Just because meetings are boring doesn't mean they have to be low-res as well.
Cisco's new TelePresence Meeting technology brings utter pixel overkill to the
videoconferencing game with the new TelePresence 3000, which sports three 1080p flat panels on each end for use by up to 12 suits at a time. There's also a "low-end" TelePresence 1000 version, which just uses a single 1080p set on each end. The TelePresence 3000 setup includes special tables, microphone-speakers, cameras and lighting, but it'll cost you a cool $299k when it's released this December. Apparently that's a real bargain compared to HP's "Halo" setup, which is closing in on half a mil and requires $18k a month for service (Sony has 'em both beat with their
$42k IPELA system), but it's still abundantly clear that TelePresence won't be making it into all but the ritziest board rooms. Luckily, that TP 1000 goes for a mere $79k, and neither system requires a monthly service fee -- though the 10 gigabit per second minimum bandwidth required is probably going to cost you $3-5k monthly per connected room. Still, all of this TelePresence action from Cisco is a sign of things to come, since the networking behemoth is slowly moving into the media and consumer spaces. They've got their sights set on consumer set-top boxes, so grandma can get her TelePresence on, and expect the videoconferencing industry to generate $1 billion in annual revenue before 2011. We're a bit skeptical, but with prices like these, at least they won't need to ship many widgets to hit that target.
[Thanks, J]
posted Oct 23rd 2006 5:30PM
I'm sure one will very soon be able to connect a cheap 100$ HD webcam to the PS3 and be able to do high definition video conferencing with a normal broadband connection. Probably Sony will announce this very soon.
It's just aboiut having hardware that is powerfull enough to encode->send and receive->decode two 720p or 1080p video streams using h264 or Mpeg4 in realtime. The PS3 for sure can do this, probably also that a dual core computer can also.
10Gbps, wah? If you watch scoble's video you'll hear them say that it's ~4Mbps/panel, so all you really need is ~12Mbps. Latency is important, but even then you've got 250ms to play with.
In any case, the point of TelePresence doesn't seem to be about just "doing it", it seems to be about the whole experience - having it feel like you're in the same room.
A company would have to be retarded to pay for this.
Patrick Quinn-Graham - "having it feel like you're in the same room."
You could actually _be_ in the same room pretty often for a lot less than $300K. Seems like a waste of money. I guess this is for execs who think they are too busy to meet in person, but powerful enough to show up the other guy their expensive toys.
you miss the point, Peter.
A telepresence call can have a meeting with 8 people, if not more on 4 screens and share data.
If a team of individuals needs to meet, they schedule it and wait.
with time to market being important, cutting production time on projects effects the bottom line.
So it is not for execs. It is for salesman, tech support, developers and others who make business profitable.
Take one trip to Banglagore and realize most US execs don't want to spend 50 hours traveling each way.
Imagine how much more control you have over your outsourced projects if you have telepresence.
I would love to say that the photo in this post accurately displays how cool this is in person, however it does not.
We have a set of these, one on the west coast and one on the east. Not to sound like a Cisco Fanboy (do those exist?) but when I saw this demo running between sites with all threes screens running 1080p, it blew my socks off. I mean really... I was standing there in front of my coworkers barefoot. It was then I was thankful that they could not smell my nekkid feet as well as they could see them.
The only downside so far is the brand new polycom we have in another room looks like a 1994 logitech quickcam in comparison. And I have to budget for more shoes every time I go in the "good" conference room.
Here's a video of it working.
http://www.cisco.com/web/solutions/telepresence/fox/?Referring_site=CISCO.COM%20INDEX&Country_Site=US&Campaign=HN%
20TELE&Position=sl&Creative=FOX&Where=solutions/telepresence/fox/
Sorry,
http://www.cisco.com/web/solutions/telepresence/fox/?Referring_site=CISCO.COM%20INDEX&Country_Site=US&Campaign=HN%20TELE&Position=sl&Creative=FOX&Where=solutions/telepresence/fox/
Another video showing the Telepresence in action.
http://media.podtech.net/media/2006/10/PID_001243/Podtech_ciscofinal.mov
The videos are slightly fake: all the people are looking into the camera so it seems like every one has eye contact, but in reality you don't look at the camera above the screen you look at the screen and there is no eye contact.
Having said that this stuff is pretty cool but still it's science fiction because regular people cannot use it. so, wtf, as they say.
How about ichat using a hi def video camera? I tried it but unfortunately I was the one with the camera so I couldn't see what the quality looked like.
I will say though that an ichat with the external isight camera can go full screen (mine is 20inch) and the quality is totally amazing for sound also.
waddo
http://www.waddo.net/
We had these years ago at AOL - http://www.telesuite.com/
They just used direct T1's between the locations at that time.
HP has had this "Halo Room" for ages now too.
old tech.
Yawn.
1 - Lifesize is a single codec, Telepresence utilises 3 codec's at typicaly 2.5meg each but they are for different applications. This is designed as a very high end face to face video communications system. Lifesize is a video codec for room to room communications (however may/few people there are)
2 - Lifesize is not actually that good, motion is terrible and the audio is rubbish caused by poor mics (our's are sitting in our stores gathering dust)
3 - Life size is not 1080 Cisco is
4 - Halo is not 1080 Cisco is (though I will conceed that some people rate Halo as better quality, we'll see when we get one of those as well)
5 - Eye contact does work (though needs carefull adjustment) in conjunction with the panning audio you do feel much more interactive.
6 - Yes it not cheap but it will pay for itself very quickly.
7 - This is seriously good for the industry we have Tandberg, Polycom and Lifesize working from the 'lower' end and Cisco woking from the 'top' end there will soon be a sweet spot that will provide affordable 1080 videoconferencing with a much better feeling of presence.
IMO :)
Dude - Ultra HD this ain't. That's an actual format developed by NHK in Japan and it's 8K by 4K, not 6K by 1K.
Nice though.
First off, the 3000 uses approx 10Mb/s not 10Gb/s
Secondly, eye contact is preserved even when looking into the screen. Only when you are sitting at the ends of the table is eye contact slightly off.
Third, the tech is NEW regardless of similar systems on the market. Cisco has 25 patents pending and it is standards based. Video is based on h.264 and audio is based on AAC.
So, not sure who coined the term 'ultra HD' but does that mean the highest rez currently, or is it exclusive to 1080p? I mean what happens when the next gen rez comes out-will that be 'most ultra HD" or the 'supreme HD' or 'nothing more HD then this'?
I've heard that this product was designed in conjuction with a product design company called Speck Design...
http://www.speckdesign.com
While the technology has roots or similarities to other technologies, it's overall brand new and exclusive. The cameras used are custom-built by Cisco and unlike any that have ever been used before. The screens are, while third-party panels, custom-engineered for these circumstances. The microphones on the table are designed and placed specifically to provide accurate 3D sound, and even cancel out GSM interference unlike most videoconferencing microphones. The positioning and size of the monitors is designed to keep people the exact size they would be, and the detail level of the 1080p allows you to even make out the color of people's eyes. The color of the table, even, was chosen for the perfect level of contrast, and when these are installed the color and texture of the walls in the room is measured, and lighting is replaced to ensure the most accurate picture.
Most importantly, though, is the codecs they're using. They're unlike any used by any other remotely similar system, providing on-the-fly H.264 video encoding. And 10Mbps (not Gbps) is an amazing speed to pull off for three 1080p panels running simultaneously.
From everything I've heard about it recently it's a see-it-to-believe-it technology. Nothing you read about it can properly prepare you for experiencing it. Once you do you believe.
we just saw all the Telepresence vendors at telepresence world.
You cannot tell the difference betwwen any of them. People asked the vendors were they HD ,1080, 720 and NO ONE could tell the difference.
check out http://www.telanetix.com
Their system sells for 60K per 4 screen system.
companies can realize an ROI in 6 months. Not bad for cool technology.
As far as desk top video, its not for projects or enterprise. might as well just use the phone.
That's really a smart and quick solution for video conferencing, without much efforts and time.
http://www.sony-conferencing.com/
Watch interviews with Ustream Founder John Ham and Cisco Systems' TelePresence Product Line Manager Phil Marechal on the Telepresence Channel at:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1185097602