 |
|
|
|
Discussion forums are for members to gain real time answers and advice from peers and industry experts on mission critical issues and challenges. Join an existing thread or start a new one - get started today.
Attn: Safari users - the site works best in Internet Explorer and Firefox (some editing functions may not work in Safari)
|
|
|
|
|
 Add Tag
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
hnothhaft
Posts:7
 |
| 05/23/2007 2:49 PM |
 Alert
|
Brian,
At this time, the recorder panel cannot be hidden from the host’s view during a live session. However, the recorder panel is a floating panel and can be dragged to the corner of your display, so as not to affect your session. Our plan to address this concern is to incorporate the recorder panel into the right-hand panel structure in a future release.
Hope that helps.
-Hank |
|
|
|
|
edc1165
Posts:3
|
| 06/01/2007 8:14 PM |
Alert
|
I have to completely agree with this post. The editing software is rather difficult to use. Editing WRF files with video embedded tend to make the editor unstable and crashes often. And WRFs are pretty inflexible.
We are pursuing a similar setup using Camtasia and doing further edits with Adobe Premiere/After Effects.
For audio, we're testing Revo Labs as an alternative to Shure lavaliers (mainly since we are trying to capture the audio from the audience in attendance). I must say these Revo mics are great, but not cheap.
The main barrier for us is the video quality (hopefully Webex/Cisco combo can help with that). Our users are so used to quality streamed videos (wmv/rm/flash), it's been a challenge to fully push Webex.
It does slightly help having a 3ccd XL2 camera as opposed to an off-the-shelf webcam. Although not much due to the compression and maxing out at 10 fps.
I can see a lot of great opportunities from Webex (especially after the Cisco aquistion). And we are definitely trying to push Webex as a standard collaboration and rich media tool.
Hopefully some of the improvements in the editing and video quality will be sooner rather than later.
Thanks,
Ed Cho
Network Appliance
|
|
|
|
|
jnewcum
Posts:15
|
| 06/06/2007 4:54 PM |
Alert
|
This is how we provide our recordings from WebEx. Again we record using Camtasia and produce the files using SWF as the final output. The upside is ability to work with a majority of the browsers that have Flash installed, a higher quality audio recording, and ease in editing.
Here's a link to a recording:
http://www.mathworks.com/webex/recordings/introml_032007/index.html
By the way, a common misconception for us is that we're perceived as an educational company. In actuality, we provide model based design software for many markets. In my opinion, one of the best companies that I've every worked for.
|
|
|
|
|
hnothhaft
Posts:7
|
| 06/06/2007 5:20 PM |
Alert
|
[quote]This is how we provide our recordings from WebEx. Again we record using Camtasia and produce the files using SWF as the final output. The upside is ability to work with a majority of the browsers that have Flash installed, a higher quality audio recording, and ease in editing. [/quote]
Jeff,
Thanks for sharing this example. The WebEx recording looks great on your site! I also want to point out that WebEx's Network-based Recordings are also exportable to the Flash SWF format. And if you haven't yet tried NBR, I think you will be impressed with the improvement in quality of both the audio recording and the capture of shared documents and applications.
-Hank |
|
|
|
|
ddavidson
Posts:41
|
| 06/20/2007 3:19 PM |
Alert
|
Please see the new NBR materials that we have posted in the Documents section. These are all meant to help you use NBR more effectively. Also please look for an upcoming roundtable discussion around using NBR. Would appreciate your rating these documents if you download them and use them.
Thanks - diane davidson |
|
|
|
|
jjkd
Posts:23
|
| 06/20/2007 3:29 PM |
Alert
|
Hi Diane:
I looked at the document covering the conversion of NBR files to Windows Media...
While the document itself is fine, it does not include anything new that addresses the fundamental issues:
1) The Windows media files created by the conversion process are huge
2) The Windows media files created by the conversion process are of poor quality
--
Joe Kyle
--jjkd-- |
|
|
|
|
robtglee
Posts:6
|
| 06/21/2007 3:56 PM |
Alert
|
Hi Joe,
I am one of the product marketers involved with our Network Based Recording solution and thought I might be able to add some content to the issues you've raised. Let's take them in reverse order:
"The Windows media files created by the conversion process are of poor quality."
I've consulting with our product team and there are a couple of points to consider. 1) WMV is not optimized for presentation/ slide based recordings. When the correct codec is used, we believe that our WMV conversion is equal to conversions done with other products but our testing indicates that even Live Meeting recordings, which are recorded natively in .WMV, are very grainy in quality. That said, we are continuing to work on improving the quality of the converted files and, if you can recommend other codecs or solutions that we can leverage, we would welcome your input.
"The Windows media files created by the conversion process are huge."
Sad but true... but we believe that this is closely tied to the MS codec rather than the conversion process itself. And we do contribute to this by hard-coding a very high bit rate for conversion in order to preserve as much of the quality of the original recording as we possibly can. So it is a bit of a Catch 22: smaller files or higher quality.
Let us know if you or anyone else in the Community has any ideas that could help us improve on both the quality and size issues. I promise you that we will listen and act whenever possible.
Bob Lee, WebEx |
|
|
|
|
jjkd
Posts:23
|
| 06/21/2007 4:27 PM |
Alert
|
Hi Bob,
Thanks for chiming in. If you go back and read the thread from the beginning, I think you'll get a better flavor for the context of where this issue comes from. The root cause of the issue is that there's no provision to edit the network based recording files, and I've been told that there's no intention to ever offer such a tool (outside of the trim beginning and end functions in T26).
The bottom line is, network based recordings are not useful to me in most cases (and I suspect that this is true for others as well) if they can't be edited. The request for an editor gets the response 'you don't need us to provide an editor, you can convert to Windows Media and edit that' -- but that option isn't useful, because of the issues you and I have covered. Windows Media is not designed to effectively handle this kind of content, it isn't the right tool for the job. You've got formats that handle the content with good performance and high quality, they are your .wrf and .arf formats. But, there's no editor at all for .arf, and there are features missing in the .wrf editor that would be great to have as well. If it is true that there will be no significant editor development for .arf and .wrf, that tremendously limits how I can apply WebEx recording (and especially network based recording) in my organization. Third-party tools (ala Camtasia and the ilk) can fill some of the gap for 'local' recording functionality, but only WebEx can address network based recording.
--
Joe Kyle
--jjkd--
|
|
|
|
|
robtglee
Posts:6
|
| 06/21/2007 4:35 PM |
Alert
|
Oops. My apologies. I should have followed the thread from the start. Your points about the limitations of recordings without a viable editing option are certainly valid. What would you and others think if a 3rd party editor were available that could edit WRF and ARF files? And if that approach would work, are there any editors that you would recommend that we explore working with?
Bob |
|
|
|
|
jjkd
Posts:23
|
| 06/22/2007 3:51 PM |
Alert
|
Sure, I think a 3rd party editor would be fine, as long as it is inexpensive or bundled with the service at no additional cost. The low end of the editor software market is pretty crowded, I don't think I have a strong preference there, but I think you'd need to make sure that the product chosen has a strong API/plug-in mechanism for import and export add-ins, and can work effectively with the mix of 'screenshot/snapshot' and 'screenshot/live' video commonly encountered in WebEx sessions. That, along with an eye the features missing in the existing .wrf editor (being able to split the audio from the video, edit/cut/insert each independently, and the ability to strip out audio, process it with an external tool, then re-lay the audio track back in, possibly in pieces, and adjust the sync, just to mention a few examples), would go a long way in the selection process.
--
Joe Kyle
--jjkd-- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|