Accustats streams

[mnShooter]

First off, let me say that I really appreciate Accustats live streaming. They do a great job producing DVD's and live streams. They have the best commentators and an all around great production usually with brackets and live scoring. I also buy nearly all PPV's that they produce and I've bought a few DVD's as well.

This isn't meant to be an Accustats bashing thread. I only want to provide some constructive criticism.

I feel the video quality of the streams could use some work. Video quality is the most important thing to me when watching a stream. A company like Accustats should have the best video quality out there. Sadly, many of the amateur streamers have better video quality. When you can't make out which ball is which and there is major pixelation something is wrong.

I'm sure many of you will say don't complain about the free stream. Well the PPV stream is the same way. If I'm dishing out $60+ to watch a stream I would like it to be clear.

Please Accustats, work on the video quality and I'm sure all the viewers would be much more satisfied with the streams. I know I would be.

 

[silvr rcr]

Some of this can have to do with the internet speed where the event is being held. I know thats been a problem with my own streams. I'm not speaking for accustats, but this is one thing to keep in mind when watching a stream, there are things out of our control when we attend an event to stream and many times we're told that the business has "business class" internet, which still ends up being slow.

 

[mnShooter]

I've never streamed before so I can't tell you for sure what the problem is. I don't think it has to do with the bandwidth at the venues though since they seem to have the same quality video at most locations. Usually you can get a very good stream with a solid 256KB upload bandwidth.

I think it has to do with their cameras. If they are using non digital cameras then the video has to be converted. This can require a huge amount of processing power. I've converted mini-dv video in the past and it took twice as long to convert the files to wmv as it did to record them.

I'm guessing a $500-1000 HD camcorder would do better for streaming.

 

[JCIN]

Some of this can have to do with the internet speed where the event is being held. I know thats been a problem with my own streams. I'm not speaking for accustats, but this is one thing to keep in mind when watching a stream, there are things out of our control when we attend an event to stream and many times we're told that the business has "business class" internet, which still ends up being slow.

Winner.

A stream is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain. Many times the pipe going out of the event to the PPV or Ustream servers is sketchy. Just the nature of the kinds of places pool events are held. You would be absolutely astonished that some major vegas hotels have internet service circa 1996. Its terrible.

Most room owners just know "we have the internet". Finding out and correcting when possible the upload speed of host connections is one of the largest challenges to streaming. You literally are at the mercy of their network. I spend a lot of time before events doing everything possible to assure a good connection but sometimes it is out of your hands.

We have paid up to $3000 for a connection in a hotel before. It had problems during a PPV. Things just happen.

The Horseshoe that hosts the Derby has a 1MB up connection for all traffic coming out of the convention center. Accu-stats streams and we stream. Usually it works OK. Last year each day around a certain time everything would go to hell. Best we could figure some system in the hotel was uploading data and using enough of the network to screw up a solid flow of the streams. There is no real option to fix this. Sometimes if a hotel has an on the ball IT staff they can prioritize traffic but good luck finding that. This is just to point out that a streamer can do everything right and the end result still isn't satisfying.

The Accu-stats stream I saw from JOB's today looked great. Its obvious they had brought in some good lighting and everything was very sharp.

 

[JCIN]

I've never streamed before so I can't tell you for sure what the problem is. I don't think it has to do with the bandwidth at the venues though since they seem to have the same quality video at most locations. Usually you can get a very good stream with a solid 256KB upload bandwidth.

I think it has to do with their cameras. If they are using non digital cameras then the video has to be converted. This can require a huge amount of processing power. I've converted mini-dv video in the past and it took twice as long to convert the files to wmv as it did to record them.

I'm guessing a $500-1000 HD camcorder would do better for streaming.

I have never been able to get a stream out that looked anygood with a 256k connection. The lowest quality stream we ever put up is 323k with 512k Flash VP6 or H.264 the norm.

Conversion to the codec you are sending out is a big deal. I havent streamed with a consumer laptop or desktop in a long time but there are certainly lots of things that can go wrong.

As for cameras better quality is always good but lighting makes much much more of a difference. Give me 3 $300 cameras and a full lighting set up and it will look better than 3 Sony EX-3's and no lights. Only thing is in pool lights are a real pain in the ass.

If someone is using a dedicated analog capture card instead of firewire or USB connection I could see some extra processor loads I guess but I think most of the issues are FME profiles and network issues.

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

Winner.

A stream is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain. Many times the pipe going out of the event to the PPV or Ustream servers is sketchy. Just the nature of the kinds of places pool events are held. You would be absolutely astonished that some major vegas hotels have internet service circa 1996. Its terrible.

Most room owners just know "we have the internet". Finding out and correcting when possible the upload speed of host connections is one of the largest challenges to streaming. You literally are at the mercy of their network. I spend a lot of time before events doing everything possible to assure a good connection but sometimes it is out of your hands.

We have paid up to $3000 for a connection in a hotel before. It had problems during a PPV. Things just happen.

The Horseshoe that hosts the Derby has a 1MB up connection for all traffic coming out of the convention center. Accu-stats streams and we stream. Usually it works OK. Last year each day around a certain time everything would go to hell. Best we could figure some system in the hotel was uploading data and using enough of the network to screw up a solid flow of the streams. There is no real option to fix this. Sometimes if a hotel has an on the ball IT staff they can prioritize traffic but good luck finding that. This is just to point out that a streamer can do everything right and the end result still isn't satisfying.

The Accu-stats stream I saw from JOB's today looked great. Its obvious they had brought in some good lighting and everything was very sharp.

I joined in for a little while last night during Gabe's match and Jerry F. and Stevie Moore, while commentating, were alluding to how it was difficult to discern which balls were which on their video. I agree with the OP that the quality was low enough making it hard, if not impossible, to enjoy the strategy of pattern play.

I was watching TVMike stram a few nights ago where I could actually see the numbers on the balls. Was almost able to see the time on one of the players wristwatch.

I have certainly seen very high quality coming from TAR.

Thanks JCIN, for your in depth explanation on what the streamers are up against with respect to their signal only being able to be as good as "the weakest link".

Makes perfect sense.

I wonder though, you said when you watched, it looked very sharp.

Could this have been one of those situations where it was better at a different time of day?

Best,
Brian kc

 

[mnShooter]

Thanks for the input Justin. Maybe I was a little bit off on the numbers for the upload speed. So a location needs a minimum 300k upload speed. Preferably 500k or better. Also lighting plays a big factor.

I think if accustats would stay zoomed into the table closer it might help. Also the accustats show streams seem to be a little bit better.


Maybe I'm being overly critical. Here's a few screenshots of some of the different streamers out there.

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/6149/accustats.jpg
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/881/accustats2.jpg
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/1715/accustats3.jpg
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/3115/bigtruck.jpg
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/5688/billiardcoach.jpg
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/2954/insidepoolmag.jpg
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2185/mibilliards.jpg
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9229/tvmike.jpg

 

[JCIN]

I joined in for a little while last night during Gabe's match and Jerry F. and Stevie Moore, while commentating, were alluding to how it was difficult to discern which balls were which on their video. I agree with the OP that the quality was low enough making it hard, if not impossible, to enjoy the strategy of pattern play.

I was watching TVMike stram a few nights ago where I could actually see the numbers on the balls. Was almost able to see the time on one of the players wristwatch.

I have certainly seen very high quality coming from TAR.

Thanks JCIN, for your in depth explanation on what the streamers are up against with respect to their signal only being able to be as good as "the weakest link".

Makes perfect sense.

I wonder though, you said when you watched, it looked very sharp.

Could this have been one of those situations where it was better at a different time of day?

Best,
Brian kc

The little bit of the Accu-Stats stream I saw yesterday at about 3:30 Pacific time. Looked like they were running a crane with a pan/tilt head. The overhead fixed angle was a litle high and a little flat for my taste and that may have something to do with some of the comments about not being able to see the balls. To me it looked pretty good but with some funky angles.

I have seen a little bit of one TVMikes streams and was really impressed with the clarity and sharpness. Of the seemingly endless list of people streaming now his was at the top in terms sharpness.