VC solution suggestions wanted

[deimos3428]

Hi Everyone,

I'm trying to research a videoconferencing solution for our office, which has a fairly atypical environment. I'm new to videoconferencing, but I need something that works, and works consistently. I've used some small endpoint devices (Logitech webcams, Via Video) but they just don't perform at the level we require.

Our network is a high-bandwidth, low-latency WAN, so bandwidth and latency are non-issues. The "weakest link" between us and the far endpoint would be a fast ethernet LAN. Any ideas? Would a ViewStation FX be sufficient?

[Entropy3XD]

Welcome Deimos,


I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Are all of your VTC calls going to be IP based? In other words, what are the far end users using.....is it IP or ISDN? You may find that some users out there that you wish to speak with may only have ISDN.

2. What is the environment in which the VTC unit is going? Is it a custom conference room with multiple TVs/Plasmas/Projectors or a sound system? Is it just a roll around cart with a single TV?

3. Do you plan on having the VTC unit mounted in a rack or just placed on top of a television.


Polycom, Tandberg, and Vcon all make VTC units which you should be very happy with, it is just a matter of the environment in which you put it in.

[deimos3428]

Thank you for the warm welcome!

All of the calls are going to be IP based. The environment is a small multi-purpose boardroom seating approximately 12, and we're looking for a set-top device in all likelihood, as we won't be moving it. We will need to do multipoint conferencing, but probably not more than 4 sites.

I work for a network connecting multiple universities via fiber, so my key concern is getting "flawless" video performance in a simple environment. I was a little disappointed, actually, that I haven't been able to find anything that uses more than about 512kb per connection.

My logitech webcam claims to use 512kb @ 30 fps, and it looks horrible...but for $50 or so I'm not complaining. But I need to know if the quality of a machine costing $10 to $20k will outperform the webcam significantly.

[Entropy3XD]

It sounds like the Polycom FX unit or a similar unit would work perfectly for you. As far as call quality goes, it just comes down to your network. More questions:

1. Is this a dedicated network between sites, or do you have to go across the public internet at any point?

2. What is the capacity and current utilization of your network today? Any QOS?

3. How many calls do you plan on having at any one time across your network?

4. What rate do you wish to place those calls?

5. Are you planning on using the same system in all of your rooms (ie. all Polycom FX units)? If not, what are the different systems you will be using?

If shopping for new equipment, look for H.264 support. One way to really test, is to get in touch with a sales representative from your reseller/manufacturer of choice and ask for a couple of demo units. Most major VTC resellers/manufacturers would be more than happy to work with you in setting up a demo.

[deimos3428]

Thanks for your help, and I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my knowledge.

1. For the vast majority of calls, we'll be using our own network. If we do end up routing calls over the internet, of course the reliability won't be there and we're ready to accept that.

2. We have a very large production network. I know, everyone says that, so I'll be more specific.

We have our own fiber pairs and are using OC-192 wavelengths aggregating multiple gigabit ethernet interfaces. Utilization of any given GE has not exceeded 30%, so we are not implementing QoS at this time.

That being said, our office LAN is only capable of Fast Ethernet and is the bottleneck in this situation. Utilization on the LAN is very low.

Latency between the sites is no more than 40ms, and frequently much less.

3. Probably not more than 3 to 4 at once.

4. Not more than 15-20 Mbps or so, because I don't want to completely saturate the LAN. :laugh:

5. We'd only have the one unit, actually. Our customers typically use Polycom equipment, of varying types which is why we are leaning in that direction. Compatibility with as much other equipment as possible is desirable. H.264 is a must.

[Gary Miyakawa]

I'm not sure the ViewStation product line is the right direction if you plan to use the embedded MCU. The iPower products are capable of higher bandwidth calls (768 to all embedded MCU sites, and all must be the same speed/type)... If you want several people in the call with various bandwidths and you want the very best video, I would consider getting something like VSX7000 (new software that will run 2mb per call) and get a Codian 4210 for the bridging. That will give you up to 2mb per call for every site. The video and audio should be excellent. and, when Polycom and Codian fully adopt H.239, you will be able to share high resolution graphics along with the full motion video.

That's my 2fps worth..

Gary Miyakawa

[Entropy3XD]

Yea....I can go along with Gary on the endpoints and the MCU. Since there doesn't seem to be any bandwidth concerns, you should call up your rep and get a demo of a few different systems. Try to set it up so that the VTC systems you will be calling on a regular basis can take part of the demo. You should be happy with just about any system you get from any of the major manufacturers.

[Ken Stephens]

Deimos,

I am in the process of replacing my six polycom Viewstation FX's with Tandberg 6000's. I upgraded to the Viewstations in 1999 to replace my PictureTel Concord's. There are two major problems I ran into with the Viewstations, overheating and limitations. I really liked these things at first and they are pretty nice to manage and operate. But when the overheating takes place, you'll have system lockups that will require you to shut down and blow through the vents as there are no fans in the device.

The second problem is to view presentations, you must purchase a Visual Concert. It's an external device which means another point of failure. I've had two of these go out on me in less then a year. And trust me, you have to consider doing presentations over the video conference. Since I installed these, every conference has had some form of presentation involved. The Tandbergs have this feature built in.

I'm installing the Tandberg 6000's. I bought the mobile version as it only comes with the unit (system, camera, microphone) and the standard cabling. I did this because I already had 36" monitors or projectors already in place. The do sell a complete unit with monitors and cart.

Each unit can conference up to six sites (5 remote and you) so no mcu is needed. If you need to go more then six, you can cascade each unit for a total, in our case, of 20.

Also, with the Polycoms, if I wanted to video conferrence to a site over the internet, I had to modify my nat settings. Once I added the nat, I could not conference on my inside network until I removed the nat. The Tandbergs have no problem in this area.

I've only upgraded two systems as of today and will have two additional sites in tomorrow. As I progress and get more people using these, I can let you know their responses. So far they like them.

And if I were you, I would plan for growth. I started with two systems in 1995, four in 1997, six today and will have 12 by the end of the year.

Good luck.

Ken

[pzielie]

Deimos,

To start with stay away from a web cam for any application that is being used by anyone other than yourself, especially if that user is in a position to adversly effect your job. Web cams are inherently single user / semi pro devices. To start with your PC processor is being used to do the compression. While the latest PC processors are theoretically capable of VTC video compression, they are not optimised for that purpose and given the plaque of overhead processes added by normal use in a windows machine, the processor can quickly become overloaded. Second, all compression standards a written so that the data must be assembled in a way in
which a standard decoder can decode it. This means that an encoder can meet the standard just by making sure the data is framed in the propper format. <over simplified to make my point> PC based compressors tend to do their data compression by throwing out lots of information because that is the easiest on the processor. This is why the picture looks lousy. Third, PC based systems tend to have little if any audio echo cancellation, they are typically designed to use a headphone which does a very good job of keeping received audio out of the microphone. Open Mics in confernce rooms do a bad job of keeping received audio out of the microphone so the VTC unit has to remove it electronically from the audio you are sending out, otherwise the other side hears echo. Perversly all of the faults will only show themselves to the far side, so your participants will have a good experience while prenting themselves badly to the far side.

This out of the way. I agree with Ken as to the difficulty of People + content, this doesn't even work between various Polycom Models. In addition to Tandberg, I recommend looking at Aethra to give you a higher bang for the buck than Tandberg but still give you the all in one unit without bricks that you can not get from Polycom.

[djackson]

Deimos,

You mentioned wanting to connect to customers with Polycom units and that you only want one unit. For full functionality, you will need the VSX.

Bellow is why:

Do your customers have FX/EX or iPowers? If this is so H.239 (dual video streams) will only work with the Polycom VSX. The FX/EX, or iPower only support propreitary People+Content. The VSX supports both H.239 and People+Content. This really sucks for us customers, but it is the way it is. If your customers all have the VSX platform, then all the advice about buying Tandberg, Aethra or Codian is true (and all good products). Otherwise, if your customers have the older Polycom platform, then the Polycom VSX endpoint is the one you want if you are interested in H.239 (which I highly suggest) but you'll have to buy the Visual Concert.

If you go with Tandberg unit (which is a better overall product except for your "vendor lock" issue) you want the "Natural Presenter Package" - which allows for H.239 and XGA images. The hardware is there, but the software is not turned on until you do this. Similar for the Aethra line.

If you are only connecting to 3 other sites, the Tandberg 990MXP will be more cost effective than the Tandberg 6000MXP.

You also stated "H.264 is a must" - H.264 is a little over rated (not completely overrated, just a little). Basically, if you are doing high bandwidth you are going to have issues telling the difference between H.263 and H.264. At lower bandwidths, which you are not interested in, it will make a difference.

[Steveh]

Have a look at the new Lifesize products due to hit the streets soon.

see www.lifesize.com.

[Joe Martino]

Take a look at lifesize and then realize that you will need about 1meg per site to get any of the benefits they are promoting with their product. Unless your application is in need of highdef quality bandwidth I would recommend a Tandberg solution.

[Steveh]

If you read back through the thread bandwidth was not a problem. 1Mbps appears to be nothing to this organisation.


Take a look at lifesize and then realize that you will need about 1meg per site to get any of the benefits they are promoting with their product. Unless your application is in need of highdef quality bandwidth I would recommend a Tandberg solution.

[Sean Lessman]

...Unless your application is in need of highdef quality bandwidth I would recommend a Tandberg solution.

TANDBERG will deliver HD in Q106 in both endpoints and infrastructure, in the same timeframe as Lifesize and other vendors.

Sean