3 ms·

I'm not sure who is taking selfies with an iPad, and videoconferencing has lots of quality concerns from compression and bandwidth issues that make camera quali

I'm not sure who is taking selfies with an iPad, and videoconferencing has lots of quality concerns from compression and bandwidth issues that make camera quality kind of irrelevant. If anything, I think videoconferencing really needs to move towards more abstracted forms of interaction instead of trying to accomplish crystal clear video. Evidently, remote classrooms are finding it easier to do lectures via Minecraft than Zoom or Skype. With the kinds of advances in deepfakes and realistic looking face rendering we're getting, there isn't as much reason to be sending that much data over the network. You'd need a camera to capture things like writing on a markerboard, but just for conferencing and getting body language pseudo-MoCap would do fine.

vardump 7y ago
> lots of quality concerns from compression and bandwidth issues that make camera quality kind of irrelevant Better quality (lower noise) video reduces compression artefacts (or alternatively bandwidth requirements), because video codec doesn't need to waste bandwidth encoding all that high entropy noise.
bonestamp2 7y ago
Agreed. Even in television production, audio quality is seen as the most important part of the medium. If you lose video, the audience is not going to miss as much as if they lost audio (in most cases). This is even more true for conferencing. Of course, we didn't even have video in conferencing for the longest time.