The GoTo Community is currently experiencing some technical issues affecting new posts and comments. We are actively working with our service provider and apologize for the frustration.
Forum Discussion
Solved
Chromacam usability
I have been hosting meetings for my clients for about 9 months and decided to try the GoToMeeting Hub Virtual Background. Aside from the relatively robust hardware requirements (which I've met), I'm...
gwtechllc I just recently contracted with another service and moving away from G2M and the ChromaCam issues are one of the very few reasons for this decision. It seems pretty clear that G2M thinks what they have is good enough and it isn't. Sadly, going elsewhere is the only option we have. G2M took over 2 years to deliver the ChromaCam integration and has been claiming ChromaCam works for over a year and seems to be ignoring the fact that it doesn't.
I had an opportunity to test the ChromaCam today, and it was actually for a (vendor's) 3rd-party conferencing App. I mention this because it appears that it is the ChromaCam App itself, rather than a dependency with GoToMeeting. The App did not appear to be pulling excessive CPU on my laptop, and it was impacted by the symptoms I had seen previously. The audio was acceptable, but the video (self-view) was delayed by almost 1 second. And this was on a 1-to-1 video call, where the previous experience with a G2M of a dozen or so people also appeared to have local audio/video artifacts impacting the remote attendees. I did upgrade my internet service late last week but have not held a G2M since that took place. Since the ChromaCam tool is still in Beta-testing, I'm wondering if it is overloaded with "testing hooks"?
