posted 06 May 2005 02:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by I can see clearly now:
well according to their Press Release.

130k Pixels at 128k
260k pixels at 384k
600k pixels at 512k

Existing systems are 352x288 (101k pixels)

All at 30fps.

So ignoring HD it appears to do better quality at all bandwidths. Of course motion handling matters to, but if they have tons more compute I dodn't see why they can't do it. Anyway if they lied it would all come out soon enough.

Their camera looks pretty special to, so I wonder if that improves the quality of a call to a legacy system ?

8 way HD MCU built in.
Dual Streaming Built in.
Conference Phone Built in (which is apparantly fantastic quality (see above))

Secure management suite

All for $12k.

It also looks great (from the photos)

How much are the Tandberg and Polycom devices ?

Also they have a Multiuser 2xPRI, 4xBRI, 1x V.35 Gateway for $12k, the RAD, Polycom, or Tandberg offerings are all between $35k-$60k I believe.

Honestly I'm only bringing this up because there seems to be a lot of, this is nothing and should be ignored type talk here. You should all ignore the new guys and go back to the same thing you've had for the last 5 years mentality.

I think someone (Wainhouse?) should throw down the gauntlet, and do a shoot out between which ever manufacturers wanted to get involved. Of course if they decline to get involved then we basically know their position. That would stop all the idle speculation.

Thoughts on a shot out ?

---

The only difference I can see is the fact that it does high-definition the Polycom, Sony and Tandberg systems all do high-definition for data sharing today and have done for some time. I can't see the benefit of high-definition for videoconferencing. I can see it for data sharing because you would like to see the resolution of the data that is shown but showing a meeting room in high-definition seems pointless.

The low resolution you're talking about the all other systems run on today is standard CIF current generation videoconferencing systems can be far higher resolutions in a call than CIF.

posted 06 May 2005 04:00 PM            

OK, if you tell us how much a 2x PRI GW is I'll retract my last statement. If you don't I have to assume I'm right.

posted 06 May 2005 04:13 PM            

please excuse my ignorance. What resolutions and frame rates do the others run at the different speeds ?

The Sony Camera (most of the indsutry use) has a max resolution of 512x480 pixels so anything above that is menaingless I guess.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether HD quality is something users want. Probably best for us both to sit and see what happens in the market.

They certainly seem to want it for regular TV, many people in the US pay much more their HD channels than they traditionally did for NTSC programs. In my humble opinion clients want better quality, if they didn't we'd still use NTSC TV, VHS tapes and do VC calls in H.261.

posted 06 May 2005 04:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by I can see clearly now:
Sean,

OK, if you tell us how much a 2x PRI GW is I'll retract my last statement. If you don't I have to assume I'm right.

I'm sure it's not difficult to find it out. Guess if you're unprepared to state your own SRP prices then others will have to do it for you.

---

Feel free to state our list prices but please take the time to investigate the correct prices. I believe a past Wainhouse newsletter covered the technology and pricing.

Sean

posted 07 May 2005 07:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by I can see clearly now:
...Tandberg offerings are all between $35k-$60k I believe.

---

Incorrect.

Shaun

This is the second time you have corrected someone on TBs pricing, I understand form you last mail you feel releuctant to discuss in an open forum, the impression you give is your are embarresed to discuss pricing.

In my experiance vendors who want you to come and see the solution before they tell you the price are often at the more expensive end of the market and believe they will frighten people away if they are honest about pricing up front.

So how about telling us in reletion to the $12K price LifeSize have annonced for their gateway roughly where is the comparable tandberg device ?

posted 07 May 2005 10:45 AM               

This is the second time you have corrected someone on TBs pricing, I understand form you last mail you feel releuctant to discuss in an open forum, the impression you give is your are embarresed to discuss pricing.

Just the opposite. I am proud of the technology and solutions we provide to our customers and the integrity that TANDBERG has in this market.

If I am embarrassed of anything its the sudden appearance of Lifesize disciples on the day of the press release that have been overly aggressive in an otherwise pleasant forum. Couple that with tasteless marketing tactics, I would say this industry is getting ready for a few steps backwards.

I openly state that I am an employee of TANDBERG and have been in this industry for 10 years. Would any of you care to state that you work for LifeSize or a partner that just signed them up? I have very good contacts throughout the industry, to include a few people at LifeSize (who now refuse to acknowledge my emails). I have responsibilities that include working with interop of the equipment with all the industry players. I have contacted (tried to) LifeSize to set up interoperability relationships and they refuse to reply. My assumption is they do not care about interop, or that they fear someone will find a hole in their story before delivery. The offer is there, contact me at sean.lessman@tandbergusa.com if you have any interest in interop with TANDBERG.

In my experiance vendors who want you to come and see the solution before they tell you the price are often at the more expensive end of the market and believe they will frighten people away if they are honest about pricing up front.

I do not agree. If I asked you come down tomorrow and buy a car and gave you the price, I think you would be interested in finding out which one you are getting and what your money is getting you.

So how about telling us in reletion to the $12K price LifeSize have annonced for their gateway roughly where is the comparable tandberg device ?

Look it up. I am quite certain a company that makes IP only video systems and ones that sell the products have an internet connection with access to Google.

I participate on this board to help keep the flow of correct information. I have no plans to take part in such an obvious attempt to market a product. Unless all the newbies come clean with their affiliations so we can assess your comments with regards to your place in the industry, I will make the assumption you are a LifeSize employee or partner.

I find it interesting that this is the only topic you and the other newbies post on.

Sean

posted 07 May 2005 11:30 AM            

I am a member of the LifeSize team and would be happy to direct you to the right people to discuss any interop testing issues.

I post here and an individual and as such my comments are my own and not those of the company.

I am sorry if your emails/contacts have gone un answered but as you can imagine we have been busy recently with the launch and the show. Please feel free to contact me at jtracey@lifesize.com and I will get you talking to the correct people.

Best Wishes

Jon

posted 07 May 2005 02:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by I can see clearly now:

THat is going to hurt Polycom and simply murder Tandberg.

Well Polycom and Tandberg, it seems to me, the games up boys.

---

Taunting people over pricing is getting very much off topic. And bad behaviour.

The topic of this thread is to discuss the reaction to this new manufacturer.

posted 16 June 2005 01:51 PM            

To be correct, the 4CIF is not actually 576 (480) lines due to the technology how cameras handle interlace. And if you use 100 Hz TV-set you see only half of the horizontal lines owing to deinterlace.

The question: do you (or users you know) use 4CIF resolution wherever possible or use CIF because "there is no big difference"?

posted 16 June 2005 04:55 PM               

The majority of endpoints are limited to just 15fps.

Just as big a problem is that the standard PTZ cameras used produce PAL or NTSC interlaced video which is really closer to ICIF/ISIF 352x480@60fields/second. Using 4CIF firstly means that you are wasting some horizontal resolution and secondly means that you have to deinterlace (which the 15fps endpoints just don't do and the interlacing artifacts are awful).