posted 24 August 2000 09:03 PM               

Ira Weinstein, VP & Global Head of Media Services at Credit Suisse / First Boston sent us the following:

======================

Dear Andrew,

1) Interesting report on your visit to Tandberg. You made a good choice when you decided to visit them in the Summer instead of the Winter.

2) I agree with the grapevine that the Tandberg software implementation is "robust, highly reliable, and interoperates with many other systems." However, I think there are a few other points worth mentioning :

a) Basic Integration The Tandberg units were designed for easy integration. Specifically, the 5000 and 6000 models require only one (1) rack unit and accept virtually any networking hand-off available (V.35, BRIs, PRIs) thereby eliminating the need for (and cost of) an IMUX. Furthermore, a single PRI can be looped through multiple Tandberg units to improve cost effectiveness.

b) Control Integration The Tandberg units are easy to control using either Crestron, AMX / Panja, or any other RS232 source. The control strings are quite simple (no hex codes or translations required) and the feedback provided by the Tandberg CODECs is impressive and includes detailed connection status (down to the channel level), sync status, confirmation of number dialed, connection settings (protocols) and more.

c) Operations Perhaps the most important point is that the Tandberg systems are extremely reliable. After all, bells and whistles are worthless if the unit freezes up or if the connection cannot be established. Furthermore, if a reboot is necessary, it takes only 20-30 seconds compared to 2+ minutes for a PC based unit.

d) Special Features - Point to Point Only One final note is that the Tandberg units offer special features that are quite interesting. The 4CIF support improves the quality of PC presentations and the down-speed option is a well received addition to the "save a meeting" kit. However, until 4CIF and down-speeding are supported by the various H.320 MCUs on the market, these features cannot be used in a multi-point environment. I know that Tandberg is working with several MCU manufacturers to remedy this situation.

Sorry to be so wordy with my comments above, but we have been pleased with the performance of the units and I wanted to clarify a few of your points.

Thanks,

Ira M. Weinstein Vice President Global Head - Media Services

posted 06 September 2000 03:35 PM               

Tandberg has always been strong from a technical* standpoint of view. However, my experience from a user perspective is not the best one. The remote control - the main user interface - is awesome to operate and not at all intuitive for end users. What bothers most is the rather poor audio quality in a meeting environment with several attendees at a site.

*one point I'd like to comment about a so called "technical strength" of Tandberg: the 4CIF resolution isn't better than from NTSC or PAL. But, neither NTSC nor PAL offer a usable resolution to present a Word or Excel document using a standard font size. 4CIF is simply an improvement for the Powerpoint presentation type of document or to show small items. What the users expect from a let's say multimedia conferencing solution is the ability to show or even share ALL kind of documents with the remote site(s).

What this industry - not only Tandberg - neads to better understand is that there are also users out there and not only techies.

Georges Leuenberger

[Quoted Ira message verbatim removed by AndyN to save space]

------------------
Georges Leuenberger
Symetria Ltd.
Switzerland

posted 07 September 2000 10:03 AM               

I would like to add that there are three big leaps in data display quality:

1) FCIF to 4xFCIF compression on NTSC/PAL
2) 4xFCIF compression on progressive scan XGA monitors
3) XGA compression on XGA monitors

posted 07 September 2000 10:08 AM               

=================

Dear Andrew,

As a company actively involved in the implementation of Video Conferencing in New Zealand, I read with interest the comments of your correspondent in issue # 8 regarding Tandberg.

We are system integrators working from a audiovisual background and hold the view that the "Big Idea" surrounding Videoconferencing technology is enriched / enhanced communication. As this is essentially a human endeavor, it should not be considered in isolation to the environment in which it will take place. We at AVC suggest four commandments for the effective implementation of video conferencing, these are:

It must work.
It must be easy to use
It must integrate into the design
It should have a wow factor

The last commandment has particular relevance in "group" situations where presentations are likely to be made.

There are many sources for video conferencing equipment however these suppliers typically do not approach implementation from a systems
integration discipline. This may leave the client with functional VC equipment that fails to deliver optimum benefits.

Increasingly the ability to work collaboratively with clients and colleagues at distance requires a systems integration approach. This is particularly true in "group" conferencing environments such boardrooms, training rooms and lecture theatres. Poor implementation can result (and often does) in reduced quality of service beyond just the client site.
Example of this is ineffective sound/lighting being experience at the "far end" as poor image & sound.

Automation of complex systems brings real benefits. The client should not be confronted with a barrage of remote controls. A few familiar icons on a AMX/Panja touch panel are both reassuring and lend themselves to professional sessions. In our experience, the really effective use of video conferencing frequently engaged a number of technologies to deliver an effective session. The following list is not exclusive.

Lighting
Audio
Blinds
Document Camera
Computer
Video Recorders
DVD & CD ROM
Whiteboard - eBeam type tools.

We have noted over sometime, working with Tandberg is particularly enjoyable for the reasons that your earlier correspondent enumerated. If we have the choice it is to install Tandberg CODEC's as part of the total
solution.

posted 14 September 2000 02:49 PM               

"The remote control - the main user interface - is awesome to operate and not at all intuitive for end users. What bothers most is the rather poor audio quality in a meeting environment with several attendees at a site."

It is somewhat difficult to comment here without knowing which Tandberg model Mr. Leuenberger is reffering to.

However starting with software A1.0 for the Tandberg 6000/7000 and later brought to the Tandberg 800 and 2500, a totally new remote control is included. Hopefully, this remote control is better than the old one. The discussion between a PC-style GUI or a menu driven user interface would probably not stop.

We believe it is constructive to admit that no user interface is intuitive for an end user. Always, the ease of use depends on learning. This is confirmed by numerous research, "all use of tools by humans and other primates need to be learned". Therefore it is important to choose a user interface that resembles as much as possible previously learned skills. A PC-style GUI, like you find in windows type of application, pioneered by Xerox, is of course one alternative. However, telephone and over the last 20 years mobile phones users, represent a much bigger and faster growing group of people, trained to use "telephone key in" and a menu driven user interface.

What could be mentioned here is that a Gartner Group survey divided the users 50-50 in favor of the Tandberg style and the PC-style. In this case the Tandberg system was the 5000 with the "old" remote control.

Concerning audio quality, the model in question plays a vital role. At Tandberg we believe our audio performance is second to none for the newer models. Again Gartner Group has tested the 5000 and found the audio very good. We believe Tandberg is the only producer with several independent echo cancelers in a VC system. Of course, everything could be improved, and the audio system in the Tandberg systems will be improved continuously over time. We very much appreciate criticism that describes situation where our audio system do not deliver the performance needed. Please, indicate type of system and software release.

AndyN:

"1) CIF to 4xCIF compression on NTSC/PAL
2) 4xCIF compression on progressive scan XGA monitors
3) XGA compression on XGA monitors
It is not until 3) that you get true dot-for-dot replication of what's on a PC's XGA screen at the far end, which is important for PC collaboration. "

To understand the progress in the field of higher resolution on video, a number of factors should be considered:

a) Developments in the video standards:
Only with H.263+ has it been practical to choose various VGA formats. This means that just a few systems in the market can benefit from VGA/SVGA/XGA formats. 4xCIF has been a standard H.263 format for some time. Therefore Tandberg has chosen to implement 4xCIF as the first attempt to improve video quality for presentations. However, the VGA formats will be an obvious later software addition.

b) Increased cost when conveying higher than CIF, and the accompanied smaller market for the products:
In the Tandberg 6000 type of systems, the user can choose to use say a SVGA monitor at will. This monitor has a price tag substantial higher than a similar PAL or NTSC monitor, but will of course deliver a much crisper view. A XGA set-up would be even more expensive. For the other models there are available options to perform similar functions as the 6000. Do not forget that Tandberg systems are the only VC systems that can deliver two independent and simultaneous video streams, where one or both can be CIF, 4xCIF, VGA or something else.

c) Availability and cost of high resolution monitors and cameras:
A limiting factor is of course availability of reasonable cost monitors with higher resolution. At Tandberg we believe there will be a need for various levels of monitor qualities to meet customers need of cost/performance.

General comments:

Tandberg in general is striving to produce products that are feature rich and well balanced in the different areas like, video, audio, network flexibility, latency, appearance, and perhaps the two most important areas: reliability and ease of use.

Although we love to read that users are satisfied with our products, we also very carefully read any comments about where we should make improvements. Sometimes we see that there are different opinions on how things should be done, and we have to make a choice, sometimes wishes are hard to meet within the cost and time constraints that always are present. But luckily, often constructive critics encourage us to try harder and leads to improvements. So thank you everybody for the feedback that such comments bring to the table.