Slashdot Mirror
High-Definition PC Video Conferencing?
dsginter asks: "This year's spring Networld+Interop has ended with little fanfare. However, I noticed that a small nugget slipped between the cracks - HD video-conferencing. Two different manufacturers demonstrated such products which means that we'll probably have interoperability soon. After seeing the massive pricing estimates for such products, I couldn't help but think that I should try my hand at my own HD product (a Mac Mini, some H.264, a pinch of AAC and the glue that is H.323 or SIP). However, I'm missing one piece - a small, 720P camera for video acquisition. I've scoured Google but can't come up with anything suitable. Is there an answer? HD video-conferencing is an important step in complete communication between remote parties. While there will be those that joke about the possibilities, it is important to remember that the bulk of business travel still happens for the sake of face-to-face communication. HD video-conferencing might prove to be a panacea."
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
I'm missing one piece - a small, 720P camera for video acquisition.
Good luck! Only several 'pro-sumer' HD video cameras exist nowadays, and neither of them could be classed as small.
I've recently bought a Sony HDR-FX1e camera - for recording some music videos for my brother's band. The recording quality (1080i, 3CCD) is absolutely fantastic. However I'm not sure about it's suitability for video conferencing:
1. The camera is large. I guess in a fixed setup this isn't a major problem - the camera could be positioned on a tripod next to the screen or preferably projector.
2. Video is sent via firewire as MPEG, at DV datarates (18Mbit or something like that). Unless you have that kind of bandwidth to transmit the data without recompression, you need to reencode the video on-the-fly. Reencoding 60 mins of video to 720p WMV-HD takes me 8 hours on a 3GHz P4. My system struggles with realtime playback of the full-bitrate HD MPEG. I'm not sure if any codecs could easilly transcode the stream in realtime without some expensive hardware accelleration.
Unless you're doing a video conference with some hot starlet, I do not see the point of this. Do you really want to see your out of state co-workers in high def?! How would that add to the meeting?
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I don't care how good picture and sound quality are, f2f (face to face - we're geeks ... we love letters) won't be replaced. No amount of video wizardry can replace flesh and blood (my apologies to spielberg and lucas). The screen will always feel like a wall with which one can hide behind creating a latent sense of distrust. Face to face is really the only level playing field for the truly important meetings.
"It's difficult to meditate on amphetamines." - Joe Walsh
The internet isn't quite fast enough for videoconferencing on a small scale to be practical. How on earth is HD-video quality going to shoot through the pipes fast enough?
I know, corporate environment with coroprate-scale bandwidth, but it all has to pass through the backbones like the rest of us.
We're not at the Max Headroom age yet.
When most video conferencing systems fail to present a full-resolution, uncompressed, full-frame-rate NTSC-quality image, I fail to see why there is a need to even think about HD.
I'd personally be incredibly happy with a 525-line 60i image that didn't look like shit and (most importantly) was properly synchronized with the sound from the other location, not several frames ahead or behind the picture.
While I'm sure there are a few applications out there now, doesn't most everyone have trouble with regular videoconferences now?
The company I work for has videoconferencing equipment that works over ISDN as well as IP over their internal corporate network. The picture is still jerky, the sound is always off, and it's almost more of a pain to set up than it's really worth. Kind of like talking to someone via a satellite link.
Maybe mine isn't the typical end-user experience, but I'm wondering how many networks out there could even handle the traffic from a HD videoconference session.
Having better quality video isn't going to improve communication significantly over current capabilities. The value of face to face meetings will never go away. It's not what happens in a specific meeting that is so key, but rather the rappore that is developed around the meetings.
It's going into a room sitting down, shaking hands, chatting about the family before the meeting starts that makes all the difference. It's going out for lunch, playing a game of golf, etc, that build the real rapport. Talking over video conferencing does allow you to see body language, etc, so it's certainly an improvement over a mere phone call, but it is not even close to the same as being there in person.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
First, how does the fact that two companies demo'd products of similar nature imply pending ineteroperability? It doensn't.
/. story - but I don't see how the story has any bearing on anything other than the fact aht HD videoconferncing is now possible. Thats it. It is as if the parent was just stretching for something interesting in an otherwise ho-hum topic.
Second, what added benefit is there to HD videoconferencing? How would this possibly be the pancea of people wanting to meet in person. They still aren't meeting in person so they will still want to. A pretty picture doesn't change that.
I've never posted a a negative reply to a
The way things work in a demo and the real world are really much different. Video conferencing is still at a point where you need a tech at each end of the call, and you need time to do a dry run before hand to make sure that everything works ok. There is nothing more annoying than having the PHB complain that the video is chopy due to the poor upstream bandwith on the other side, while you're trying to figure out why they can't hear the audio.
Video conferencing is just plain not worth it.
-matt
Actually, running a mid-sized governmental agency with a small handful of field sites nationwide, we have immediate need for a system like this.
We're running semi-monthly meetings that are presented more like carefully timed television broadcasts then casual spitballing sessions. HD would be a GIGANTIC improvement over CIF.
:::: the insomniac's digest
While I agree with you on this point, I also think that the first company that gets videoconferencing to work right is going to make a killing, because there's still no product that finds a usable middle ground between a phone call and actually being there.
The middle ground will have several streams (so you can see both the speaker's face in detail and the rest of the remote environment), will not need extreme resolution (i.e. bandwidth) except for occasionally transmitting a high-res snapshot of a whiteboard or some found object, and will have better audio than a telephone. It will require no more effort to connect to a remote conferencing station than making a telephone call by pushing a speed dial button.
I work frequently with people that I have never met, and though I've "known" them for a year or more I wouldn't recognize them in the street. I think there would be high value in being able to teleconference at least a few times with people I've not met, so that I can develop a mental image of who the person is. It would make working with them more effective in so many ways, even if I haven't played golf with them.