Are CAM sites prepared for 4K streaming today ?

[rokoroko]

Are the cams sites prepared for the 4K streaming of its already happening and I am not aware of it ?
I haven't been on the forum for a while, so sorry if this topic already mentioned before.

A lot of 4KTVs are sold everyday.

Actually, to answer the question by myself, - I am prepared with 4KCamGirls dot com.

So if any of CAM providers is already on 4Kboard I would like to use their promo tools for sure .
I would like to hear your opinion.

rokoroko

[adultmobile]

Most cam streams are 640x480, so not even 1k, and guys are ok with that, I think for 4k in live cams as standard we have to wait 2030 or so. Most guys eyes are not even trained to see difference between 1k to 2k.

[H3x]

I doubt many amateur webcam performers will stream in 4k as it would require a decent internet connection and recording/streaming equipment.

Most performers that i see run their stream at smaller resolutions so obviously run on a budget.

[rokoroko]

I see , so may be from the marketing perspective it could be used with the maximal today's provided resolution could be used this DN ?

I have remembered I have also 4k-cams com too.

[k0nr4d]

The internet is not ready for 4k cams. On the webcam site end it's mostly server settings. Most models don't have enough upstream to broadcast in 4k, and most users don't have enough downstream to watch in 4k.

[MaDalton]

i don't see that happening until H265 is spread wide enough - and that will take at least 2-3 more years

[Tango]

At least 5+ years away

[MichaelP]

While in this subject (sort of)... One of my tech guy working on an actual project was asking me this question : (Maybe I shouod try in a fresh thread as well

Are webcams nowadays are using one of these protocols (or all of hem) : MPEG-TS, RTMP ou RTP ? Thanks forward

[Ferus]

Lol... try streaming 4k video live. Do you have any fucking clue what gpu that would take?

[2MuchMark]

Completely impractical for a number of reasons such as high CPU and GPU requirements, not to mention high bandwidth Requirements. Even if you could broadcast it, the chances of your end users meeting all the requirements to view it is low at this point in time.

It's also pretty unnecessary. While you can now easily stream to Smart TV's (we do!), All 4K TV's "up-convert" HD video, just like HD TV's "Up convert" from 720k video, with really good results. This alone gives you great video quality without high resource requirements.

[VSKevin]

Originally Posted by **********

Completely impractical for a number of reasons such as high CPU and GPU requirements, not to mention high bandwidth Requirements. Even if you could broadcast it, the chances of your end users meeting all the requirements to view it is low at this point in time.

It's also pretty unnecessary. While you can now easily stream to Smart TV's (we do!), All 4K TV's "up-convert" HD video, just like HD TV's "Up convert" from 720k video, with really good results. This alone gives you great video quality without high resource requirements.

[rokoroko]

Originally Posted by **********

Completely impractical for a number of reasons such as high CPU and GPU requirements, not to mention high bandwidth Requirements. Even if you could broadcast it, the chances of your end users meeting all the requirements to view it is low at this point in time.

It's also pretty unnecessary. While you can now easily stream to Smart TV's (we do!), All 4K TV's "up-convert" HD video, just like HD TV's "Up convert" from 720k video, with really good results. This alone gives you great video quality without high resource requirements.

From today's perspective sure, its a waste of GPU,CPU, bandwidth, but
as 4K streaming today , was HD streaming yesterday sci-fi .
I haven't said, it would not be uncompressed stream or any form of up convert.
Well in few years there is probably no argue that 4K broadcasting is a sure thing, than 4K streaming will follow , sooner or later.

the 4K monitors and 4KTVs will be used for its main purposes - for 4K content.

Today you are right - today its a sci-fi. But we must be prepared for the future.

[Barry-xlovecam]

1080p big maybe. 4K? In your wet dreams.
Live streams in 4K would use more bandwidth than 99% of a camsite's customers have available.

The Adoption Of 4K Streaming Will Be Stalled By Bandwidth, Not Hardware & Devices - Dan Rayburn - StreamingMediaBlog.com

Maybe 1:1 with WebRTC? Hook up your 4K webcam to a WebRTC broadcast site and report back to us ...

5 or 10 years from now there will be new technologies. Webcams were just leaving the Java stage and the 1-5 FPS era 12 years ago -- I was there ..

[rokoroko]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

1080p big maybe. 4K? In your wet dreams.
Live streams in 4K would use more bandwidth than 99% of a camsite's customers have available.

The Adoption Of 4K Streaming Will Be Stalled By Bandwidth, Not Hardware & Devices - Dan Rayburn - StreamingMediaBlog.com

Maybe 1:1 with WebRTC? Hook up your 4K webcam to a WebRTC broadcast site and report back to us ...

5 or 10 years from now there will be new technologies. Webcams were just leaving the Java stage and the 1-5 FPS era 12 years ago -- I was there ..

I don't know what u can afford there , but here in Czech I have 100Mbit on optical fiber, I can definitely afford it by the bandwidth side. I bet it will come much sooner than in 5 years. (not speaking about everywhere service for everybody , speaking about specialized websites for special consumers)

countries like Korea and Japan are quite ahead in the fiber connections, the first users, consumers could come from these areas.

anyway , we will see when it comes.
anyway thanks for good article xlovecam

[j3rkules]

No way it will happen in the near future.

[Barry-xlovecam]

If I buy a new house in a newer subdivision 5 km from here I can get 1Gbs service.

We have 60 Gbs of external leased lines for our servers now and we would need to buy a lot more if we broadcast 1080p or 4K. Like 10's of thousands of Euros a month ...

Forget about the money -- streaming canned product that is prerecorded is possible assuming people would pay the premium. ATM I am more interested in spending money on new broadcast technologies. It is conceivable that WebRTC peer to peer might support 4K better with the users paying the cost of their own bandwidth. That is preferable to our spending a lot to give away 4K free chat

4K if adopted in webcam streaming will only be for paid private shows to my thinking. It makes sense to deliver the best quality only when people are paying for it. This would limit the costs right now on bandwidth if we use an intermediary server. When you simultaneously transmit 600+ streams to 2,000+- viewers at peak times you would have issues with the FMS servers operating capacity at that speed -- up to 60FPS -- that is 50,000 to 120,000 frames per second transmitted total.

You need to understand loadbalancing, MTU fragmentation bottlenecks and payload delivery in live video streaming. In IPV6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_packet#Fragmentation there may be user end fragmentation user CPU reassembly issues too.

Another thing is model (performer) upload speed -- most internet is asynchronous. Studios are sharing fibre bandwidth between their models. Independent models bandwidth will vary also. So it is on the incoming transmission side also.

Experiment toward the future fine. Invest heavily in immature technology -- no.

[adultmobile]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i don't see that happening until H265 is spread wide enough - and that will take at least 2-3 more years

H265: too slow with current cpu and the current gpu's (esp. on cell phones, tablets) have h264 chips, can't decode or esp. encode h265 fast, it is h264 optimised. Hardware should all be replaced with new one for H265. Done this... the bandwidth bottleneck etc. etc.

I still think most viewers have NOT the eye to even appreciate or notice difference between 1k and 4k, some really don't figure 320x240 from 1080p, believe me

[rokoroko]

thanks a lot for the clarification on this topic Xlovecam !

Ok, I will than wait a little bit with my DNs to develop them in the live cams website till any cam studio offers the so called 4K format, it need not to be pure 4K , but at least marketed as 4K with some nice 1K format , when it is even not noticeable?

rokoroko

[NatalieK]

Most models still use standard cams & don't even have hd cams, let's not forget, it's not only the studio, but the models bandwidth, internet connection & cam they stream from.

I use a high quality HD camera with face recognition for my live cam shows, although, half the time, I cut the quality lower, as hd is simply not needed. 1mb upload is pretty standard from europe upload

[Barry-xlovecam]

I didn't even get into the webcam broadcaster software development aspects.

Any software developed for broadcasting in 4K would most likely be new, have to use raw sockets and be non Flash. It is not that Flash RTMP could not be used -- the problem is that browser support of Flash has a very limited shelf live today.

So, any new 4K broadcaster would probably have to be developed using WebRTC technology and that is only working 1:1 (peer2peer) currently -- we have a beta site currently but not doing 4K AFIK (today).
see:
https://webrtchacks.com/video-constraints-2/
https://software.intel.com/en-us/for...c/topic/560654

Canned product =Yes
Live broadcasting = No

Tell me when you get live television broadcasts like sports events (e.g.; football games) broadcast in 4K. The advertising money is there but the live broadcast technology is not there yet

[ruff]

What kind of monitors do we need to have to appreciate 4K?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by ruff

What kind of monitors do we need to have to appreciate 4K?

Expensive ones :OD

ASUS, 4k monitor - Newegg.com
Example ASUS Brand

[incredibleworkethic]

I wish more cam sites would offer 1080p, let alone 4k, but it WILL come but WHEN?

[Dmitry]

I don't think problem is with bandwidth, there are 2 problems:
1) expensive webcam devices which would be able to take 4K frames at 30-60 FPS especially at low light conditions.
2) it would take pretty much CPU usage.

I just did a test yesterday and while my webcam Logitech C910 with i5 CPU:
1) 640x480 (0.3k): ~30 FPS, stable video and FPS
2) 800x600 (0.48k): ~30 FPS, image is better, FPS is a bit unstable but fine
3) 1280x960 (1.2k): ~6-7 FPS, clean image even on full-screen resolution, but it is choppy
4) 1600x1200 (2k): ~1FPS, unacceptable quality

I have a regular PC and USB webcam not optimized for video streaming and with fast PC and good webcam we could have 1k video at good quality, but it is too early for 2k and 4K.

For now 0.3k-0.5K used in most cases.

[rabbit]

maybe better question is when cam sites are going to ditch flash for html5?

[MrBottomTooth]

If I heard correctly I believe you need about 25mbs down to stream 4k on Netflix without constant buffering. Most customers aren't even going to have that capability. Not to mention what kind of upload will the cam girl need? Not going to happen.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by adultmobile

H265: too slow with current cpu and the current gpu's (esp. on cell phones, tablets) have h264 chips, can't decode or esp. encode h265 fast, it is h264 optimised. Hardware should all be replaced with new one for H265. Done this... the bandwidth bottleneck etc. etc.

I still think most viewers have NOT the eye to even appreciate or notice difference between 1k and 4k, some really don't figure 320x240 from 1080p, believe me

well, yeah, that's what I said basically: H265 will take some more years because it needs to be supported by hardware

but H265 makes it possible to have 4K files in good quality at roughly the same bitrate as H264 1080p files right now - so when you can stream 1080p in acceptable quality now, you can do it with 4K/H265 too - someday.

but at the end it comes down to: a good webcam performer with personality on a 320x240 cam will outsell a boring broad in 4K any day.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by rabbit

maybe better question is when cam sites are going to ditch flash for html5?

It's coming

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

[b]ut at the end it comes down to: a good webcam performer with personality on a 320x240 cam will outsell a boring broad in 4K any day.

HQ/HD is good at larger resolutions like from a c920 Logitech webcam.

People like real people and are not image quality fanatics anyway ... Your observation is spot on IMHO.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by rabbit

maybe better question is when cam sites are going to ditch flash for html5?

Done! ;)


And actually I want to modify my original post on the subject. 4K Streaming is impractical today for smaller chat sites. Getting to 4k can be done today but only with significant investment in technology, and with little payoff except for bragging rights, "today".

However in maybe 2 years, there will be more 4K capable customers, and costs to stream will be cheaper.

Maybe a lot cheaper - Check this out. Today I received a phone call from Bell, my home Internet service provider, offering to upgrade my already 320mb/s bandwidth, to 1 Gig (1000mb/s), for only $7.00 more. Holy shit!! I said yes, and should have the upgrade on Monday or Tuesday. So maybe 4k webcam streaming isn't that far off after all.

[rokoroko]

Originally Posted by **********

Done! ;)


And actually I want to modify my original post on the subject. 4K Streaming is impractical today for smaller chat sites. Getting to 4k can be done today but only with significant investment in technology, and with little payoff except for bragging rights, "today".

However in maybe 2 years, there will be more 4K capable customers, and costs to stream will be cheaper.

Maybe a lot cheaper - Check this out. Today I received a phone call from Bell, my home Internet service provider, offering to upgrade my already 320mb/s bandwidth, to 1 Gig (1000mb/s), for only $7.00 more. Holy shit!! I said yes, and should have the upgrade on Monday or Tuesday. So maybe 4k webcam streaming isn't that far off after all.

Great to hear it !

So it will not be so unrealistic in next years , and as said, it not need to be full 4K at beginning , and the customers in Korea and Japan have good connections for sure for it in mass population already.

[adultmobile]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

but at the end it comes down to: a good webcam performer with personality on a 320x240 cam will outsell a boring broad in 4K any day.

Even a boring ugly cam performer with no personality and bad English language, in 320x240 blurry dark cam and slow frame rate, it can outsell any super USA native top model former playboy playmate in 4K HD++, if she is lucky enough to get a totally lunatic whale fall in love with her, and sell his own home to give all he got to her.
I seen this happening, the most ugly and boring and bad background and setting model, with very little english skills... at times get that strange guy who even learn russian or whatever language she speaks, sends her money to buy better cam and pc (but not necessarily), ends up buying a BMW or even an home and so on. It is much like the lottery.
I think these guys do not fall for the most pretty and successful cam girls because they don't think it is real the girl can be interested at him and become a real gf - while less noticeable girls may possibly become a real gf instead (this theory is wrong, but, well, what do you expect from who is selling the own home to give all his money and wealth to a cam girl who got a local bf and hides him even not that well?).

So - 4K or even 1K is not that much relevant for the $$ factor in cam business, except that 5% or max 10% of guys who are "video quality fetish", but these guys spend less money than the "brain fucked" ones.

[JIBCONTENT]

Your question is about a decade early

MFC is still 320p




and the girls are making a kilingggggg

[BellaSinns]

no one gives a fuck about 4k