Part 1: “Better” Web Video-Conferencing in a Medium Conference Room – The Contenders

This is a two part article, this one focuses on the problem and possible approaches to “better” quality. The next part focuses on video field of view and quality.

Background

Since 2009 I’ve been looking for a “better” solution for hosting a web video conference in a small conference room. Each year I spend what seems like 4-6 hours looking for the state-of-the art to have a “better” experience. Each year I seem to come to the same conclusions…uh, I’m not sure. I keep looking for a better solution that’s low cost and easy to use while being “good” quality. The solution is a trade-off in cost, complexity, and quality (experience). Up until now, I haven’t been willing to recommend a solution, I’ve just lived with the best I could do.

Users, not unsurprisingly, believe that what works for one-to-one video conferencing on a computer is sufficient for larger group event, and want a corresponding level of “convenience” and “simplicity”. The question goes something like, “Why can’t we just use Skype?” The answer is, “It’s complicated.”

The Contenders: Dedicated Facility vs. Built-in Webcam vs. External Camera

So it seems there are three basic solutions. If you want a nominally “high” quality video-conference, use a dedicated facility (using, for example, a Tandberg or Cisco system). If you want a “good” quality video-conference without professional support use a built-in webcam or an external camera connected to a computer.

The options:

• One can use a dedicated video-conference solution that is typically setup in a dedicated room allowing a number of people to sit around a table and participate in the conference. Depending on the equipment this could be point-to-point or a multi-point conference. These solutions might have dedicated connections (e.g., ISDN) or use a regular IP network. Some of the challenges are that all sides of the conference need to have compatible equipment, there’s a high investment cost if you don’t already have the facility, the conference might require a trained operator (or might be less reliable without one), and there may be a seemingly largish per-meeting cost depending on the facility you use. Also, this setup is typically fixed and not portable. For the most part this works great–test the connection ahead of time, have a trained operator on either end, and you’re good to go.

  My experience: We tried this once for a class between MIT with UTokyo–we ran into reliability issues even though we ran a test before the event, partially because we were running without trained operators since we normally get charged a usage fee for using this sort of video-conference facility.

• One can use a webcam built into a laptop. This works great for one, and maybe two or three participants huddled around the laptop. Both sides typically use something like Skype, Google Hangouts, FaceTime or the like to conference. Some of the challenges are that the number of participants from any one point is limited, the number of simultaneous participants in the conference may be limited based on network conditions and the video quality is greatly dependent on network conditions. The video is often limited to “talking-head” and of “low” quality (resolution), though the quality is improving with support for 720p and 1080p video.

  My experience: This works great for one-to-one video-conferences, but degrades with number of participants and network conditions.

• One can use an external camera connected to a computer. I focus on an external camera connected to a laptop below. One could also use an external camera connected to a desktop but I have not spent a lot of time researching the additional possibilities of using a video capture card that can be installed in the desktop.

A “Better” Laptop-based Web Video-Conference Solution

So, what have I spent all this time researching? I’ve focused on improving the web-based video-conference experience when originating from a laptop. The laptop is key here, it’s needed for portability. If I wanted to use a fixed location, I’d just use a dedicated video-conference solution, pay the cost and be done with it. Most of the time I don’t have that flexibility on all sides of the conference.

Better Video Source

Most of my investigations have focused on improving the video quality and experience. The basic problem is getting a video camera that captures all of the participants at a reasonable quality level (that is, you can see the individual speaking). As I mention above, a typical webcam built into a laptop works great for 1 speaker and ok for 2-3 speakers. But what if you have more speakers that need to speak simultaneously and be seen?

It’s a two part problem, the video camera and getting the video from the camera to the laptop and software so it can be broadcast. I’ll detail the possible approaches below.

I’ve spent quite a bit of time searching the Web for “low-cost” solutions (under $1,000). Solutions range from consumer video camcorders that “pass-through” video over video out or DV (Firewire) connections to USB-based webcams.

TL;DR: I recommend a Logitech HD Pro Webcam C910 for Mac laptop-based web video-conferencing in a small conference room (if you’re using Windows, you can use the newer C920 model and get 1080p quality but this camera isn’t Mac-compatible). I’ve spent a lot of time trying to find a video camcorder solution that’s “reasonable”, but with the video quality tests I ran using low-end consumer camcorders with a non-wide-angle lens, the Logitech is a better balance of convenience (single USB connection, not a mish-mash of conversons), size and quality. You’ll have to see Part 2 for the video quality examples. (This recommendation would have applied in 2011, and applies in 2012.)

• DV Camcorder: The general consensus is to find an old DV camcorder because many of them pass through live video over their DV connection. This means that you can get live video (sometimes you need to have a tape in the camera, but you don’t need to be recording the video on the camera) passed through to the laptop (they also playback video to TVs/monitors). Also you can use the camera to zoom in on a speaker and then back out the the group if you have a video operator. To use this solution, one would typically use a laptop with a Firewire port (either Firewire 400 or 800 on an Apple or older Sony laptop; this port exists on MacBook Pros but not MacBooks or MacBook Airs). The big advantage is that the camcorder does the conversion between the camera as and a video source the laptop (Mac) can use directly in video-conference software (typically this will be at 720 x 480 resolution NTSC video, which is slightly better than the VGA below). In 2012 the big problem is that with the rise of Flash memory-based video camcorders, the DV port has gone away in newer consumer camcorders. So, one is left to find an old camera, or move into the prosumer/pro level of camcorders that are typically more than $1,400 list price. Neither of those two solutions is particularly appealing–the first can be time-consuming and may not be as reliable as a newer camera and the second is expensive.

  My experience: I’ve done this a number of times in the past, but it’s hard to find a camcorder now that will pass through live video.

• Any camcorder with video pass through from the lens: The next best solution using a camcorder is to find one that passes through live video over it’s video output using either composite (RCA) or S-Video connections. You can use the camera to zoom in on a speaker and then back out the the group if you have a video operator. Many (most?) camcorders can be connected to a TV or monitor to view the video, but not all camcorders pass through the video directly from the lens through the video output, they will only playback video. In 2012, and it’s nearly impossible to to figure out which new camcorders have this feature by looking at manufacturer’s websites. And, there’s still the issue of getting video from the video output into a computer. The resolution of the video is then limited the resolution of the device used in the conversion to capture the live video.

  There are two general solutions for converting the camcorder’s video output to a live video input:

  • One is to use a Canopus/Grass Valley (ADVC 55 or ADVC 110) to convert composite/S-Video to Firewire (works great for a Mac or older Sony laptops).
    

    My experience: I’ve done this a number of times in the past, but it’s hard to find a camcorder now that will pass through live video.

  • Alternately one could use a Composite/S-Video to USB converter and drivers. It seems that the popular solution are “Easycam” devices, which usually come with Windows drivers. For a Mac, drivers are available for a number of models through VideoGlide software.
    

    My experience: I have one of these on order, but I haven’t tried it because of the video field of view issues described below.

  (Aside: It looks like the Canon Vixia line of consumer camcorders might have this capability, plus many also have a mic-input jack.)

• There may be a camcorder with a USB connection that passes through video from the lens, but I didn’t find one in the limited abount of time I spent looking.
• USB Webcam: USB Webcams are a popular choice for desktop computers that don’t have the same sort of built-in webcam as do laptops. USB Webcams have the benefit of being designed to be connected to a computer. :) It’s also possible to find 720p and 1080p webcams that are supported by Skype (and FaceTime, etc.). One consideration is to find a webcam that supports USB video class (UVC) for driverless installation and use.
• External iSight: From 2003 to 2006, Apple sold an external iSight camera that connected via Firewire to a computer. I still have one of these cameras and this is what I’ve been using for group video-conferences.

Better Audio Source

I’m personally not convinced that having a video image of the person (people) I’m speaking with is absolutely necessary. However, we seem to spend a lot of time and effort trying to make that possible. I am convinced that “good” quality audio does dramatically improve the experience. The best way to do that for laptop or desktop based video-conferences is a “better” mic.

I’d love to say that I’ve done a lot of recent research into high-quality microphones for multiple people, but I did most of this research in 2010.

TL;DR: Use a Blue Yeti USB external microphone (I bought the Blue Yeti I use in 2010, and I’ll still stick by this recommendation in 2012).

• USB Speakerphones: There are a number of speakerphones that bill themselves as Skype compatible, but I find that cross-referencing between the Skype site and Amazon reviews that they get mixed reviews for quality and reliability. That they might work “good” on Windows, but not on the Mac.
• USB Microphone: I spent a bit of time researching these a couple years back. Unfortunately I don’t recall all of that research. I settled on a Blue Yeti microphone. It has multiple pickup patterns (depending on speaker location–single speaker use cardiod, two speakers sitting opposite use bidirectional, or speakers all around use omnidirectional). The downside is that the Blue Yeti is pretty big and relatively heavy. I looked at the Blue Snowflake, but the audio quality reviews were mixed. Here I went for higher quality at the expense of portability, having said that I have lugged the Yeti about. The external USB microphone vs. USB speakerphone also allows more use cases such as regular audio recording where the higher quality might be needed.
• Mic line in: I didn’t spend a lot of time researching traditional XLR-based nor a TRS 1/8″/3.5mm-based mic line in microphones. I know that I can get a ludicrously high quality microphone, but that converting from the microphone jack or USB would add just another level of complexity and hardware.

See Part 2 for examples of video quality, and more importantly field of view. It’s the field of view that lead me to recommend the Logitech HD Pro Webcam C910 for Mac-based video-conferencing in a small conference room.