Watch content in sync with friends.

[fattigfaan 0]

I was wondering.

Does emby have a feature that lets you watch movies in sync with friends over the internet, or a plugin or something that lets you do this?

It would be a super handy feature as I use emby a lot to watch movies with friends, but we always have to resync every now and again.

[Luke 42077]

Hi there, at the moment no but it's been requested before so I'm sure one day it's something we'll have.

[fattigfaan 0]

Awesome. I'll be looking forward to that day then =)

[JeremyFr79 228]

Seems you'd need to implicate multicasting of some type for this....

[ebr 16169]

Yes, and there are already a couple of feature requests for this.

[speechles 2055]

The only problem to this is if one client app has to transcode, when the other app can direct stream. Keeping those two streams in sync would be near impossible. Since at any time the transcoded stream could pause/buffer while the direct stream drifted out-of-sync forward. For this to work right the client app will need to direct stream at the bitrate of the media encode. Then I can see this possible. This means having several copies of the same video at different resolutions/bitrates 144p,240p,360p,480p,720p,1080p. This will obviously take up more space. Now the client can request the appropriate stream for its circumstance and keeping sync is childs play.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Edited May 2, 2016 by speechles

[JeremyFr79 228]

The only problem to this is if one client app has to transcode, when the other app can direct stream. Keeping those two streams in sync would be near impossible. Since at any time the transcoded stream could pause/buffer while the direct stream drifted out-of-sync forward. For this to work right the client app will need to direct stream at the bitrate of the media encode. Then I can see this possible. This means having several copies of the same video at different resolutions/bitrates 144p,240p,360p,480p,720p,1080p. This will obviously take up more space. Now the client can request the appropriate stream for its circumstance and keeping sync is childs play.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Hence why you'd use multicast, everyone would be watching the same stream, if someones connection couldn't keep up it would just drop frames but keep in sync since everyone is watching the same "broadcast"

[speechles 2055]

Over the internet is different though. Drop frames to the point of they hear audio only? This doesnt sound fair to the one having the frames dropped. It would be better to multicast seperate bitrate streams to low and high bandwidth clients and not drop any frames.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Edited May 2, 2016 by speechles

[JeremyFr79 228]

Over the internet is different though. Drop frames to the point of they hear audio only? This doesnt sound fair to the one having the frames dropped. It would be better to multicast seperate bitrate streams to low and high bandwidth clients and not drop any frames.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

that's not how multicast works.  Multicast is literally just a broadcast of data, it's a singular stream that clients can listen to at will.  It's much like how an over the air broadcast works.  As such if you have "reception issues" it only affects you.  The stream continues just the same.  There is no error correction etc.

[legallink 187]

This is a service I mapped out in one my startup ideas called the "virtual living room". If you guys ever want to implement, let me know.

[Deathsquirrel 745]

that's not how multicast works.  Multicast is literally just a broadcast of data, it's a singular stream that clients can listen to at will.  It's much like how an over the air broadcast works.  As such if you have "reception issues" it only affects you.  The stream continues just the same.  There is no error correction etc.

 

EBR pointed out there are a couple of FR threads and this is why they all end with 'not gonna happen.  You would have to build a solution where all clients negotiated with the server for the lowest common denominator video and audio quality, then transcode to that and multicast it to all clients. It would play badly and even the small number of people wanting it wouldn't use it once they'd tried it.

 

It's hard to see a point to pursuing it given the very predictable outcome.

 

If you did build it do you let clients pause the action?  Both answers are pretty thoroughly awful if you think them through.

 

You're better off getting together to watch at one place or starting separate streams on separate clients.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Deathsquirrel

[fattigfaan 0]

Wouldn't it work in theory if you had two clients streaming the same video, if the two videos sync checked against each other? Maybe add in like a 1-2 sec buffer. Then if one would get ahead, it would just pause for a sec or so, to let the other one catch up. Could be annoying in the longrun if one of the parts had crappy internet, but would work smoothly if you had the option to pre-buffer videos like youtube.

 

It would be convenient to also have a smaller chat window next to the video playing as well (or options for layouts).

Edited May 3, 2016 by fattigfaan

[JeremyFr79 228]

EBR pointed out there are a couple of FR threads and this is why they all end with 'not gonna happen.  You would have to build a solution where all clients negotiated with the server for the lowest common denominator video and audio quality, then transcode to that and multicast it to all clients. It would play badly and even the small number of people wanting it wouldn't use it once they'd tried it.

 

It's hard to see a point to pursuing it given the very predictable outcome.

 

If you did build it do you let clients pause the action?  Both answers are pretty thoroughly awful if you think them through.

 

You're better off getting together to watch at one place or starting separate streams on separate clients.

I get all the downfalls, I was simply explaining to the other poster how multicast actually worked.  Personally I have no want or need for the feature and feel it's a waste but to each their own.

[speechles 2055]

I was explain to you how it would work for emby. Why you continue to post in a thread of a feature you dont want or need is strange. Did your parents not love you enough?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Edited May 3, 2016 by speechles

[JeremyFr79 228]

 

Edited May 3, 2016 by JeremyFr79

[speechles 2055]

nothing to see here... anymore

Edited May 3, 2016 by speechles

[Deathsquirrel 745]

function is probably a better solution for the people that would want this option..,though now I'm reaching way out into the

I get all the downfalls, I was simply explaining to the other poster how multicast actually worked.  Personally I have no want or need for the feature and feel it's a waste but to each their own.

 

Oh I know you weren't endorsing it, just explaining it.

 

Multiple independent streams with some sort of shared chatwould likely be a better solution for the crowd that would use this...though I'm reaching deep outside of my experience into the brains of younger people.

[Luke 42077]

We never said this wouldn't happen. In fact I think it's a very nice idea.