[spook-l] Progressive JPEG.

[Ulrik Mikaelsson]

Saturdayen den 13 November 2004 23.59 skrev Nathan Lutchansky:
> > Well, I were talking of the little dirty-hack in the JPEG-encoding that
> > is supposed to render JPEG:s incrementally, with a first
> > low-resoultion-variant, on to more detailed levels, but can from what
> > I've understodd be used to hack video into beeing rendered into a regular
> > web-browser?
> Huh, I've seen lots of webservers that use multipart/x-mixed-replace but
> not any that use progressive JPEG (and I am somewhat skeptical that it
> works).  Can you point me to a webcam software package that does this?  I
> don't believe the IJG JPEG encoder supports this hack, so I'd need to find
> another coder that could be used.
Allright. I'm not 100% certain that this is actually what I've seen, but I 
know I've seen some linux webcam server (can't recall on top of my head 
exactly which one) that manages to stream live "video" (as in non-stopping 
JPEG-frames) directly to just about ANY web-browser without any plugin 
(except for I.E.) utilizing some little special feature in the JPEG-encoding 
process, allowing for amongst other things a low-resolution version of the 
image to be loaded at first. But as far as I understand, it also allows 
full-resolution versions of the same JPEG to be overlayed on top of each 
other over regular HTTP, directly to just about any browser, forming a video.

> > Allright. ;) I agree, it's ugly, but nice for the dumb windows users. I
> > still haven't heard of any windows-user that have managed to view my xvid
> > in RTSP-stream from spook. :-/
> It definitely works from QuickTime on Windows.  That's my primary testing
> platform, so I'm sure it works fine.

> The QuickTime player can be embedded in a webpage, making it really easy
> for dumb users.  I just put up <http://www.litech.org/spook/qt-embed.html>
> that shows how to do this.
Allright. That's just about the ONLY player I haven't tried. I will have a 
look at the page to see if it's solveable. :)

> > I agree. This might be a useful thing to do for most users. But would it
> > really be difficult to create a simple HTML-template-engine in spook and
> > connect it to the existing webserver, just to offer the user an
> > alternative to installing Apache or some other external web-server?
> That's actually on my to-do list, but pretty far down.  (Read: not funded)
> Once I put in the local file access to do media streaming out of MP3 and
> AVI files, an HTML server won't be that hard to add.  For now, putting the
> HTML files on a different webserver is a pretty straightforward
> workaround.  -Nathan
Allright. Two further questions:
Is separate HTTP Path:s solved in CVS? i.e. could /webcam.jpg and /webcam.html 
lead to different pages on the web?

Will a user-contributed template for HTML-templates have a chance to be 
included into mainline spook?

Regards
/ Ulrik

-- 
mummy, n.:
 An Egyptian who was pressed for time.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.litech.org/pipermail/spook-l/attachments/20041114/3eeb01be/attachment.bin