.

In our stake center, we have been using the closed circuit TV system for a long time. The camera output goes into a video modulator (channel 3) and the audio from the chapel systems goes in there as well. It has worked great.

I tested webcasting from my stake center this past Thursday and discovered a few things that I need to change to get my to work. I, like you, had to go through the VCR or TV with video out to get the picture to my capture card. I think I tried the coax directly off the modulator, but it didn't work. Gave me a null error.

So I opened up the satellite cabinet and looked at what I needed to do. I realized that I had to pickup a few pieces to make the connection into the system much easier.

What I'm going to do is to take the video from the camera and use a "Y" cable to go to the modulator and one to a throughput RCA connection. I will do the same one the sound side. So basically I'm taking the feed right off the camera and sound amplifier.

The whole cost to do this is about $15. But a cable that cost $60 is way TOO expensive. You should be able to find something cheaper.

If I was you, I would take a a good look at your CCTV system and understand how things are set up. Then once you understand that, then you can determine what it will take to do what you want to do and do it for the cheapest cost.

We have recently upgraded the beta 3.0 software. It is available to download at https://webcast.ldschurch.org/ClientDow ... lient.aspx. On the Settings page, under the different presets, one may now test their Internet connection speed so that they are better informed on which profile to use. To directly access the speed test application, it is available at http://speedtest.lds.org/speed.html.

harddrive wrote:What I'm going to do is to take the video from the camera and use a "Y" cable to go to the modulator and one to a throughput RCA connection.

Use of a "Y" cable for RF or video is a bad idea. It creates quality issues due to the resulting impedance mismatch.

The proper way to "Y" a signal is to use a distribution amplifier.

RussellHltn wrote:Use of a "Y" cable for RF or video is a bad idea. It creates quality issues due to the resulting impedance mismatch.

The proper way to "Y" a signal is to use a distribution amplifier.

I hear you Russ and if I need to do that, then I have enough time to purchase one and get it installed.

starkjs wrote:On the Settings page, under the different presets, one may now test their Internet connection speed so that they are better informed on which profile to use. To directly access the speed test application, it is available at http://speedtest.lds.org/speed.html.

Do these speeds reflect Internet speeds in general, or are they specific to your webcast servers? The reason I ask is using the above link, my PC at home (in Layton, UT) achieves a speed of approx. 5.7/1.5 (DN/UP in Mb/s), but where I usually go to check it on speedtest.net, I get results in the 22/4 range, which is more in line with what I would expect from the tier of Comcast service I'm on.

These speeds reflect your Internet connection back to Church headquarters.

Mine seemed to match what I get on speedtest.net I could see NO signifcant difference. Perhaps you managed to hit the server at a bad time? I ran three tests several hours apart and all 3 match my expected speedtest.net results. Whish I had a solution for you.

speedtest.net selects the "best" of many servers for it's test. The church test tests to see what the speed is back to CHQ, though who knows what pipes and how many routers. Some of them may be overloaded, and some of them might be throttling to give everyone a reasonable share of the available bandwidth.