Increased Call Resolution

[tom9933]

Just heard about this press release today and wondered if anyone knew anything more about it.

http://www.tandberg.net/press_room/viewPressRelease.do;jsessionid=87B264AC433E070D174 5361C0C6BCEDF?id=134 (http://www.tandberg.net/press_room/viewPressRelease.do;jsessionid=87B264AC433E070D174 5361C0C6BCEDF?id=134)



Specifically I’m interested in this paragraph from the bottom of the release.



In addition, with a simple software upgrade to their endpoints, TANDBERG customers with typical 384k bandwidth can now realize nearly three times the resolution of current state-of-the-art video systems. High Definition capability is available for users with detail-intensive applications and high bandwidth. Termed “Optimal Definition”, TANDBERG endpoints provide a range of video resolutions for different applications and bandwidths and automatically select the best resolution.

This sounds like a direct response to what Life Size is doing.

[AceVid]

We're actually going to have a Tandberg SE at our location tomorrow. I think I might quiz him as to what the press release actually means...

[trapehzoid]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Specifically I’m interested in this paragraph from the bottom of the release.



In addition, with a simple software upgrade to their endpoints, TANDBERG customers with typical 384k bandwidth can now realize nearly three times the resolution of current state-of-the-art video systems. High Definition capability is available for users with detail-intensive applications and high bandwidth. Termed “Optimal Definition”, TANDBERG endpoints provide a range of video resolutions for different applications and bandwidths and automatically select the best resolution.

This sounds like a direct response to what Life Size is doing.

Looks like HD resolution to me.. and more

ftp://ftp.tandberg.net/software/endpoints/mxp/TANDBERG-Software-Release-MXP-Endpoints-F4.pdf

3.1.1 Native Resolution (NTSC \ PAL)
F4 supports new video resolution under H.264, which gives the end-user the optimal video quality for NTSC and PAL video at the most frequently used call rates.
400p - 384kbps up to 2Mbps (NTSC based systems format: 528 x 400)

and new wide screen layouts and resolutions.. see the link above for more specifics.

Looks interesting.. better resolution without requiring 1-2mbits! now we're talking

time to do some testing this week :)

[tom9933]

I’ve gotta say this sounds pretty good! I’m especially impressed to see that they are finally making an app to allow easy use of the multi-monitor options; I was very impressed with this feature.

Just curious why on the SD side they didn’t choose 4SIF/CIF rather than 400P. Also has anyone heard of a camera to use with the system yet? I know about the BRC Sony but it’s around 15k and I don’t think it outputs DVI. I suppose the best option might be to try to get DVI video out of one of the new HDV cameras and then use it with a 3rd party PTZ head.

Just thinking if you get it up and running, PM me and we can try see how it works with a Life Size unit :banana:

[trapehzoid]

I wish... closed network here :(

As for 4CIF.. I dunno. But at these resolutions you should be able to use a standard defintion camera and see good improvements. I do agree with the idea of 'inbetween' resolutions.. as long as we can get some interoperability that will be great. I like it even more because I can get the benefits without necessarily needing to replace all my cameras and displays. I'll get much better milage out of this then HD.. at least for the lifetime of my current systems.

Looks like polycom is the only one left out so far.. wonder if the newer vsx7000 stuff will sneak in HD too. Would stink do to a refresh that quickly and still miss out on this stuff.

What are you using your lifesize unit for now? just testing?

[tom9933]

Yes I agree. I have HD displays (data grade projectors) in almost all of my rooms but to go full HD I will have to replace all of the cameras and switching gear. I think 4 SIF/CIF is a great step for today with full HD being in the next 6-12 months as more cameras become available.
I just received a pair of LifeSize units for testing, currently have one unit in my office and have the other in a conference room. The short answer is the testing has been both good and bad. I think the call quality on the LifeSize units is very impressive even at the lower bandwidths, but we are seeing some odd issues with the computer input. I think the most impressive thing about the LizeSize is the value for the money. Also they seem to have a very good scaler unit because the output even with an older codec on the far end it seems to look better than normal.

[trapehzoid]

wide projectors? or just 1024x768 projectors?

[Sean Lessman]

I wish... closed network here :(

As for 4CIF.. I dunno. But at these resolutions you should be able to use a standard defintion camera and see good improvements. I do agree with the idea of 'inbetween' resolutions.. as long as we can get some interoperability that will be great. I like it even more because I can get the benefits without necessarily needing to replace all my cameras and displays. I'll get much better milage out of this then HD.. at least for the lifetime of my current systems.

Looks like polycom is the only one left out so far.. wonder if the newer vsx7000 stuff will sneak in HD too. Would stink do to a refresh that quickly and still miss out on this stuff.

What are you using your lifesize unit for now? just testing?

Hey guys,

You will see a noticeable difference with the WAVE camera with the 400/448p resolutions and even some improvements with 576p (camera is NTSC up to 480).

Tom, would love to do a test call to the Lifesize. So far, nobody wants to call me from Lifesize :)

Personally I think there is more benefit from the 400p @ 384kbps. As the IT director at TANDBERG, its taking a few extra hours of my time trying to accomodate 1Mbps+ for HD demos etc on our network.

Now you can make better use of all those widescreen systems we sold last year.

MPS also supports widescreen CP layouts and HD resolution.

Sean

[tom9933]

Trapehzoid,
Yes as I recall its 1024*768 (LCD) native and 1280*1024 with compression. We have this machine in over 100 classrooms and it’s the same unit we use in our distance learning rooms. We’ve looked into dlp and other options but the Eiki X50 (rebranded Sanyo) is hard to beat for the money. We also have a couple of conference rooms using 40” LCD those are in the minority. Now having said that I do have a department who is talking about building two very glitzy rooms and of course she wants 65” Plasmas. I’m thinking in these two specific rooms it might make sense to try to make the jump to HD. The only question is when and what to buy. I’m a little worried that there seems to be no standard resolutions at this point and until the various camera issues are resolved I think we need to wait just a bit. The

Sean,
Thanks for the info; I’ll send you an email with my details.

[AceVid]

Drat..my boss's wife was in a minor car accident. Meeting the Tandberg SE canceled...anyway..I like how things are heating up a little between LifeSize and Tandberg, makes for lots of good geek talk about res, cameras, bandwidth..etc.

[tom9933]

I agree this discussion is much better than previous ones. I’ve tried to stay out of some of the rambling/mud slinging conversions that I’ve seen in the past. I think the bottom line is we all want better resolution and many of us not only want hd but also better sd. Now I’m just worried that we may see another year or two of interoperability problems. Also I wonder how long will it be before we can have a full featured (continuous presence) multipoint option. Having higher resolution on the endpoint is great but for most of us without an end to end solution it doesn’t really make any sense to worry about upgrading.

BTW on a related note, I do have a pair of LifeSize units in house for the next month or so and would be happy to answer any specific questions. I will say that although the units do have some early release issues, I am not seeing (or rather hearing) this fan noise problem that has been brought up on Wainhouse.

[Sean Lessman]

I am not seeing (or rather hearing) this fan noise problem that has been brought up on Wainhouse.

Glad to hear they resolved this. The units I saw definately had this issue. It wasn't on constant but the fans did come on 3 or 4 times over an hour period. They were on par with a PC server in terms of loudness.

In terms of interoperability issues, I wouldn't focus on the 'new' resolutions so much as I would focus on the lack of the mandatory codecs such as H.261 (completely missing) and H.263 qCIF (missing). Without the lowest common codecs, there will be serious interoperability issues.

Apparently nobody cares about this except me. Perhaps its because my group has to deal with every one of these issues when they come up -- and they come up more than they should because of cutting corners.

Sean

[tom9933]

I guess for me it’s not a huge issue because almost everyone we talk with has codecs that support at least H.263. That and the majority of our calls run through the bridge using CP. I honestly can’t remember the last call we did other than testing that used H.261 and when we do it for tests normally the response is something along the lines of “I can’t believe how bad it used to look”. This thought is basically why I started that other post.

[Sean Lessman]

I guess for me it’s not a huge issue because almost everyone we talk with has codecs that support at least H.263. That and the majority of our calls run through the bridge using CP. I honestly can’t remember the last call we did other than testing that used H.261 and when we do it for tests normally the response is something along the lines of “I can’t believe how bad it used to look”. This thought is basically why I started that other post.

My concern is how the far end will react when it doesn't see H.261 in the caps. In the past there were challenges when you presented something in the caps the other side didn't do. Good examples were H.263 and H.264 when they first came out. Now there is something missing that every system expects to be there (because its mandatory). In the world of cutting corners, its quite possible the far end codec may 'assume' you do it even though you dont.

I hope it doesn't cause issues. I could write a book (a very thick one) on issues that have been caused by similiar situations in the past.

Sean

[tom9933]

That’s true, I think problems like that are why the VSX codecs now have basic mode. I still think there needs to be some sort of dividing line though where you cut out the old stuff. Maybe the easiest way to deal with this is to not support the old stuff on the SIP side. Either way it’s a definite problem. So from a resource perspective, do you think it save you anything to eliminate H.261 from a product?
Along with that I’m also assuming some of the proprietary stuff like P+C and Dou Video would eventually go away.

[Sean Lessman]

I still think there needs to be some sort of dividing line though where you cut out the old stuff.

Fortunately it does not work that way. The H.323 (and H.320) standard explicitly states:

6.2.4 Video codec
The video codec is optional. If video capability is provided, it shall be provided according to the requirements of this Recommendation. All H.323 terminals providing video communications shall be capable of encoding and decoding video according to H.261 QCIF. Optionally, a terminal may also be capable of encoding and decoding video according to the other modes of H.261 or H.263. If a terminal supports H.263 with CIF or higher resolution, it shall also support H.261 CIF. All terminals which support H.263 shall support H.263 QCIF.

Lifesize cannot call themselves a standards compliant device because:

1. no H.261 support at all (must at least do H.261 qCIF)
2. no H.263 qCIF support (if you support H.263, you have to do at least qCIF)
3. supporting H.263 at all requires H.261 support as well

You cannot call yourself H.323 standards compliant with this oversight. Its the attitude of 'its doesn't really matter' that causes issues. You might understand this, but the customer that does not understand our technology may find themselves in a challenging situation where the solution doesn't work 'as advertised'. This leads to the perception that video doesn't work which leads to stagnated market growth.

Sure, having a cool new feature like HD may help LS sell a few systems, but this approach of not following the ITU-T standards does nothing for the market except cause problems. If you do not care about standards or bandwidth, go buy a MPEG codec running at 45Mbps -- quality is pretty good.

Sean

[tom9933]

I know what you are saying and agree that they need to follow the existing standards. I guess my point is more of a long term one in the respect that should there be a new standard for a lite endpoint. It just seems silly that every time something new comes out every piece of gear in the chain is expected to support it. So I’m suggesting that the endpoints would follow a stripped down version of the standard maybe called H.323 lite and if needed a customer needed those additional capabilities they would buy a gateway device that would continue to support the entire standard. It just seems like an awful lot of cost could be saved this way, and as a consumer that’s also important :)