Perhaps we could let the remote folk pilot the camera...
Of course someone would need to write a protocol for that.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Scott,
> On Jul 24, 2015, at 6:55 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> and a always-paying-attention operator (for each room) to know when to switch - potentially adding significantly
> to the cost
No doubt, but I we may gone too far by eliminating a camera operator in the room. We pay for it in quality. I suggest spending a few hours watching a recording session and see what you think.
>
> fwiw - standing in a place where you can be seen by the camera so that the remote experience is better
> without having to dedicate a camera operator to each room seems a very very small price to pay
I agree.
Bob
>
> Scott
>
>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/07/2015 22:23, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> A proposal...
>>>> Could Meetecho please just zoom out.
>>>>
>>>> Alternative proposal...
>>>> Make the pink box a guide for speakers who want to be in frame, but stop telling
>>>> us that we MUST stand in the box.
>>>
>>> Also, we *really* need a repeater screen so that the person speaking can see
>>> the slides without eyes in the back of his/her head. Speaking coherently about
>>> a slide that I cannot see is beyond my powers.
>>
>> While we are talking about making remote participation better.
>>
>> I watched a recorded working group session last night. Currently the video is only of the slides and a small view of the speaker. Unfortunately, when someone comes to the microphone, you don’t get to see them speak. It would be much better if one could see them when they talk. This might require panning the main camera, or a second camera (and I guess a second “pink square”).
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>
>