Persistent Home Videoconferencing Solution? 253
Posted
by
timothy
from the needs-big-red-off-button-too dept.
from the needs-big-red-off-button-too dept.
An anonymous reader writes "I'm moving very soon for work, and will be several hundred miles away from my young family for six to nine months. Obviously I'll travel back as often as possible, and there's always Skype and XBLA video, but the whole 'now it's time to talk to dad' thing seems ... a little weak. I was wondering the Slashdot community could help me come up with a more persistent solution. Ideally what I want is an always-on connection between a pc/monitor/camera/speakers in my old kitchen and my new kitchen, so if we're in the kitchens, we can see each other and interact semi-normally. (We're a kitchen-focused family.) Most solutions I can find time out pretty quick, or require some knowledge on the part of the users, and the tech-savvy people are only going to be in one kitchen, to put it politely!" (Read on for a few more details.)
"I do have a reasonable number of Windows PCs and Macs (and game consoles), but no alt. OS machines, so something for retail OSes would be better — I haven't tested the PS3 camera for long durations, but I know the conferencing quality with a PS3 is pretty good, and that could be an option too. Any camera recommendations would be good. We have sweet access at our house, but it will need to be wireless to the kitchen from the router."
Camera surveillance? (Score:3, Interesting)
Creepy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Skype + Auto Answer (Score:4, Interesting)
With Skype for...TVs [skype.com] it even begins to look like the old scifi dream...
Might be interesting if TVs/large displays on both sides are at the ends of tables.
Re:Creepy (Score:1, Interesting)
It depends how old the kids are. Even when I was 6-7 years old it would had been really creepy and I would had felt weird knowing someone follows me from a camera.
But it's not just for the kids. What about his wife? Somehow I think she also doesn't like someone watching her every action via video camera. I wouldn't and I really doubt my girlfriend would either. It's a different thing when you're physically there, but cameras are creepy.
So why not just do the normal "enable video camera when needed" and call with something like Skype?
Two Laptops? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Creepy (Score:1, Interesting)
I would have taken steps to disable it. A blanket over the camera, and/or cables being snipped. Whatever works. Such a "persistent solution" is an intrusion. For instance, although I love Skype, I do not need my camera displaying my deshabille or the state of my house to the world. (Actually, the camera on my laptop has a discreet little piece of insulating tape obscuring the lens.)
Re:Camera surveillance? Bandwidth bonus (Score:2, Interesting)
Nice idea. Such software may already support the feature that video is only sent when there is movement/change. So, you're not wasting bandwidth.
Perhaps this Mac software suits your needs http://www.bensoftware.com/ss/ [bensoftware.com]
Bert
Re:I tried this a few times (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe if they fastened the laptop onto a Roomba or something that would have helped.
There are companies [headthere.com] that offer such [reghardware.com] things. [robotshop.com] Probably impractical for the OP though.
Re:Camera surveillance? (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider security cameras (Score:1, Interesting)
I use security cameras in my home, and watch them on the internet remotely.
Buy a set of security cameras with sound included. Most decent DVR security recording systems (QSee) have webservers to allow you to check in on your camera on the internet. That's only a one way street though to show you a picture of your house. http://www.smarthome.com/_/Cameras_Surveillance/_/13/land.aspx Costco has a few models, but pretty limited as compared to smarthome and qsee online.
There may be a wireless survelliance variety that allows you to plug into the internet easily and monitor remotely.
DLink can host their cameras via Ip connection. Or use your MS homeserver as a DVR http://hq.dlink.com/whs
http://www.dlink.com/category/productcategories/?cid=7
Presence (Score:3, Interesting)
Since there have been useful direct suggestions already, some of which have pointed out the liability of not actually feeling "there" by virtue of separation by screen, I have an alternative that can actually help you feel together, as if you are both in the same place (although not useful for kids).
"Second Life"
Lots of people in long distance relationships use it to actually feel as if they are together sharing space. Businesses have found the same thing, instead of feeling the "distance" video conferencing confers, everyone feels as if they are in the same room.
You can present yourself how you desire and decorate how you all desire including have pics of kids on the nightstand. You can have shared experiences like going to live music events, dancing together, attending Burning Life (the virtual Burning Man alternative), participating in games or treasure hunts, watching videos, sailing, amusement parks, exploring different places, etc.
You can even explore intimacy, including in ways you might not feel comfortable in your own bedroom. (I know a couple who both logged on in their apartment together, one in one room, the other in the living room, who enjoyed certain adult activities that just made them giggle were they trying them in their own bedroom together.)
The only big catch is there is a significant learning curve, many people log on and try it, to never log on again--so you might not "get it" (it seems more women and stay at home moms do).
But I can tell you that it's amazing how good a virtual hug feels when someone gives you one and you virtually experience it happening, far more than a verbal "love you" or textual "*hugs".
I know there are many here who ridicule Second Life, but this is an area in which it excels, and I know of no other similar substitute--plus it's free!
Re:I tried this a few times (Score:3, Interesting)
Google voice and video chat? (Score:2, Interesting)
Have you looked into Google video chat? I haven't used it as a regular consumer (I'm an employee) but it seems to work pretty well. It's probably at least worth checking out. http://www.google.com/talk/ [google.com]
Re:Skype + Auto Answer (Score:3, Interesting)
The one reservation I'd have with that is that it's not just your own bandwidth you're wasting, but a company that provides a free service
Nope, you're not wasting Skype's bandwidth. Although you might be wasting the bandwidth of the suckers who allow Skype to proxy via them if you're not careful.
I'd be more inclined to use a SIP based system though, since it isn't proprietary and does the same job. One of the many SIP softphones that do video should do the job, such as Ekiga.
Re:I tried this a few times (Score:1, Interesting)
The solution is obvious:
1. Better cameras and microphones (get a light sensitive HD camera, preferably a stereoscopic one, and a couple of $200 microphones)
2. Better and bigger displays (get the biggest TV you can find, preferably one that displays in 3D)
3. Better loudspeakers (buy a decent HIFI system)
4. Higher digital video bandwidth (anything below 10 Mbit is crap)
5. Higher digital audio bandwidth (lossless audio)
So, a half-decent HD stream with lossless stereo audio is about 20 Mbit/s. That adds up to about 6.5 TB per month.
You're going to have:
1) ...a fat wallet... ...and a very good ISP solution... ...and probably to wait 5-10 years until sufficiently good displays are available for purchase.
2)
3)
These problems probably explain why professional video conferencing hasn't really taken off. We don't have the bandwidth. Cameras, microphones, displays and hifi-systems aren't cheap enough and good enough.
Re:I tried this a few times (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a bit more expensive, but solves the problem.
http://www.amazon.com/D-Link-DCS-5300-Network-Internet-Camera/dp/B0001AU9B4 [amazon.com]
It's a standalone device, so no computer to run, and probably a minimal power draw.
You'd need to run ethernet or a wireless to ethernet adapter for each device.
You do, however, get remote pan and tilt functionality. That should be a boon if you're changing between talking to kids and adults.
Some criticism as to durability, but those folk were running them for a couple of years. Low light problems are always an issue for webcams, I'd highly recommend visiting Ikea or similar and adding several lights to the kitchen to make it really bright if it's not already.
Re:I tried this a few times (Score:2, Interesting)
I've never really understood this argument. Surely using technology to stay in contact with distant family members at least improves the situation?
And imagine that 500 years from now we have extremely sophisticated androids or 3-D holograms (to the point that they are nearly indistinguishable from humans) which can be controlled (perhaps via a direct brain link) by a remote person. Will you still just throw your arms up and claim that the "social problem" just can't be solved by technology?
I agree that the whole interacting-with-family-via-laptop-at-Christmas thing seems difficult, but I don't think the lack of effectiveness is simply a result of trying to use technology to solve the problem.
SIP Videophones? (Score:4, Interesting)
You'd need to do some port-forwarding in each router (UDP 5060 + the RTP ports) and 'dial' the other site by IP address - it's not hard on the GXV phones and it saves setting up proxys/sip servers/asterisk, etc. If you set each phone to auto-answer then it's not hard to re-establish the link if it fails for whatever reason.
Failing that, if you want to be PC/Laptop based - look for Ekiga...
I use a combination of GXV3000 video phones, Ekiga and my Nokia N900 to make/take video calls from my family and in-laws, although I use an Asterisk server to co-ordinate everything and we don't stream 24/7!
Re:Panasonic IP camera (Score:5, Interesting)
Axis IP cameras are cheaper than Panasonic, and aren't as reliant upon IE running on specific versions of Windows.
(Disclaimer: I sell both.)
But: The problem with IP cameras is that you still need a computer-ish device to view them with. There are apps for something like an iPod Touch which can do it, but I have my doubts about them having good audio support.
And there won't be any echo cancellation happening, which is really rather needed if headsets aren't used for audio. (Nothing quite like hearing "Hey Dad!" echo over and over again with a second or so of latency as bounces back and forth across the country...)
So, it's going to need teleconferencing-specific software. My suggestion, therefore, is a cheap, used laptop at each end, preferably with a built-in camera. Several-years-old laptops are plenty fast enough to do this sort of work.
For software? Who knows... Try some of the obvious choices [google.com], and see if any are dumb enough to get the job done persistently, while being smart enough to get the things right that need gotten right (echo cancellation, for instance).
use iPhone4 FaceTime (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:use iPhone4 FaceTime (Score:2, Interesting)