Real Time Video

Jim Palenscar · Post by **Jim Palenscar** » 8 Dec 2001 11:39 am

Do any of you have any experience with real-time video on the computer? The solutions I've experienced (CuSeeMe, Netmeeting, Paltalk, etc.) have pretty bad quality and the lag is awful. I'm aware that it is mostly due to communication speed and hopefully things like fiber will make this more of an enjoyable event in the future (imagine taking private lessons from Reece, Buddy, JayDee, Paul, etc. from your home!). My computer environment is curently using Windows XP with a cable modem and I'm now having to get a new camera for the web as my Sony Handycam no longer works through my TV card in Windows Messenger (the follow-up program to Netmeeting). XP currently supports only 3 cameras according to them and I'm planning on getting one of them- Logitech WebcamExpress USA for about 50 bucks. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks~ Jim Palenscar[This message was edited by Jim Palenscar on 08 December 2001 at 11:45 AM.]

Bill Crook · Post by **Bill Crook** » 8 Dec 2001 2:40 pm

Jim....

Unless you've got the latest and GREASTEST,fastest,and all the other super hi-tech stuff, includeing a GeForce3 video card, You can forget about anything "real-time". It requires a lot of computing power to do that kind of stuff. We're talking the $5,000.00 to 10 Grand a pop kind of equipment. Not the $100 and $200 dollar stuff we can get at "Best Buys" and "CompUSA".

As far as doing any kind of video e-mail kind of stuff, forget it. If the other person dosen't have the super-dooper equipment too, your hanging out there all by yourself. The results will still be turdle-slow. Man, we just ain't got there yet !!

Been there,have attempted it,Decided that I don't have the money to put into it just to do a few videos or clips.

Sorry[This message was edited by Bill Crook on 08 December 2001 at 02:46 PM.]

Michael Garnett · Post by **Michael Garnett** » 9 Dec 2001 1:50 am

I'll say this, I agree with some of what Bill said. The limiting factor here is going to be the amount of data your computer can send and recieve at one time. Unless you've got a mega fast bandwidth connection, you're going to get lag. The bad quality is due to the fact that you have to decrease the resolution and bitrate in order to get more "big picture" stuff in a set amount of time. The faster your connection, the better detail you can start getting from other people.

Another problem with those programs is you might have to sign on to a server, with its own bandwidth problems. So, before you go out and buy all of this technology, make sure at least you've got a blazing internet connection, something faster than a cable modem.

Garnett

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 9 Dec 2001 7:27 am

At SSA we had several different video systems. The PC systems, at the time, used an AT&T (NCR) system and that used two 56Kb digital pipes (DDS service and equivalent to a 128Kb circuit) and it worked but was crude.

The other system came up close to broadcast quality but it had a lot of codecs and other equipment and used a fractional T1 line (768 Kb).

That was five years ago and there have been a lot advances since then.

If both ends of the video conferencing were on cable or high end DSL it should work pretty good. But as mentioned it's only as good as the slowest link in the system.

Don Benoit · Post by **Don Benoit** » 9 Dec 2001 10:22 am

Jim

The video will be jerky but have you tested your download speed with your cable provider?
If you have a cable connection, your download speed should be around 400KB. If it is not then there are too many people on your node and you should complain about it. I was getting 165KB and when I complained, it went up to 400KB and I am only using a K6-2 500 computer. I don't have a camera yet but with a TNT Gforce 2 card, the video clips from broadcasters on the net are quite good which rarely break up.

Jim Palenscar · Post by **Jim Palenscar** » 9 Dec 2001 11:37 am

Funny to hear a recommendation of "something faster than a cable modem"--
I'll check my download speed- thanks for the recs~~ Have to put a T1 @ the house :~)

Michael Garnett · Post by **Michael Garnett** » 9 Dec 2001 9:02 pm

Jim-

Cable modems can be Terribly slow (but at the same time worlds faster than a phone line). That's why they're so cheap. If you were the only person using it at once, you'd get amazing transfer rates to what you're experiencing now. But you're not. There's tons of people using the same bandwidth you all paid for. That's the Catch-22 here. If it's cheap, it's slow, because many people are using it. If it's fast, there must not be that many people using it, therefore it's more expensive per person to use.

If you've got the Moola to route a dedicated T-1 line to your house, you're well-to-do enough not to worry about the money to buy the "good stuff" for sending any amount of data to anybody, anywhere. I want to put my computer on that line. We've got T-1's running into the dorms here, but they get branched, and branched, and branched some more, which really hurts bandwidth when there's a couple hundred computers (maybe more) connected to a single T-1 line. I still get pretty blazing fast internet and file transfer rates, but unfortunately, I usually still have to put up with somebody else's computer being too slow to send data at my max rate. So, you STILL might have transfer rate problems. The problem with all of this is, the Internet is just like a water main system, for the most part. Wherever the smallest pipes are, is where stuff's going to slow down. (sortof like the whole "drinking from a firehose" story goes...)

If you DO go ahead and get that T-1, could you go ahead and just buy me a steel guitar to go along with it? I'll say "thank you," I promise. Percentage-wise for cost, it won't be too much more.

Garnett[This message was edited by Michael Garnett on 09 December 2001 at 09:04 PM.]

Jim Palenscar · Post by **Jim Palenscar** » 9 Dec 2001 10:35 pm

Actually I was beng facetious about getting a T1. I am, however, involved in a company in Colorado whose goal is to provide fiber the the house. The model looks wonderful given the appropriate funding we should have a product within 18 months. Meanwhile I struggle in Southern California with ideas~~~~[This message was edited by Jim Palenscar on 10 December 2001 at 07:57 AM.]