13 ms·
All that effort, then comes the actual video call software and blows the quality to smithereens, and you're back to yelling at a speaker connected to the mic so
by kroltan 5y ago
All that effort, then comes the actual video call software and blows the quality to smithereens, and you're back to yelling at a speaker connected to the mic socket and recording using the GameBoy camera add-on dipped in molasses.
It's really frustrating, I also cared to set up a decent input, but all of Google Meet, Slack, and Zoom have terrible terrible compression.
- tjansen 5y agoWe're also using Tandem (http://tandem.chat http://tandem.chat), which looks fantastic in comparison. Not sure exactly why. Resolution is still 480k, but the frame rate is noticeably higher, and possibly the compression rate as well.
- GekkePrutser 5y agoI'm indeed surprised how much of a difference frame rate makes. I use Jitsi a lot privately and it seems to prioritise frame rate over frame quality. At work we use ms teams which seems to do the opposite. The Teams footage looks crisper but every time I'm on Jitsi I have this "wow this looks real" feeling. Of course lighting is also really important as many cheap cams have sensors too small to do 30fps in low light. Let alone 60 which I think no current video conferencing product does.
- ohadron 5y agoI think https://www.around.co/ https://www.around.co/ also have decent compression compared to the ones you mentioned.
- sparsely 5y agoI gave up carting my webcam and stuff around with me - in 90% of zoom meetings it makes essentially no difference. I'm sure there's some specific scenario where Zoom will send actual HD video but they're pretty rare.