4 ms·
Conferencing, still. You'd think that we had gotten that covered now, but nope. Not just image and audio quality, but Google Hangouts on my phone (so I can car
by ragebol 7y ago
Conferencing, still. You'd think that we had gotten that covered now, but nope.
Not just image and audio quality, but Google Hangouts on my phone (so I can carry it around the house and get tea etc during a meeting) slurps up oodles of battery and the phone (OnePlus 5T) gets really really hot too.
No such problem with eg. Netflix and Youtube, guess those video codecs have some HW acceleration while Google Hangouts doesn't?
Further: I only work some 500km from the office, so I travel there (mostly by train) roughly once a month for a few days. Good mix of remote and on-site for me.
- tom_mellior 7y agoI think encoding audio/video is much more demanding than decoding them, and even if it weren't, conferencing is two-way so you should expect your machine to work at least twice as hard as for one-way video. Anyway, I also work remotely but visit an office a few times a month, that is really helpful both from the technical side of things and socially. Also, having worked in companies using one or the other exclusively, video conferencing is much much better than audio only. Seeing your colleagues' faces makes you feel so much more connected and less like strangers.
- buboard 7y agoAudio quality is obv important, but is hd video quality needed, beyond screen sharing? I think a lot of tools use too much cpu time (and thus hang) for hd video, where a simple 320x240 from the 90s would do
- krel 7y agoI don't know, I think resolution is very important to get as many facial expressions as possible over via video. Those things that make in-person conversations smooth, but makes video feel stilted.