[Galene] feature: two cameras for galene

[Galene] feature: two cameras for galene

[Dave Taht]

Dear Juliusz:

I cc shevek  here so I don't stay in the middle. The specific
part of his complex answer is that

> In Zoom, Present, Advanced, Use secondary camera as presentation source,
> then some ugly piece of UI to choose the correct secondary camera, then
> you're presenting two cameras.

A bit more below. He had done a fine job with the recent asilomar
computer conference,
but the congestion control weaknesses of zoom at such limited
bandwidths had tweaked me,
AND I totally didn't understand how complicated the setup had to be to
serve both the needs
of those at the conference and those remote, until now. (and still don't!)

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 12:55 PM Shevek <shevek@anarres.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, because I have two video streams: My face, and my presentation.
>
> They're thinking that presentation cannot be a camera feed, but it can,
> because our podium presenter sends HDMI, which goes through a hardware
> encoder (blackmagic web presenter), which presents as a UVC camera.
>
> Logging in from two browser tabs in order to speak to an audience and
> present slides would be very odd and somewhat backwards.
>
> The workaround to play back the secondary camera feed into a desktop
> window, and present that window, is possible, but a very CPU-intensive
> workaround, as it all has to go through the GPU, compositor, window
> manager, and X server unnecessarily. Far better to just use the
> secondary camera as the presentation.
>
> In Zoom, Present, Advanced, Use secondary camera as presentation source,
> then some ugly piece of UI to choose the correct secondary camera, then
> you're presenting two cameras.
>
> S.
>
> On 5/10/22 12:36, Dave Taht wrote:
> > The author of galene asks for a clarification here:
> >
> > https://lists.galene.org/galene/CAA93jw6Ni1ywBu7DyoUtOD-+bim849tfRtH-uv4Fq-+8+Dm=fg@mail.gmail.com/T/#t
> >
> > "I'd really appreciate a clarification.
> >
> > Galene allows you to select the camera you use.  If you need to use
> > multiple cameras simultaneously, you just login from two different
> > browser tabs, and select different cameras in the two tabs.
> >
> > What exactly is missing?  The ability to use two cameras in a single tab?
> > "
> >



-- 
FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

[Galene] Re: feature: two cameras for galene

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

>> They're thinking that presentation cannot be a camera feed,

Having two cameras is not unusual.  At seminars, we sometimes have one
camera focused on the speaker and one that films

>> Logging in from two browser tabs in order to speak to an audience and
>> present slides would be very odd and somewhat backwards.

We've never encountered this issue, since in our setup the two cameras are
connected to two distinct computers.  We've also been hoping that
interfacing with OBS would solve this kind of setup issues, but OBS has
been slow in doing their WebRTC support, and RTMP doesn't have the right
features.

Shevek, what should the UI for that look like?  Open the side menu, click
« Add secondary camera », a second Present/Unpresent button appears?

If we develop such a feature, would you be willing to do some testing for us?

-- Juliusz

[Galene] Re: feature: two cameras for galene

[Shevek]

Thank you for following up.

In UI terms, I would expect:
Present/Share My ...
--> Window / Tab / Desktop / _Camera_
----> Select the appropriate window/desktop/camera as usual.

where Camera is a new option allowing me to select a v4l2 source instead 
of using screen capture. The presentation source comes in via something 
which (in hardware terms) looks like a camera, but usually isn't, in 
fact, an optical element. In practice, I use an ATEM to composite the 
"presentation" image from various SDI sources, and render it down to a 
single stream entirely in hardware, which then presents as a v4l2 device.

If I'm streaming to an RTMP/RTSP reflector (Youtube, Twitch, Brightcove, 
Vimeo, etc), then I  don't need Galene/Zoom/OBS/GVC at all, as the 
hardware has RT*P support. But if I'm hosting a meeting on a particular 
bidirectional video conference system, then the ability to treat a 
secondary UVC device as a presentation source is an absolute blocker 
(unless I want to render the presenter as a PiP, which detracts from one 
corner of the presentation, and does not give the viewer choice of focus).

Does that help? I can probably make screenshots...

S.

On 5/10/22 15:40, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>>> They're thinking that presentation cannot be a camera feed,
> 
> Having two cameras is not unusual.  At seminars, we sometimes have one
> camera focused on the speaker and one that films
> 
>>> Logging in from two browser tabs in order to speak to an audience and
>>> present slides would be very odd and somewhat backwards.
> 
> We've never encountered this issue, since in our setup the two cameras are
> connected to two distinct computers.  We've also been hoping that
> interfacing with OBS would solve this kind of setup issues, but OBS has
> been slow in doing their WebRTC support, and RTMP doesn't have the right
> features.
> 
> Shevek, what should the UI for that look like?  Open the side menu, click
> « Add secondary camera », a second Present/Unpresent button appears?
> 
> If we develop such a feature, would you be willing to do some testing for us?
> 
> -- Juliusz
> 

[Galene] Re: feature: two cameras for galene

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

> In UI terms, I would expect:
> Present/Share My ...
> --> Window / Tab / Desktop / _Camera_
> ----> Select the appropriate window/desktop/camera as usual.

That cannot be implemented: the UI that allows you to pick what to share
is provided by the browser, and cannot be customised by the application.

Also, Galene's UI doesn't work like that: it's designed to allow easily
sharing multiple windows (during an online lecture, I will often share my
slides and a virtual blackboard, and during a practical, students often
share an editor and a terminal window).

You may try it out at https://galene.org:8443/group/public/ (empty
password).

The ability to have multiple cameras streaming from a single tab is
useful, but it requires some thought to integrate into the UI.

> If I'm streaming to an RTMP/RTSP reflector (Youtube, Twitch, Brightcove,
> Vimeo, etc), then I  don't need Galene/Zoom/OBS/GVC at all, as the
> hardware has RT*P support.

It would not be too difficult to implement RTMP support in Galene; the
problem, however, is that the only codecs that are supported by both RTMP
and WebRTC are H.264 and G.711, and the former is not supported on some
devices, while the latter has atrocious sound quality.

[Galene] Re: feature: two cameras for galene

[Shevek]

That's a shame. Is it just that the UI I've described is impossible, or 
can the browser only manage one "camera" at a time?

It definitely appears, from things like 
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22787549/accessing-multiple-camera-javascript-getusermedia 
that multiple cameras is possible, just not with the UI I described. To 
be fair, Zoom (which is probably browserish underneath) doesn't have the 
elegant UI either.

S.

On 5/10/22 19:13, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> In UI terms, I would expect:
>> Present/Share My ...
>> --> Window / Tab / Desktop / _Camera_
>> ----> Select the appropriate window/desktop/camera as usual.
> 
> That cannot be implemented: the UI that allows you to pick what to share
> is provided by the browser, and cannot be customised by the application.
> 
> Also, Galene's UI doesn't work like that: it's designed to allow easily
> sharing multiple windows (during an online lecture, I will often share my
> slides and a virtual blackboard, and during a practical, students often
> share an editor and a terminal window).
> 
> You may try it out at https://galene.org:8443/group/public/ (empty
> password).
> 
> The ability to have multiple cameras streaming from a single tab is
> useful, but it requires some thought to integrate into the UI.
> 
>> If I'm streaming to an RTMP/RTSP reflector (Youtube, Twitch, Brightcove,
>> Vimeo, etc), then I  don't need Galene/Zoom/OBS/GVC at all, as the
>> hardware has RT*P support.
> 
> It would not be too difficult to implement RTMP support in Galene; the
> problem, however, is that the only codecs that are supported by both RTMP
> and WebRTC are H.264 and G.711, and the former is not supported on some
> devices, while the latter has atrocious sound quality.
> 

[Galene] Re: feature: two cameras for galene

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

> That's a shame. Is it just that the UI I've described is impossible, or
> can the browser only manage one "camera" at a time?

The UI that you described is impossible to implement in current browsers.

Allowing multiple cameras is trivial, we just need to design a UI that is
implementable and doesn't confuse users who don't need the feature.

-- Juliusz

[Galene] Re: feature: two cameras for galene

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> writes:

>> That's a shame. Is it just that the UI I've described is impossible, or
>> can the browser only manage one "camera" at a time?
>
> The UI that you described is impossible to implement in current browsers.
>
> Allowing multiple cameras is trivial, we just need to design a UI that is
> implementable and doesn't confuse users who don't need the feature.

How about changing the existing share button so that when clicking it,
you get a pop down (in the web UI) with a choice of "screen" or "second
camera". This will make it readily accessible and not too confusing IMO;
the drawback is that it adds an extra click for people who just want to
share their screen...

-Toke

[Galene] Re: feature: two cameras for galene

[Gabriel Kerneis]

Hi Juliusz,

> Shevek, what should the UI for that look like?  Open the side menu, click
> « Add secondary camera », a second Present/Unpresent button appears?

Another idea: instead of a drop-down list of cameras in the side menu, display them with checkboxes that allow enabling any number of them.

I'm not sure about audio though: is the secondary feed considered muted? If not, how do you pick its audio source? In that case several browser tabs may still be the best option. My UI suggestion doesn't allow distinguishing a primary camera.

Best,
Gabriel

[Galene] Re: feature: two cameras for galene

[Dave Taht]

what this sounds to me is agitating for enhancements to browser
implementations of webrtc to match the feature set that zoom
presently delivers.

This does not strike me as hard to inspire the remaining browser
developers to attempt.

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:57 PM Gabriel Kerneis <gabriel@kerneis.info> wrote:
>
> Hi Juliusz,
>
> > Shevek, what should the UI for that look like?  Open the side menu, click
> > « Add secondary camera », a second Present/Unpresent button appears?
>
> Another idea: instead of a drop-down list of cameras in the side menu, display them with checkboxes that allow enabling any number of them.
>
> I'm not sure about audio though: is the secondary feed considered muted? If not, how do you pick its audio source? In that case several browser tabs may still be the best option. My UI suggestion doesn't allow distinguishing a primary camera.
>
> Best,
> Gabriel
> _______________________________________________
> Galene mailing list -- galene@lists.galene.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to galene-leave@lists.galene.org



-- 
FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

[Galene] Re: feature: two cameras for galene

[T H Panton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 491 bytes --]



> On 10. May 2022, at 23:58, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> They're thinking that presentation cannot be a camera feed, but it can,
>> because our podium presenter sends HDMI, which goes through a hardware
>> encoder (blackmagic web presenter), which presents as a UVC camera.

What you could do is plug that encoder into a Raspberry Pi running my software and send the stream to the conference that way.
Ideally whipi would be running in the encoder hardware.

T.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1410 bytes --]

[Galene] Re: feature: two cameras for galene

[Fabrice Rouillier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1200 bytes --]

Hi all,

For all the videos and screen sharing, an easy possibility would be to use the OBS virtual camera, so that you can arrange whatever you can capture on your computer and share only this « camera »  in Galene


All the best

Fabrice.

-------------------------
Fabrice Rouillier
fabrice@rouillier.fr

Bureau virtuel : http://visio-fabrice.rouillier.fr <http://visio-fabrice.rouillier.fr/> 






> Le 11 mai 2022 à 10:09, T H Panton <tim@pi.pe> a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
>> On 10. May 2022, at 23:58, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com <mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> They're thinking that presentation cannot be a camera feed, but it can,
>>> because our podium presenter sends HDMI, which goes through a hardware
>>> encoder (blackmagic web presenter), which presents as a UVC camera.
> 
> What you could do is plug that encoder into a Raspberry Pi running my software and send the stream to the conference that way.
> Ideally whipi would be running in the encoder hardware.
> 
> T.
> _______________________________________________
> Galene mailing list -- galene@lists.galene.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to galene-leave@lists.galene.org


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5865 bytes --]

[Galene] Re: whipi [was: two cameras for galene]

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

> What you could do is plug that encoder into a Raspberry Pi running my software

  https://github.com/pipe/whipi

It uses the WHIP protocol, which is currently in the final phases of
implementation at IETF.  There's a branch of Galene that implements WHIP,
but it hasn't been merged yet.

WHIP is currently the best hope for a standard ingress protocol that
multiple videoconferencing servers support: the promise of WHIP is that
things like OBS or even the firmware of your IP camera speak directly to
a wide range of videoconferencing servers.  WHIP is about to enter last
call, so we may expect it to become a standard within three to six months.

(The IETF has also started work on a competing protocol based on QUIC,
which aims to avoid putting a full WebRTC stack in the server.  I'm trying
to keep an open minde, but while I dislike the WebRTC stack, I don't think
that QUIC is the right transport for video.  But then, you don't get
a promotion at Google for working on RTP.)

-- Juliusz