cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
gwtechllc
Active Contributor

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 wondering if anyone has had Internet bandwidth issues using this feature.  It is currently showing as in Beta-testing, and I had 200 Mbps down/20 Mbps upload broadband, and recently I'd had several meetings where the video/audio began breaking up.  The meeting had about a dozen participants, sharing a screen and using cloud recording.  I had to switch from the Chromacam virtual camera back to my physical webcam to restore continuity of the meeting I was hosting.  It appears that the upstream bandwidth required to send video up to (Chromacam hosting) and back down is impairing the basic meeting functionality.  I use Zoom with my other clients, and the background is locally processed rather than being a cloud service so this isn't a problem there.  Hopefully others have had experiences to compare?  Thanks for your feedback.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
bigtom
Active Contributor

Re: Chromacam usability

@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. 

View solution in original post

9 REPLIES 9
AshC
LogMeIn Contributor

Re: Chromacam usability

@gwtechllc  This is more of a local processing issue than bandwidth, unless you're using Chromacam to share video backgrounds or similar, thereby increasing the video f/s demand.  Have you checked your local processing behavior to make sure it is not approaching to 80-100%?

gwtechllc
Active Contributor

Re: Chromacam usability

I had not checked this specifically, although I did not notice other symptoms of an overtaxed processor.  In order to facilitate testing, would you suppose that a G2M would need to have a similar number of participants (a dozen)?  I just want to clarify the use case.  Thanks for the reply.

AshC
LogMeIn Contributor

Re: Chromacam usability

@gwtechllc  The number of participants should not matter for local processing power demands.

gwtechllc
Active Contributor

Re: Chromacam usability

I had to reinstall ChromaCam to test this, and I'm not clear on what the results are telling me.  When ChromaCam is in Preview (no meeting), it is using over 13% CPU.  However, when I start it meeting and select it for Video input (using Meet Now - no participants), it uses less than 1%.  In my work as a meeting facilitator, I need to be confident that the A/V quality is consistent on the cloud recording.  When the A/V starts breaking up during a meeting, I need to take steps to correct the problem.

AshC
LogMeIn Contributor

Re: Chromacam usability

That sounds like it's working a little bit better, but I recommend hosting some test broadcasts with all the materials and webcams you plan to incorporate, while recording to the cloud to ensure the playback quality is as expected.

gwtechllc
Active Contributor

Re: Chromacam usability

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"?

Tags (1)
bigtom
Active Contributor

Re: Chromacam usability

ChromaCam is a very poor integration.  It does not work well and often crashes requiring me to restart meetings. @AshC When will you realize this does not actually work. Attendees regret installing it and have to deal with the issues as well. Attendees expect this feature to work.

Tags (1)
gwtechllc
Active Contributor

Re: Chromacam usability

I had one client who was using GoToMeeting for Public Hearings, and now that the Executive Order permitting this is expiring I no longer need to use G2M.  The client is stuck with the balance of the contract, and we had to switch to another platform due to several features being limiting with G2M.

 

Hopefully, these can be resolved along with the Chromacam integration problems at some point.

bigtom
Active Contributor

Re: Chromacam usability

@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. 

View solution in original post