4 ms·
For a lot of people there is going to be an encode (CPU) bottleneck as well. From trying to do webcasting a while ago, I can tell you that encoding HD video in
by shubb 13y ago
For a lot of people there is going to be an encode (CPU) bottleneck as well. From trying to do webcasting a while ago, I can tell you that encoding HD video in realtime on last years PCs was a major problem.
Then again, it takes this kind of thing to push hardware makers and ISPs forward. If a lot of people want to use google hangouts with HD, it will create a call for internet connections with fast upload speeds (rather than a bias towards download as we see now).
- selectodude 13y agoWere you webcasting in 1080p? This only supports 720p, which will be substantially less intensive. I think my phone can encode 720p in real-time. I'm pretty sure a mid-range laptop from the last couple years can do 720p at a reasonable bitrate.
- plorkyeran 13y agoYour phone has a dedicated h264 hardware encoder. Most new computers do as well these days, but not the older ones that actually need it.
- eitally 13y agoYep. Even 2 year old machines (especially laptops) are unsuited. We have recently been testing Hangouts, Vidyo, Bluejeans, Polycom, Skype, Fuzebox.... and it was a lot of fun trying to diagnose degradation of user experience. Almost never was it network-related (except in cases with 8-10++ endpoints). It's much more common to be CPU-constrained than anything else.
- awakeasleep 13y agoI'd like to plug the logitech c920 webcam that not only has beautiful optics and a terrific auto-focus, wide viewing angle, and dual microphones, but also does the transcoding onboard.
- ZeroGravitas 13y agoWhen this was discussed on WebRTC mailing lists, it turned that basically no video-confercing software uses these encoders as a) they're not tuned for real-time usage, and b) often the software has no access to the hardware anyway.