Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: What happened to Video Conferencing ? (Read 5300 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

I used to work in a digital video company.. Back in 1997, when broadband (ADSL) started to be widely available, there is a hype on the broadband telecommunication revolution.. People are predicting that video communication devices would replace the standard fixed line telephone.. 

After a few years,  I still don't see people widely embracing video communication?
What happened? Is there some psychological constraints?

Now with the brand new 3G broadband mobile phone services coming online.. are we repeating the same dangers again? MPEG4 over 3G? Video Conferencing over 3G?

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

Reply #1 –
I doubt people will be all that interested in video conferencing. It's been available ever since ISDN, and hardly anyone uses it...

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

Reply #2 –
Yeah.. video conferencing didn't picked up.. neither did video mail.. I did try recording a video message.. and I find out that you really have to be an actor.. It is quite difficult to be comfortable appearing in front of a video camera.. then having to speak your messages.. I simply froze.. unable to remember what I wanted to say.. Not many people can appear naturally in front of a video camera..

I think there are many psychological / human aspect  issue in regard to video conferencing.. Some people would prefer that the other party could not see him / her as they communicate over the copper line..

In fact, when ADSL was first introduced, most phone companies viewed it best for video conferencing.. but it just didn't pick up.. 

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

Reply #3 –
it's crappy quality video,and it's not really needed...or is it?
i mean you're not looing at his eyes,but onto the screen...

video on a mobile phone small as that?
well,good luck with watching that (  )

some technologies will never kick-in...

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

Reply #4 –
I was actually trying to get a guy hooked up on msn messenger's video conferencing and even with the latest version v6.0.203? there are still audio connection problems. So apart from the hardware problems there is the adoption factor - a lot of people are just getting used to using instant messengers - and personally I just don't see the great benifit of seeing the other person - if I can hear them that is sufficent with me - I don't need the extra bandwidth to see some grainy photo of the other person looking as goofy as I probably do sitting in some chair see a slow motion video like it was from the 1930's.

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

Reply #5 –
yes,"back to the past".... 
how ironic...

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

Reply #6 –
What good video conferencing software would you recommend? I have only 128k upload on my ADSL connection, would that be sufficient?

And which is best for audio only?

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

Reply #7 –
realmedia9 is best lobitrate codec.........
if you can find a way to use it for conferencing.....
check realnetworks web....

ms stuff is not as good....

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

Reply #8 –
Quote
realmedia9 is best lobitrate codec.........

Although I agree on what you said, simply stating that something is the best without any proof is not generally recommended here.

Can you point us to a low-bitrate video comparison featuring RV9 vs. other codecs to support your statement?

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

Reply #9 –
rest assured,it's *best*.........
i thought i already posted some links to my tests.....somewhere around....

when this site
http://i4004.0catch.com/
is up again,see rv9 versus vp6 comparison....
http://i4004.0catch.com/ffvfw-mpeg1-vp6.htm
(there's a portion on lobitrate too)

i have also done all of the mpeg4's and wmv9 and qt on very low bitrates,and i tell you;nothing is even close to rv9....
on the other hand mpeg's easily beat rv9 on higher bitrates,as my test proved also...

anyway,i use rv9 at "350kbit/s VBR download" audit setting (i tweaked the audio portion a bit (with "xml notepad") to dedicate more bitrate to video) even for some 512x384 stuff....mpeg4 woudl look like crap at that bitrate/resolution....
rarely i use 450kbit audit....

a wider test?
well,how should i say it...?
wmv9 encoder is crappy lil slow program,qt player pro likewise,so i will stay away from those....but i tried them.....few times...."helix producer basic"(for realmedia) on the other hand is ok encoder....i use it frequently....faster,better....
when asf and mov files are done by opensource solutions,i'll devote my attention to them again (if that happens)

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

Reply #10 –
I'm not asking about video codecs (on that front I agree that RM9 will pretty much outperform the competition in terms of quality), but about a full videoconferencing software. Are there any nice ones around, or is there just so little interest that no-one has come up with anything decent (and userfriendly)?

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

Reply #11 –
Quote
I don't need the extra bandwidth to see some grainy photo of the other person looking as goofy as I probably do sitting in some chair see a slow motion video like it was from the 1930's.

yeah, probably this issue was addresed from the wrong perspective like: 'if ppl are happy with the crapy mic, then they will just love the horrible camera/picture as well' , but that wont work, even for a really average portrait one would need some good lenses/ccd thingy and what is most important - proper lightning.  (i wont mention all the streaming problems)
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

Reply #12 –
Quote
I'm not asking about video codecs (on that front I agree that RM9 will pretty much outperform the competition in terms of quality), but about a full videoconferencing software. Are there any nice ones around, or is there just so little interest that no-one has come up with anything decent (and userfriendly)?

"netmeeting" is a part of windows....accessories->communications...
 

What happened to Video Conferencing ?

Reply #13 –
Quote
What good video conferencing software would you recommend? I have only 128k upload on my ADSL connection, would that be sufficient?

And which is best for audio only?

The audio is compressed at 5.6kbps / 6.3 kbps if you are using ITU-T G-723.. So, there is a lot of bandwidth for video. Since for video conferencing application, you are facing a human face that is not moving very much, there is less need for higher temporal resolution..  Most video-conferencing frame rate is about 5 - 12 frames per second ( compared to 30 frames persecond for VCD..)  Also much higher efficiency of the interframe interpolation, motion compensation..

So, even for 128 kbps upload, there is still plenty of bandwith for video transmission... In some countries, the upload rate for ADSL could be much higher.. Otherwise, try cable, it's upload speed reaches Mbits/s range..

As for application, you can try out Microsoft NetMeeting.. which used to come bundled with Windows 98.. (Everyone used to have video conferencing application on their PC... I am not sure if it is bundled with the latest generation of Windows )..

For video phone application, the size of the video is even smaller, 128kbps upload rate should be more than sufficient..