Did you see the news today? A couple of interesting press releases came out.
Cisco announced a CTS500 which is being billed as a personal telepresence system. Its a 37" display, 1080P HD codec, sitting on a pedestal stand.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/ps7060/ps8329/ps8330/ps9599/data_sheet_c78-468517-00.htmlWhats interestingly non-interesting about it is that it looks like alot of products that other players such as Polycom and Tandberg have been putting out for years. At a price of $33,900, its actually down in the price arena of the rest of everyone. But... really, would you pay $34K or any number for a proprietary VTC system?
Simultaneosly Cisco appears to have created a marketing trend around the phrase "Personal Telepresence"... so much so that....
In another related press release, this time from Tandberg, they're annoncing that they've shipped their 10,000th personal telepresence system.
Interesting how you can hear about a term for the first time and then simulataneoulsy hear that someone else has shipped their 10,000th that same day. Thats marketing for you.
Which brings me to something I've been thinking about for a while. The fact that there is no agreed upon defintion of telepresence. Cisco started the change by pretty much suggesting that its anything that is 1080P in resolution. Tandberg has furthered the slide of the defintion by suggesting that its 720P (albeit not at 30fps...read my previous post on static macroblocks). Are we far away from Microsoft taking a Roundtable and sticking it on a 100" plasma and calling that telepresence?
Its no wonder there is confusion out there as the definitions vary. One definition is the remote operation of a robotic system with the aid of a immerseive human interface. There are several of these definitions and they deal with surgery, undersea work, and manufacturing. You can google around for a while and find lots of definitions. The one on Wikipedia is not bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TelepresenceTo quote "Telepresence refers to a set of
technologies which allow a person to feel as if they were present, to give the appearance that they were present, or to have an effect, at a location other than their true location."
So, I would have to agree that resolution does play a role. Having too little resolution can hinder the experience. But, this can be overcome, as there is a optimal viewing distance that the user needs to be at, no matter the resolution. If you get too close to even a 1080P plasma, you can see the pixels.
Screen size can also play a role, but it is also well known. But, this also can be dealt with by placing the user a set distance away from the monitor so as give the appearance that the body on the other side is the same size as they would be if they were present in the room.
Another aspect is eye contact, I'm sure all of you have been in a VTC and it appeared as if the people on the other side were distracted by something in the room. But, what typically happens is that the camera is not placed in line with the screen. Sometimes you get the "what are they looking at?" scene which tyipcally means the camera is placed way to the left or right of the viewing screen. Then you sometimes get the "God" view where the camera is placed way above the screen, and then the one least liked, the "crotch cam" where the camera is placed too low.
Sound and lighting are also critical. If the sound is not in stereo and not full range, people will not be tricked. If the lighting is not correct, too low, too bright, not even, or from the wrong direction, it will wreck havoc.
I think if you summarize, and if you follow the definition laid out in Wikipedia, you need as many factors covered to really consider it a telepresence solution:
1. Properly sized resolution and screen size. A minimum of 720p is needed. Screen size is really dependent on the depth of the room and the distance from the user to that screen. What we minimally need to do is show the person on the remote side and give them the appearance of sitting across the table from us. If you kept the view to above the belt, I think that puts you at least at using a 42-50" screen. Any smaller and you need to push the viewer further back...but as you push them further backwards to make the geometry work out, you start to lose the feeling of being in the room (as it would be abnormal to be sitting so far away in a meeting).
2. Geometry is very important! You cant put people too close or too far away from the monitor. And...most important, viewing angle and captured image has to be natural. Ideally I should look into the eyes of the person on the screen in front of me and they get the feeling that I'm looking at their eyes.
3. Lighting has to be natural.
4. Sound has to be natural.
5. Motion has to be at least 30 frames per second.
6. Technology should be as hidden as possible. We want to take away all cues that its a VTC call.
So, with that I really dont think the CTS500 (or even the CTS1000) falls into this camp. They certainly hit upon resolution and potentially screen size. They fail in the geomtry requirement as there is no way to restrict how close or how far someone sits away from the unit. They also have camera issues as the camera is too high. In the lighting department, being that its a stand based system, theres not way to control the light. I think they do reasonbly well in sound, certain motion is good. They fail on #6...hey, it looks just like a Polycom Executive Collection system...something PLCM and TAA have been shipping for years. It looks like VTC.
The 1700 MXP fails on every bit of the defition. Size is too small. Geometry cant be controlled. Camera is in the wrong place. TAA sound wouldn't fool anyone. Lighting cant be controlled. Being that to do 720p, TAA has to use static macroblocks, its not doing 30fps. And lastly, the thing is ugly and certainly eeks of technololgy. No one would be fooled in front of one of these.
But...good marketing guys! A true triumph over substance.
Posts
