Skype and Logitech introduce 30fps VGA High Quality Video

Skype users, rejoice: eBay's VoIP giant has just given video calling a major kick in the pants by teaming up with Logitech to create a platform capable of displaying your ugly mug in full VGA glory at 30fps without the inelegant hack. With the release of version 3.6 for Windows (sorry Mac users, but you have your Leopards to play with), Skype now supports High Quality Video when employing one of three Logitech webcams already on the market -- the QuickCams Pro 9000, Pro for Notebooks, and Orbit AF -- along with a dual core-powered machine. Of course, performance is highly dependent on your internet connection as well; the HQV spec calls for a minimum of 384kbps, and both parties will probably require more than that if they want to avoid throttled frame rates. Updated software (v. 11.5) already being rolled out will teach supported QuickCams their new trick, bringing with it the all the facial imperfections and embarrassing quirks that are likely to remind us why video calling has never really caught on in the first place.

[michel @ Dec 3rd 2008 11:05AM]

I've just written a simple software to enable/force/configure/hack Skype to send high quality video even if you didn't bought an expensive logitech webcam.
You may also send higher resolution than Skype's HQ : the unofficial Skype HD !!!

Here is the link
http://www.nodewave.com/software/ForceSkypeHQVideo

[villageidiot33 @ Oct 30th 2007 12:47PM]

That's a creepy picture.

[patsy @ Oct 30th 2007 4:17PM]

Why do a trophy soccer mom and her creepy friend need video conferencing? They've got all day to drive their vans to each other's places and--umm--visit.

[Digital1 @ Oct 30th 2007 5:19PM]

Ditto..Looks like she had a power night mixture of weed,a 40 ounce, and No-Doze....

[orbit @ Oct 30th 2007 6:07PM]

I think she's about to eat that baby

[Joe P @ Oct 31st 2007 12:35AM]

For some reason the first thing that leapt to my mind was:

Who wants to buy a baby?

[nerdtalker @ Oct 30th 2007 12:47PM]

Since when is 640x480 really passable? I mean, sure, it's an upgrade, but where's 1024x768 resolution seamless videoconferencing?

Arthur C. Clarke must be pissed off.

[zzebi @ Oct 30th 2007 3:11PM]

I apologize in advance for commenting on the article itself and not the ugliness of the baby. :-)

So, VGA video conferencing is cool? Apparently no one has used iChat before. I do video conferencing almost every day with iChat (between East Coast and West Coast) and it works flawlessly in VGA resolution and 30fps. The video quality is almost on par with standard definition TV. The resolution drops to QVGA only in case of video conferencing.

[zzebi @ Oct 30th 2007 3:16PM]

Of course I meant: the resolution is VGA in 1-on-1 chats and drops to QVGA only if there are more than 2 persons in the video conference.

[DickHardknocks @ Oct 30th 2007 12:48PM]

I just hope when those children grow up they will reject Apple products.

[Scooter @ Oct 30th 2007 7:18PM]

I think Apple products will reject them.

[j0sh @ Oct 30th 2007 12:51PM]

thats the ugliest baby i've ever seen.

[Matt @ Oct 30th 2007 1:32PM]

DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE UGLY--
oh, too late. You guys should learn some respect.

[416Hammy @ Oct 30th 2007 4:39PM]

"Your baby is... BREATHTAKING!"

[Anonymous @ Oct 30th 2007 12:54PM]

THAT IS ONE UGLY BABY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Peter @ Oct 30th 2007 1:27PM]

cute monkey!

[USA homes @ Nov 2nd 2007 6:25AM]

You don't say so)
Bet we are all not prettier when just born)))

------------------
Best homes

[comrade @ Oct 30th 2007 1:04PM]

If my kid looked like that I'd probably sign up for another tour...

[zach @ Oct 30th 2007 1:35PM]

I don't know who's uglier, the baby or the woman.

[DG @ Oct 30th 2007 1:07PM]

Her thumb is in a funny place.

[euclid @ Oct 30th 2007 1:10PM]

"hey look everyone, look at my new pet frog"

[Kaminix @ Oct 30th 2007 1:27PM]

Aaaaaand in the Linux corner...
Package: skype
New: yes
State: installed
Automatically installed: yes
Version: 1.4.0.118dynamic+static-0medibuntu3
Priority: extra
Section: non-free/net
.....

To be fair though, the Linux client has gotten MUCH better the past 6 months. It might be the new face of Skype turning towards Linux users.

[Lee @ Oct 30th 2007 1:29PM]

Why is she smiling if she's just pushed out that huge ugly baby (hasn't it heard of Botox), it must be all flappy and baggy now.

[Taylor Curry @ Oct 30th 2007 1:37PM]

Lets not waste high quality video on that baby...

[Bryan @ Oct 30th 2007 1:39PM]

If that is the actual picture sent from the marketing team, I would fire them immediately. That is the creepiest picture I have seen advertising something in a long long time.

[majortom @ Oct 30th 2007 1:46PM]

uhh... that's not her thumb.......

[bob @ Oct 30th 2007 1:48PM]

the women in the smaller caption frame is a total milf

[Ron Smith @ Oct 30th 2007 1:51PM]

is the dual core a sticking point? Only have a single core here

[Ghen @ Oct 30th 2007 1:51PM]

oh mY GoD UGLY BABY UGLY BABY!!!!!! *runs away screaming*

[Eddie @ Oct 30th 2007 1:52PM]

Hey lady, Halloween called, it wants its posterchild for costumes and face masks back

[strider_mt2k @ Oct 30th 2007 1:59PM]

Finster?

Shaving? -at his age? -and TATTOOED?

http://www.minorlooneytunes.com/pictures/finster015.jpg

[strider_mt2k @ Oct 30th 2007 1:59PM]

Finster?

Shaving? -at his age? -and TATTOOED?

http://www.minorlooneytunes.com/pictures/finster015.jpg

[Le Master @ Oct 30th 2007 2:02PM]

At first glance I thought that baby was hung like a horse, then I took a second look and saw that it was just a thumb.

[rawhead @ Oct 30th 2007 2:33PM]

Why did the dead baby cross.... oh, forget it.

Come on guys, all babies look like monkeys when they're 3 days old. Tell me you were different.

[TDG01 @ Oct 30th 2007 6:00PM]

i was different....trust me....

[Lee @ Oct 30th 2007 3:21PM]

How the hell do you know that babies age? you gotta be the UGLY mother of the UGLY baby.

Is it me or does the top of it's head look false?

[channy @ Oct 30th 2007 4:12PM]

since when did babys look like that?
my grandad looks younger than that!

[Jack @ Oct 30th 2007 6:41PM]

i would like to see the look on the faces of these 'name callers' when they find out their baby looks like that!!!!!

What?? im sure some of them CAN concieve!!!!

[Bittermormon @ Oct 30th 2007 7:00PM]

Wow I heard this was a tech blog, not a place for a bunch of virgins to come around and make fun of babies even though they'll never have one.

It should be a place for virgins to come talk about electronics...even though they'll still never have a baby.

[M@ @ Oct 30th 2007 7:48PM]

Bitter moron, you must've been an ugly, apelike baby yourself. Or are you just angry that the other kids having fun without you again?

Wait, no, you're right - no laughing at the ugly baby everyone, this blog is Serious Business!

[Ayle @ Oct 30th 2007 7:26PM]

the comment section made my day, it's been a while since I laughed that much...

[Nunavummiut @ Oct 30th 2007 7:35PM]

Bittermormon, that was a lame, cheap shot.

And babies are an option, not an inevitability.

[dc @ Oct 30th 2007 8:04PM]

C'mon, that's clearly a robotic troll doll with the penile augmentation option.

[dchang @ Oct 30th 2007 7:56PM]

Clearly a robotic troll doll with the penile augmentation option. I've seen uglier. Like this baby, smoking ganja.

Bittermormon, I guess you struck a nerve.

[dchang @ Oct 30th 2007 8:03PM]

Sorry, Engadget ate my ganja-baby link.

[Darkest Daze @ Oct 30th 2007 8:42PM]

I'm sorry, I couldn't even bother with the actual article. That damn gremlin just kept distracting me. I'm not sure, but I think it tried eating my soul.

[Prasand J. @ Oct 30th 2007 11:47PM]

lmfao ... I second this. Didn't go back to read the article til I saw this comment. I went straight for the comments when I saw the pic, lol.

smh @ being immortalized on engadget in crystal clarity in a not too flattering moment.

I guess it's kinda a sales pitch for those would be unattractive buyers. A warning of sorts, "Buy a cam with a lower resolution. Thanks."

[J.A. Watson @ Nov 16th 2007 7:47AM]

Why the unnecessary restriction?

In the Skype 3.6 beta releases, it was possible to manually activate the higher resolution video with cameras other than the three Logitech cameras mentioned in this article. It was proven in the Skype User Forums that a variety of other webcams were capable of 640x480 resolution video, both from Logitech and from other manufacturers. With the 3.6 production release, this manual activation capability has been removed, so only users with one of the three specific Logitech cameras will be able to benefit from higher resolution video. It is surprising that Skype has decided to relegate the majority of their existing users who own webcams to "second class status", apparently only because of a marketing agreement with Logitech. If the Skype/Logitech "High Quality Video" is truly superior, as they say, then why not let it stand on its own merits, and allow users with other webcams to benefit from the improved resolution? One would think that this would encourage more webcam owners to start using Skype for video calls, and probably encourage more users to buy the "better" Logitech cameras, when they see how good High Quality Video can be.

[Kevin Bouchard @ Apr 12th 2008 7:43AM]

This is not as easy as you might think it is. I have worked in this domain for several years and to get real-time videoconferencing at this resolution on a PC you need several optimizations. The H.264 codec is very greedy in CPU. It's likely that Logitech developed a camera access optimization algorithm to help minimize overhead created by Windows generic hardware API.