views:

81

answers:

2

If you were asked to offer a multi-site video conferencing solution, where quality is more important than price, what would you offer? With my current knowledge I can offer just two things: 1) Use hardware codecs for pears and make one server MCU. (This way I offer just intallation and configuration of the hardware) 2) Use PC for each pear/site and make one PC server MCU. But "implement" codec and the needed software. This way I will offer my software, "my" codec + configuration and installation.

What other options do we have in video conferencing? I think I also have to choose among different protocols if I choose to implement a software: what are options, their pros and cons.

Actually this is a question of someone who knows very little about video conferencing. So advices in any level and links to short and helpful tutorials are very welcome.

Thanks.

p.s. Actually I would put "videoconferencing" tag, but I don't have privilage to do so.

A: 

Personally I would stick with a dedicated "out of the box" solution such as that offered by Cisco and others. It's been my experience that using PCs to run videoconferencing solutions often turns out poorly in terms of quality and upkeep in the various companies I have worked for.

BBlake
What if I dedicate one PC to the site and have high speed internet connection - will the quality be still worse than the other option? (I mean do they (CISCO) use some "magic" codec and tranmission/error correction algorithms) PC is much more cheaper thant "tools" that CISCO, SONY and other companies offer.
Azho KG
Of course I wrote quality is more important than the price, but I still need to consider both.
Azho KG
Not being involved on the technical side of it, I can't say how they accomplish it. However, from a user's/viewer's point of view I have seen both in action at places I have worked and the option that used dedicated vConf hardware looked far superior to that which used a cam/mic attached to a PC.
BBlake
A: 
Ben Throop