Re[2]: color video?

thommy (thommy@symantec.com)
Mon, 19 Sep 1994 13:44:38 -0400


To all --

My question on this is: is color really necessary?

Color would be good, but I would rather sacrifice it for better
performance/clarity over the Network. I've been testing lots of
desktop video product and so far, CUSeeMe has actually had the best
performance (not to mention way-best price/performance!). It is also,
the only B/W product.

I've spoken with several business executives (VP level and above) on
this matter and they agree -- color is nice, but it is more important
to see the nuances and gestures of the person than the color of
his/her shirt.

Am I wrong that there should be much less video info x'mitted for B/W
than for color?

Thom

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: color video?
Author: "Randolph Chung" <rc42@cornell.edu> at INTERNET
Date: 9/18/94 10:43 AM

In message Sun, 18 Sep 1994 12:41:55 -0400, T.Dorcey@cornell.edu writes:

> First note that network transmission rates are typically measured in
> kilobits/second (kbps) not kilobytes. So, the file you describe would
> actually require 297 kbps to transmit. More importantly,

I knew I was doing something wrong in my calculations.. =) sounded too good
to be true :>

> videoconferencing demands compression/decompression in real-time. I
> doubt that the compression ratio you observed with the Lion King clip
> could be achieved in real time on a typical Macintosh or PC. An

yes. I thought of that as well. The Lion King clip has a compression ratio of
I'd say about 20:1.. I guess also Cartons are a lot more compressable than
real video cuz there are not that many variations in cartoons.

> This is not to say that there won't be color available in the
> not-too-distant future. Just don't expect the video to be as good as the
> Lion King clip, and recognize that you will pay some price in reduced
> frame rate or reduced spatial resolution if you want to transmit color.

Actually, the clip's resolution/frame rate isn't all too good. Of course it
looks much better at 160x120. The audio quality was impressive though... out
of curiousity, are video data a lot more compressible than audio? (ie you
can use a more "loosey compression" technique with video?)

randolph
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Randolph Chung -=- Cornell University -=- Biochemistry/CS student
.................Tau-Squared Software programmer..................
Internet: rc42@cornell.edu CLASSlink: 20:256/4
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*