Re: Internet Video Calls/Conferencing

Brad Albrecht ( (no email) )
Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:00:58 -0800

With NetMeeting (and I would assume most products) a video capture card will
out perform the Quickcam (or any parallel port camera if there are others)
in both quality of image, as well as frames per second. Winnov makes a good
card, and most companies use the Phillips camera with their boards. You can
find the Winnov capture card selling under the Phillips name brand in the
stores. This is the camera configuration preferred by MS, and they test
quite a few with NetMeeting. I have used both types, and the video capture
card types are WAY better.

I am not sure what you are talking about Mitch with the router
configurations, but with NetMeeting, it can only do point to point, and
routing has nothing to do with that. I guess I just don't understand what
you mean. Is there some routers that handle UDP packets better than others
(aside from junk equipment, etc..)?

Also, if you are interested in standards, NetMeeting is standards based. I
am not sure how many others use the same standards, but I have seen some
neat equipment based on it, and I am pretty sure at least Intel uses it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mitch Wagers <>
To: '' <>
Date: Saturday, December 27, 1997 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: Internet Video Calls/Conferencing

>Quickcam has been my taste, and MS's NetMeeting has also been the victor in
>my tests, not because it outperforms (It doesn't in all areas), but because
>it has the most functionality, it's an entire suite of software! As far as
>your testing goes, how you running these tests (see below list)?
>1. Router is not multicasting
> Only one Peer-to-Peer video conference w/ voice
>2. Router is not multicasting
> More than one Peer-To-Peer video conference w/ voice
>3. Router is multicasting
> Only one Peer-to-Peer video conference w/ voice
>4. Router is multicasting
> More than one Peer-To-Peer video conference w/ voice
>Options 1-2 provide lower QOS (Quality of Service) than items 3-4. This
>also applies to Streaming Audio and Video from your web server. The more
>connections you place in the conference, the lower the quality or speed,
>which ever one is appropriately configured for QOS. You can also increase
>LAN-to-WAN and WAN-to-LAN conferences if all routers involved speak the
>same "multimedia" language, Cisco is currently one of the top-rated
>manufacturers for multimedia-enhanced products.
>If that's enough info to get you started, I'll dig up some of my research.
>Mitch Wagers
>ISP Software Development
>Network Operations Manager Network/Mechanical Engineer
>OCS Software, Inc.
>From: SAMnet / Software and More
>Sent: Saturday, December 27, 1997 9:09 PM
>Subject: Internet Video Calls/Conferencing
>I am currently testing NM2.1, CUSeeMe 3.1, VDOPhone 3.0,
>Connectix Videophone, and Intel's product. All with a Quickcam
>VC. The performance of these products for the most part has
>been surprisingly good despite using a 33.6 connection.
>Just wondering if anyone is using these programs and what
>you experience has been with the the different packages and also
>the hardware involved.
>I would like to offer an educated recommendation to my customers
>when asked and have not had much luck finding reviews on
>current versions of the software or hardware. I am hoping to get in
>some additional cameras to try out different hardware.
>FYI: So far NM2.1 and VDOPhone have been the best performers
>for me. All I am currently testing is just the video calling performance.
>John David M. Miller -
>SAMnet / Software and More, Inc. -
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> NTISP Mailing List