Transcript Shared Webcasting Web site

EUR-OCEANS Web Conference tool
An efficient way to broadcast lectures online
and interact with a wider global audience
CO2
CO2
CO2
Think carbon footprint reduction!
Think money saving!
$ £ €
IMBER used the Web broadcast tool twice:
1) CLIMECO, a training for young scientists
April 2008, Brest, France
Broadcast led by EUR-OCEANS staff with “EUR-OCEANS WebConference
tool”
 Doubled our audience to the lectures
2) E2E EcoModel Summer School
August 2008, Ankara, Turkey
 Broadcast led by local organizers with a tool developed by METU
What is EUR-OCEANS Web broadcast
tool?
• “Web conference tool” was develop by the EUROCEANS communication team
• Gives the ability to stream live video of meetings,
conferences, lectures etc….
• A worldwide audience can follow the talk from home
and interact through a Q & A session
• Possibility to use it on all platforms (Windows, Linux,
Unix, Mac OS …). All it takes is a computer, a
camera, a microphone and an internet connection.
What it looks like?
presentation
Q&A window
Video window: Lecturer talking
http://www.eur-oceans.info/live/player.php
How it works?
Broadcaster
Lecturer and
local audience
Local network
Internet
Flash streaming
server
Viewers around
the world
Solutions and Costs
Option 1: EUR-OCEANS webconference tool as used during CLIMECO.
Provides:
• Capacity for web meetings: 10 platforms max
• Capacity for summer schools: 150 connections, Q&A system, recording of
lectures still in development
Pros: cheap when split between EUROCEANS and IMBER;
The IT guy from IUEM continues development
Cons: no professional technical support; service is as good as the user
IPO must be trained
Cost for 2009: 1728€ VAT included
Equipment: a microphone, a webcam, a decent laptop over 1000€
Solutions and Costs
Option 2: An alternative Web conference tool, provided at IUEM,
proposed by the developers and by Oceanopolis
Provides:
• Capacity for web meetings: 10 platforms max
• Capacity for summer schools: Q&A system, recording done by user, 2-150
connections
Pros: full technical support
Cons: cheap for Web meetings, but limited summer school capacity; expensive
to have both!
Cost for 2009:
- 2 to 20 connections = 866€ VAT included + 0.36€ per user per min (120min
meeting of 10 platforms = 400€ plus the monthly charge!)
- 21 to 150 connections = 3500€ per year
Equipment: a microphone, a webcam, a decent laptop over 1000€
Solutions and Costs
Option 3: Professional sound & image for Summer Schools or
Conferences
Option as you see AAAS and AGU do all the time, example at
http://webtv.illipack.com/
Provides:
• No web meetings capacity
• Capacity for summer schools: full service, 150 connections, re-transmission
Pros: full service provided, re-transmission of summer schools, optimal quality
and back-up
Cons: high price!
(CLIMECO would have cost 10 000€)
Cost PER DAY: 2000€ VAT not included for a professional staff of 5-6
Pros
Cons
Increases the audience for free
Quality depends on the internet
connection
Facilitates participation of scientists
from developing countries
Quality depends on the material
Decreases the travel costs
Ex: good for an Exec Meeting
Decreases the Carbon footprint
Quality depends on technical
support: service is as good as
the user
Requires a full time person
during the meeting, dedicated to
this duty.
Simple material required: a
computer, a good webcam, a micro,
an internet connection
The user must have good
technical knowledge of the tool
Cheap ….
…or expensive, depending on
the chosen option
IMBER would like to use this system (or a
comparable system) for next training activities or
conferences.
but there is an associated cost and technical
constrains!
QUESTIONS FROM IMBER
Did the other projects use this kind of tools?
Experience from every projects?
Is there a sustainable need from each project?
If there is a need, maybe SCOR could:
1) bring a financial contribution
or
2) develop a tool or work with a company ( as
SCOR did with Conf Manager for meeting
organization).
Other slides if needed:
Technical aspect
Technical Aspect
System based on “The Flash Streaming”
The main advantage is the possibility to use it on all platforms (Windows,
Linux, Unix, Mac OS …). Moreover it is less expensive than video
conference systems requiring the renting of a RTC line and specialized
material.
Indeed, an Internet connection, a webcam and a microphone plugged
on the computer are only needed.
The three components
The system is composed of three inter-dependant components:
The Broadcaster is responsible for creating and producing the content
to be broadcast over the internet, audio and/or video and making it
available to the content distributor. Generally through an Encoder and
broadband connection to the distributor network.
The Content Distributor (server) is responsible for accessing your
broadcast, and delivering it effectively to your audience.
The purpose of any internet broadcast is to deliver the best possible
experience to an audience, and to make it as easy as possible for them
to view a broadcast. All a viewer (or listener) needs to do is click on a
hyperlink in a website, or in an email, to automatically begin
receiving the broadcaster's stream (through the distributor). The viewer
will need to have an internet connection with enough bandwidth to
receive the data at the same rate you are broadcasting at, and have a
player installed that is able to play the broadcast .
The broadcaster view
Technical features for an optimal broadcast
-Internet connection: 256kb upload and 512kb download
- Equipment:
 Computer :
 1 Pentium 4, 500Mb RAM, Windows XP (for the Encoder or the Player)
 1 Centrino, 1G RAM, Windows XM (for the broadcaster)
 Webcam with high quality image: minimum price ~70 €
 Unidirectional Microphone
-Service of a flash streaming server (2 solutions):
 Limited number of connections and high pass band (in our case, 150
simultaneous connections and 3Gb total pass band cost 150€ per month including
all the pass band used by the broadcaster, and the viewers).
or
 Limited pass band for a unlimited number of connections.
How it works
Control room