| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't much
used before. Picture and sound quality seems to vary dramatically. Sometimes not bad, sometimes very poor. With the important part, the sound, seeing to suffer the worst. Not much point in seeing someone if you can barely understand what they're saying, due to a low data rate. Is it their equipment (phone or whatever) or the internet links that are making all the differences? -- *If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
On 02/05/2020 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't much used before. Picture and sound quality seems to vary dramatically. Sometimes not bad, sometimes very poor. With the important part, the sound, seeing to suffer the worst. Not much point in seeing someone if you can barely understand what they're saying, due to a low data rate. Is it their equipment (phone or whatever) or the internet links that are making all the differences? Unless using *very* ancient hardware, almost certainly bandwidth somewhere in the link. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
On 02/05/2020 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't much used before. Picture and sound quality seems to vary dramatically. Sometimes not bad, sometimes very poor. With the important part, the sound, seeing to suffer the worst. Not much point in seeing someone if you can barely understand what they're saying, due to a low data rate. Is it their equipment (phone or whatever) or the internet links that are making all the differences? Internet congestion or other issue that affects latency or transfer rate mostly. Live video and sound are highly timing-dependent, obviously. If you use pro videoconferencing or proper IP telephony you'd generally set up QoS (quality of service) to prioritise the traffic over any other stuff, but of course, over the Internet as a whole that cannot be quaranteed. Every bit of pixelisation or garbled bit of speech is basically packet loss, because as it is real time, if something arrives out-of-order or too late, it has to be thrown away. In a normal download, or streaming music, you can just build up a buffer and wait for re-transmission, but that's no good for real-time, so compression increases to try to reduce data rate (and therefore hopefully improve latency a bit). If we use the videoconference equipment at work over a LAN it is amazingly clear, if it goes over the Internet quality drops accordingly. On some video meetings with colleagues over the last few weeks, it's been noticeable that the ones on the same ISP as I am are that bit clearer, as the latency is lower and the bitrate better. Generally even a cheap smartphone or laptop has a camera good enough for decent quality. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
On Saturday, 2 May 2020 14:05:29 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
Unless using *very* ancient hardware, almost certainly bandwidth somewhere in the link. And a lot of people are finding that the 16 Mbps ADSL connection that is fine for downloading doesn't cope very well when the upload speed is only 1 Mbps or lower, which they don't normally do, but videoconferencing taxes both directions of the link. At 1 Mbps up I find even sending large emails can cause connection timeouts. Owain |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
|
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
On Saturday, 2 May 2020 21:34:46 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
Ah yes, but some of us remember dialup, when we could only dream of 56kb/s Hah. I remember the first time I saw a dialup connection. 300/300 was a dream then. Most of us walked to the terminal rooms on campus. Owain |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
Its normally the other ends bandwidth according to zoom themselves. It
improves if you use audio only but then I guess that would be so. Pity there is no way of trading one off against the other. Its not just zoom though is it, MS teams GoogleLook and Skype are just the same. I don't recall hearing what the minimum specs are though. Brian -- ----- -- This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please Note this Signature is meaningless.! "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't much used before. Picture and sound quality seems to vary dramatically. Sometimes not bad, sometimes very poor. With the important part, the sound, seeing to suffer the worst. Not much point in seeing someone if you can barely understand what they're saying, due to a low data rate. Is it their equipment (phone or whatever) or the internet links that are making all the differences? -- *If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
One other thing is try to stop other people using webcam mikes they are
notoriously crap and of course too far away to be very good. Use separate mikes close to the speaking personage. Brian -- ----- -- This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please Note this Signature is meaningless.! "newshound" wrote in message ... On 02/05/2020 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't much used before. Picture and sound quality seems to vary dramatically. Sometimes not bad, sometimes very poor. With the important part, the sound, seeing to suffer the worst. Not much point in seeing someone if you can barely understand what they're saying, due to a low data rate. Is it their equipment (phone or whatever) or the internet links that are making all the differences? Unless using *very* ancient hardware, almost certainly bandwidth somewhere in the link. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
Brian Gaff wrote:
One other thing is try to stop other people using webcam mikes they are notoriously crap and of course too far away to be very good. Use separate mikes close to the speaking personage. Counter-intuitively I've found the exact opposite ... When I started using skype for business about 3 years ago, I bought an external USB audio interface providing phantom power for XLR mics, first tried a large cardioid mic, got endless complaints about it being too quiet (I do speak quietly) also tried a lav mic, not much better, maybe I got the "wrong" type i.e. directional vs omni. Later I updated my webcam to HD logitech C920 I tried using its built in (array of?) mics and haven't had a single complaint since, the behringer box is relegated to being a headphone amp. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
On 03/05/2020 09:48, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote: One other thing is try to stop other people using webcam mikes they are notoriously crap and of course too far away to be veryÂ* good. Use separate mikes close to the speaking personage. Counter-intuitively I've found the exact opposite ... When I started using skype for business about 3 years ago, I bought an external USB audio interface providing phantom power for XLR mics, first tried a large cardioid mic, got endless complaints about it being too quiet (I do speak quietly) also tried a lav mic, not much better, maybe I got the "wrong" type i.e. directional vs omni. Later I updated my webcam to HD logitech C920 I tried using its built in (array of?) mics and haven't had a single complaint since, the behringer box is relegated to being a headphone amp. As I it here my webcam mike is about 12" away. Perfect distance in a quiet environment. Any closer and breath noise starts to be an issue. Also for vocal clarity one wants to curtail the bass and extreme treble. We are not recording opera, we are trying to talk to people It is a constant surprise to me how good modern microphone capsules are -- Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
On 03/05/2020 08:05, polygonum_on_google wrote:
And I remember broadband with only 0.07 Mbps download. That was on 02/12/2019. The day before we got FTTP installed. Thank heaven for having fibre made available - because I invoked political routes to put pressure on Openreach. It wasn't always as bad as 0.07, but it was very often appalling and never higher than 5 Mbps. With correspondingly awful upload. At least having usable broadband has helped hugely. I suppose we have to be thankful for a interest topic that spurred the developments of home cine & video, home computer graphics, a deregulated 'free' internet and got us this high speed broadband. If Mary Whitehouse ... -- Adrian C |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote: When I started using skype for business about 3 years ago, I bought an external USB audio interface providing phantom power for XLR mics, first tried a large cardioid mic, got endless complaints about it being too quiet (I do speak quietly) also tried a lav mic, not much better, maybe I got the "wrong" type i.e. directional vs omni. My laptop sets the gain automatically. Works on both the internal mic and a headset - where the mic is very close to the mouth. I'd expect it to do the same with any mic - assuming the same software is accessing it. However 'web' mics seem to have a very bright frequency response. Dunno if this is the mic itself or tweaked in software. A decent studio mic will be nearer flat. -- *I love cats...they taste just like chicken. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Andy Burns wrote: When I started using skype for business about 3 years ago, I bought an external USB audio interface providing phantom power for XLR mics, first tried a large cardioid mic, got endless complaints about it being too quiet (I do speak quietly) also tried a lav mic, not much better, maybe I got the "wrong" type i.e. directional vs omni. My laptop sets the gain automatically. Works on both the internal mic and a headset - where the mic is very close to the mouth. I'd expect it to do the same with any mic - assuming the same software is accessing it. However 'web' mics seem to have a very bright frequency response. Dunno if this is the mic itself or tweaked in software. A decent studio mic will be nearer flat. when I use Zoom, I am offered a "check mic level" screen -- from KT24 in Surrey, England "I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Andy Burns wrote: When I started using skype for business about 3 years ago, I bought an external USB audio interface providing phantom power for XLR mics, first tried a large cardioid mic, got endless complaints about it being too quiet (I do speak quietly) also tried a lav mic, not much better, maybe I got the "wrong" type i.e. directional vs omni. My laptop sets the gain automatically. Works on both the internal mic and a headset - where the mic is very close to the mouth. Maybe the OP's mic was a real capacitor mic, rather then an electret one; I doubt the automatic level control would work with that. I'd expect it to do the same with any mic - assuming the same software is accessing it. However 'web' mics seem to have a very bright frequency response. Dunno if this is the mic itself or tweaked in software. A decent studio mic will be nearer flat. -- Roger Hayter |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
In article ,
charles wrote: In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Andy Burns wrote: When I started using skype for business about 3 years ago, I bought an external USB audio interface providing phantom power for XLR mics, first tried a large cardioid mic, got endless complaints about it being too quiet (I do speak quietly) also tried a lav mic, not much better, maybe I got the "wrong" type i.e. directional vs omni. My laptop sets the gain automatically. Works on both the internal mic and a headset - where the mic is very close to the mouth. I'd expect it to do the same with any mic - assuming the same software is accessing it. However 'web' mics seem to have a very bright frequency response. Dunno if this is the mic itself or tweaked in software. A decent studio mic will be nearer flat. when I use Zoom, I am offered a "check mic level" screen Quite. If you play with it you'll find it over-rides any manual settings. -- *What am I? Flypaper for freaks!? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote: Maybe the OP's mic was a real capacitor mic, rather then an electret one; I doubt the automatic level control would work with that. Not quite sure why the type of mic would make the slightest difference? -- *One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote: My laptop sets the gain automatically. Works on both the internal mic and a headset - where the mic is very close to the mouth. Maybe the OP's mic was a real capacitor mic, rather then an electret one; I doubt the automatic level control would work with that. It's one of these ... https://www.thomann.de/gb/marantz_mpm_1000.htm |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
Andy Burns wrote:
It's one of these ... https://www.thomann.de/gb/marantz_mpm_1000.htm Fed into one of these ... https://www.thomann.de/gb/behringer_u_phoria_umc204hd.htm |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote: Andy Burns wrote: It's one of these ... https://www.thomann.de/gb/marantz_mpm_1000.htm Fed into one of these ... https://www.thomann.de/gb/behringer_u_phoria_umc204hd.htm glad to see I'm not the only one who buys from thomann -- from KT24 in Surrey, England "I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
I've done a couple of trial Zoom meetings in the last couple
of weeks, and the main thing I've noticed is how unusable it is. It goes out of its way to make itself difficult to use. There's no window furniture, there's no toolbar, it is an exemplar of unusability. There's something in Fred's window, so I want to expand Fred's window so I can see what's there. Double-click it? Nope. No window furniture, so no Maximise button. Menu click? No, nothing there, just "Chat". Toolbar? No. General menu click? Nothing. Ooh, what happened then? I've expanded Fred's window. How did I do that? Clicky clicky. Ooh, another option has appeared on the context menu. ARR45GAH11!!" NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER have options that don't appear until something else is done. If it's only valid in a particular circumastance, then have it there, but indicate that it can't yet be used, such as by "greying" it out. Otherwise, you are just saying **** YOU!!!! to your users by making it impossible to explore and find out what the controls are. Ok, Rant Number One over. Hmmm "Pin video". I don't want to do anything with any videos, and I don't want to pin something, that is, hide something away for later use by, eg, putting a tiny representation of it on the desktop. Randomly click on Pin Video. Ehh??? It's maximised the window. THAT'S NOT "PIN"!!!!!! THAT'S "SELECT" OR "MAXIMISE". "PIN" is "I don't want this for the moment, chuck it away somewhere where I can fetch it from later when I do want it. Ok, Moron programmers are illiterate morons. Film At Ten. Hmm. Bob's saying something interesting. Ok, Menu and, sigh! "pin video". Eh? There's no "Pin Video" option. Just as I've found how to maximise a window it disappears. WTF? Rant Two: don't randomly change the controls without giving any indication why or how it's changed and no way to unchanged them. What? Without me doing anything, the whole screen has changed to Jim's window. I don't want that, close it. No close button. Minimise it. No minimise button. HTF do I get rid of this? I want to go back to seeing everybody, not the innards of Jim's nostrils. Ah. Jim has forced himself on all viewers, *I* can't do anything until *JIM* allows me to. Sorry, ****. OFF. This is *MY* computer and *I* will chose what *I* am watching. On the whole, a giant crock of ****, and the lamp-posts are waiting. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter wrote: Maybe the OP's mic was a real capacitor mic, rather then an electret one; I doubt the automatic level control would work with that. Not quite sure why the type of mic would make the slightest difference? Yes I am confused. It is the dynamic ones that can have a very low output because capacitor ones tend to have built in amplifiers. But it is irrelevant because the OP says he was using a pre-amp. Something is broken in his setup, I suppose. -- Roger Hayter |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
Roger Hayter wrote
Yes I am confused. It is the dynamic ones that can have a very low output because capacitor ones tend to have built in amplifiers. But it is irrelevant because the OP says he was using a pre-amp. Something is broken in his setup, I suppose. tried each mono channel of the interface, two different mics, two different xlr leads, it's not as though there was silence, just endless complaints (regardless of how much pre-amp I used) that I sounded "too quiet". |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
On 03/05/2020 20:34, Andy Burns wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote Yes I am confused.Â* It is the dynamic ones that can have a very low output because capacitor ones tend to have built in amplifiers.Â* But it is irrelevant because the OP says he was using a pre-amp.Â* Something is broken in his setup, I suppose. tried each mono channel of the interface, two different mics, two different xlr leads, it's not as though there was silence, just endless complaints (regardless of how much pre-amp I used) that I sounded "too quiet". What is probably going on is that any AGC (automatic gain control) is working on a different band of frequencies to human perception of 'loudness'. Male voice has a lot of energy on the sub 300hz region which adds nothing to intelligibility and is exacerbated by good microphones especially up close. A cheap electret mic a foot away wont really pick that up at all. When I designed disco mixers, we used to roll off the bass on the microphone channel from around 400Hz to compensate for that and the fact that the bozos always turned the bass up anyway. -- "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch". Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14 |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
|
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Roger Hayter wrote: Maybe the OP's mic was a real capacitor mic, rather then an electret one; I doubt the automatic level control would work with that. Not quite sure why the type of mic would make the slightest difference? Yes I am confused. It is the dynamic ones that can have a very low output because capacitor ones tend to have built in amplifiers. But it is irrelevant because the OP says he was using a pre-amp. Something is broken in his setup, I suppose. At least at one time, there was a DIN standard for pro mics. So they all gave approximately the same level from the same source. Of course there will always be some mic makers who think the higher the output level, the better. -- *A plateau is a high form of flattery* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote: Roger Hayter wrote Yes I am confused. It is the dynamic ones that can have a very low output because capacitor ones tend to have built in amplifiers. But it is irrelevant because the OP says he was using a pre-amp. Something is broken in his setup, I suppose. tried each mono channel of the interface, two different mics, two different xlr leads, it's not as though there was silence, just endless complaints (regardless of how much pre-amp I used) that I sounded "too quiet". Most 'computer' mics have a severe degree of bass cut. If you use a nominally flat one, the AGC could be reacting to frequencies it doesn't expect to see? -- *Never kick a cow pat on a hot day * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
In article ,
wrote: I've done a couple of trial Zoom meetings in the last couple of weeks, and the main thing I've noticed is how unusable it is. It goes out of its way to make itself difficult to use. There's no window furniture, there's no toolbar, it is an exemplar of unusability. There's something in Fred's window, so I want to expand Fred's window so I can see what's there. Double-click it? Nope. No window furniture, so no Maximise button. Menu click? No, nothing there, just "Chat". Toolbar? No. General menu click? Nothing. Ooh, what happened then? I've expanded Fred's window. How did I do that? IIRC, you can only expand a window to full screen when the participant has been selected by the host to be 'live'. You get a yellow line under the thumbnail when this happens. If everyone could choose to have anyone full screen, it would take up a tremendous amount of bandwidth. -- *Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
Dave Plowman wrote:
Most 'computer' mics have a severe degree of bass cut. If you use a nominally flat one, the AGC could be reacting to frequencies it doesn't expect to see? That's two votes for that theory, I don't think I have any equalizer option, or AGC defeat, but will have a look |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
On Sunday, 3 May 2020 18:22:56 UTC+1, wrote:
I've done a couple of trial Zoom meetings in the last couple of weeks, and the main thing I've noticed is how unusable it is. It goes out of its way to make itself difficult to use. Both local councils here have banned Zoom because of security risks. Owain |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: Most 'computer' mics have a severe degree of bass cut. If you use a nominally flat one, the AGC could be reacting to frequencies it doesn't expect to see? That's two votes for that theory, I don't think I have any equalizer option, or AGC defeat, but will have a look Have you got an external mixer or second computer to EQ your mic? A steep high pass might sort things. (Not sure you could EQ the mic within the same computer and present that output as the computer mic) No surprise you can't defeat the AGC. Given you can't actually hear your mic in a Zoom meeting etc as others hear it. It's a thing I hate on Zoom when wearing a headset. In broadcast, we tended to provide a bleed of that mic into your own headphones. Stops the tendency to shout. But near impossible with so much latency in the system. -- *Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
In article ,
wrote: On Sunday, 3 May 2020 18:22:56 UTC+1, wrote: I've done a couple of trial Zoom meetings in the last couple of weeks, and the main thing I've noticed is how unusable it is. It goes out of its way to make itself difficult to use. Both local councils here have banned Zoom because of security risks. Hope they don't use phones either, then. ;-) -- *I started out with nothing... and I still have most of it. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
On Mon, 04 May 2020 13:37:22 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
It's a thing I hate on Zoom when wearing a headset. In broadcast, we tended to provide a bleed of that mic into your own headphones. Stops the tendency to shout. But near impossible with so much latency in the system. What no abilty to locally mix the mic onto the headphones? -- Cheers Dave. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Andy Burns wrote: Roger Hayter wrote Yes I am confused. It is the dynamic ones that can have a very low output because capacitor ones tend to have built in amplifiers. But it is irrelevant because the OP says he was using a pre-amp. Something is broken in his setup, I suppose. tried each mono channel of the interface, two different mics, two different xlr leads, it's not as though there was silence, just endless complaints (regardless of how much pre-amp I used) that I sounded "too quiet". Most 'computer' mics have a severe degree of bass cut. If you use a nominally flat one, the AGC could be reacting to frequencies it doesn't expect to see? I did a recording the other day in Windows 10, and I could swear the audio from the webcam was being *ruined* by echo suppression. In short, the sound was terrible, and I had to turn up the volume too much (implying I was amplifying the "leakage" that got through the echo suppression effect). I noticed this too, with my nice analog microphone, the one with the line level (~1V output). I was having to turn the volume up too much, unlike previous tests in older OSes. And it isn't exactly echo suppression, because if I hold the microphone close enough to the speakers, it'll howl with feedback. I don't have a test plan yet, as to how I'll figure out what this "effect" is supposed to be. It's possible the effect is present even when an application is not using the microphone. I'm getting some "feedthru", with the microphone input ending up on LineOut. I don't remember that being part of the acoustic model for Windows. I suppose I should have flipped over to Linux and retested, to see if I could get a "clean" situation to verify everything works normally there. But even Linux has its problems - Using Ubuntu 2004LTS, I had the camera disappear on me, and even when cleaning out .config, I couldn't get it to work properly afterwards. Something other than homedir configuration files, prevents successful webcam usage... after a reboot even. The conclusion so far is "this stuff used to work..." Today, not so much. Paul |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
Paul wrote:
I did a recording the other day in Windows 10, and I could swear the audio from the webcam was being *ruined* by echo suppression. I tried turning off all the windows "enhancements" such as ech suppression, keyboard click removal, beam-forming, far-field pickup etc. |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
Dave Liquorice wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote: It's a thing I hate on Zoom when wearing a headset. In broadcast, we tended to provide a bleed of that mic into your own headphones. Stops the tendency to shout. But near impossible with so much latency in the system. What no abilty to locally mix the mic onto the headphones? That is one thing the behringher interface would allow, if I could use a mic into it. I might have a look at https://equalizerAPO.com which is a free sound driver plug-in that allows e.g. high-pass filters as some have suggested |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
On 02/05/2020 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't much used before. Picture and sound quality seems to vary dramatically. Sometimes not bad, sometimes very poor. With the important part, the sound, seeing to suffer the worst. Not much point in seeing someone if you can barely understand what they're saying, due to a low data rate. You don't give any indication of what your link speed to the internet is, but mine is a poxy 5Mpbs and that will just about support full HD live streaming with the occasional breakup of voice but most aggro is caused by inexperienced people typing whilst using a laptops built in mike or background noises off. One mystery I have yet to fully understand is that every now and then a random wiggly doodle in a primary colour usually green or red appears on the shared screen to the mystification of the speaker. Looks like someone's randomish mouse movements being shared with all and sundry. Sometimes they vanish again and other times they persist until the end. Is it their equipment (phone or whatever) or the internet links that are making all the differences? I have seen some pretty poxy webcams at the far end. Most often though blasts of radio or TV in Zoom events where the host has unwisely unmuted all participants and there are many including novices online at once. The uplink speed ~1Mbps limits the video quality I can send back but since it is only used as a thumbnail it hardly matters. The downlink is more than adequate for a full HD presentation - although mostly of static images being talked about rather then live action sports video. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
On Sun, 03 May 2020 23:35:57 +0100, Dave W
wrote: I share your pain after my first encounter with Zoom last week. There are several options for displaying the participants, but as you say, no instructions. You can have one big picture filling the screen, one biggish picture with the others all in a strip above, or you can have 'gallery' mode where everybody has the same sized picture. In the first modes, whoever is speaking appears in the big picture. In the gallery mode, a yellow frame appears round the one speaking. The mode is selected by icons at top right of screen, which I think only appear if you hover the cursor there. My host wanted to demonstrate the possibility of showing a PowerPoint presentation on the whole screen, and the participants photos were confined to a column of thumbnails. I had to be told by the host that I could drag the column to a different part of the screen so that I could see the words behind. At the top of the column were three icons consisting of a thin horizontal line, a thick line, and two thick lines. These had the effect of minimising the column, showing speaker only, and showing all, respectively. My first Zoom last week, a bit hasty as we'd started off with Teams but that was awful and so "let's switch to Zoom". Alright for those who already had it. I'd only just found out that afternoon that my webcam worked on my Linux install! Surprisingly, both Teams and Zoom worked on Ubuntu. But the one of the Zoom members decided to run a picture quiz. Silly me, I focussed on them thinking they'd show a picture. No, of course, they shared a screen I worked out afterwards so I missed the whole thing! My conclusion at the end, click on everything, left click, right click, double click - something will work. No doubt there's a YouTube video out there to help. Oh and some users were able to have imaginative backgrounds, never worked out how to do that. -- AnthonyL Why do scientists need to BELIEVE in anything? |
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
|
Zoom, etc, qaulity.
On 05/05/2020 13:22, AnthonyL wrote:
My first Zoom last week, a bit hasty as we'd started off with Teams but that was awful and so "let's switch to Zoom". Alright for those who already had it. I'd only just found out that afternoon that my webcam worked on my Linux install! Oh and some users were able to have imaginative backgrounds, never worked out how to do that. Fairly easy on the windows version (settings virtual background) but not yet possible on the android app, so may not be possible on the Linux version. -- Chris B (News) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:24 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter