4 ms·

Without providing details of the cameras in the test laptops these numbers don't have a lot of meaning. The typical laptop has a potato quality webcam that stra

Without providing details of the cameras in the test laptops these numbers don't have a lot of meaning. The typical laptop has a potato quality webcam that strains to push 30fps at 720p, many can only manage 480p video even if they support higher resolution stills. There's a small number of laptops with higher quality cameras (Windows Hello if usually a checkbox feature of these) that will do 1080p video. So saying a "mix of laptops" and "nothing special" isn't actually that helpful. Having ten laptops uploading their potato quality video over wired Ethernet without issues is a completely unsurprising result. A 5mbps upstream connection is much less useful for those that have better quality cameras available. Most phones and tablets have much better front cameras than laptops and desktops. Even the iPad mini can do 1080p video on its front camera. A year into the pandemic and good webcams are still sold out so there's a non-zero population with 1080p webcams they're using for conferencing. A 5mbps upstream is a joke for people doing Twitch et al live streams. Sorry cable internet providers, your terrible service for obnoxious prices is not a good value. A 5mbps upstream connection is absurdly low in general, let alone in a world where people are spending hours a day video conferencing.

vladvasiliu 6y ago
I'm in no way defending US internet providers, but is 5 Mbps really that low for video-conferencing? Up until late last year, my parents' connection was an ADSL that could only do 4-5 Mbps download. I could watch 1080p videos on Amazon Prime without any issue, and the quality was much, much above what I can possibly expect a good webcam to provide. Hell, I remember watching Star Trek in 480p on a MacBook Pro Retina in bed and being impressed by how good the image quality was. I understand that real-time compression isn't as good, that movies have better cameras, lighting, etc. But that's the thing, though. Maybe instead of pushing a ton of random garbage pixels per frame, a lower resolution will be just as good. Instead of pushing for a 4K 60 fps or more webcam, let's make a damn good 720p one. Maybe add some diffuse light to it, like the Razer Kiyo. It will probably improve the perceived quality much, much more than an ultra high def one fighting with backlight and other suboptimal environment issues.
- giantrobot 6y ago
  I'm not saying video conferencing needs 4K 60fps video. I'm saying that 5Mbps might suffice for the shit quality video most laptops will generate, it's insufficient for the much better quality video even modest 1080p cameras will generate. Most laptops have terrible cameras. Their best output can be encoded at a few hundred Kbps and would be neigh indistinguishable from video captured by the same camera directly to disk. A good 720p or 1080p camera needs quite a bit more bandwidth to maintain good visual quality. If upstream bandwidth is constrained the software will dial back the visual quality to potato levels. For anyone that needs non-potato quality this is problematic. Cable Internet companies patting themselves on the back for handling a dozen potato streams is just sad. Not everyone is ok with such quality. In an online classroom setting, the students don't necessarily need great quality upstream video but the instructor trying to capture a white board or switch between live video and a detailed presentation does want that high quality upstream video. Video quality from streaming services is immaterial here. There's a lot of quality/bitrate tweaks that can be done with offline encoding that are not workable for real-time encoding.
the-dude 6y ago
480p, 720p, 1080p says nothing if the lens sucks. If have seen sharper video from a 720p camera than from some 1080p's.
- toofy 6y ago
  I think that’s part of the OPs point–this article tells us almost nothing usable other than its “good enough” and when that type of statement accompanies no information about actual quality, it’s useless and is almost certainly a puff piece funded by isps. My dad considers the computer he bought in 2005 “good enough” but most people who are tech literate and who live on technology would consider that to be painfully ridiculous.

vladvasiliu 6y ago

I'm in no way defending US internet providers, but is 5 Mbps really that low for video-conferencing? Up until late last year, my parents' connection was an ADSL that could only do 4-5 Mbps download. I could watch 1080p videos on Amazon Prime without any issue, and the quality was much, much above what I can possibly expect a good webcam to provide. Hell, I remember watching Star Trek in 480p on a MacBook Pro Retina in bed and being impressed by how good the image quality was. I understand that real-time compression isn't as good, that movies have better cameras, lighting, etc. But that's the thing, though. Maybe instead of pushing a ton of random garbage pixels per frame, a lower resolution will be just as good. Instead of pushing for a 4K 60 fps or more webcam, let's make a damn good 720p one. Maybe add some diffuse light to it, like the Razer Kiyo. It will probably improve the perceived quality much, much more than an ultra high def one fighting with backlight and other suboptimal environment issues.

giantrobot 6y ago
I'm not saying video conferencing needs 4K 60fps video. I'm saying that 5Mbps might suffice for the shit quality video most laptops will generate, it's insufficient for the much better quality video even modest 1080p cameras will generate. Most laptops have terrible cameras. Their best output can be encoded at a few hundred Kbps and would be neigh indistinguishable from video captured by the same camera directly to disk. A good 720p or 1080p camera needs quite a bit more bandwidth to maintain good visual quality. If upstream bandwidth is constrained the software will dial back the visual quality to potato levels. For anyone that needs non-potato quality this is problematic. Cable Internet companies patting themselves on the back for handling a dozen potato streams is just sad. Not everyone is ok with such quality. In an online classroom setting, the students don't necessarily need great quality upstream video but the instructor trying to capture a white board or switch between live video and a detailed presentation does want that high quality upstream video. Video quality from streaming services is immaterial here. There's a lot of quality/bitrate tweaks that can be done with offline encoding that are not workable for real-time encoding.

the-dude 6y ago

480p, 720p, 1080p says nothing if the lens sucks. If have seen sharper video from a 720p camera than from some 1080p's.

toofy 6y ago
I think that’s part of the OPs point–this article tells us almost nothing usable other than its “good enough” and when that type of statement accompanies no information about actual quality, it’s useless and is almost certainly a puff piece funded by isps. My dad considers the computer he bought in 2005 “good enough” but most people who are tech literate and who live on technology would consider that to be painfully ridiculous.