Poly Studio X Polycom Companion. Polycom Content App. Polycom MSR Series. Polycom Pano. Polycom Trio. Poly Trio C Poly Trio Polycom Trio Polycom Trio VisualPro. RealPresence Centro. RealPresence Debut. RealPresence Desktop. RealPresence Group Series.
Poly Medialign. RealPresence Group RealPresence Group Packaged Solutions. RealPresence Immersive Studio. RealPresence Immersive Studio Flex. RealPresence Mobile. RPX HD. RPX HD Telepresence m Video Test Numbers.
Zero Touch Provisioning. UC Infrastructure. RMX RealPresence Collaboration Server s. RealPresence Resource Manager. Poly Clariti. RealConnect Access Suite. RealPresence Clariti. RealPresence Web Suite. Security - Firewall Traversal. Workflow Suite. Business IP Phones. VVX CCX VVX Expansion Modules. Poly Edge B Series Phones.
Poly Trio. Latest Poly Trio Software Release. Polycom UC Software. Poly Engineering Advisories and Technical Notifications.
SoundStation Duo. SoundStation IP. SoundStation IP VoiceStation VoIP Adapters. If not already installed, the set-up process indicates that it is necessary to install Adobe AIR Runtime 2. Figure 1. Adobe AIR 2. Adobe AIR 3. The installation of m was then finished. The program runs a "First set up wizard" on first use. There is extensive documentation available for the product. On the product website are various help documents:.
There is an extensive knowledge-base available at the PolyCom website which includes answers to issues relating to the m software. All in-all there is a wealth of information available. The m interface was found to be very easy to use, and is clean and uncluttered. It is immediately apparent what the elements of the user interface are. The interface consists of:. All of these features apart from the video window are always in view, and although in general they are all essential elements of a videoconferencing application it seems unfortunate that they cannot be out of view when not needed.
It is not possible to change the user interface very much: it always remains the same size although it can be moved or minimised. This keeps things simple but did lead to some minor criticisms of the user interface:. These are not major criticisms however.
Because all configuration options are hidden, the m has a very simple and intuitive user interface. The use of tool-tips also assists, and the purpose of most icons was soon readily apparent. It was not necessary for the testers to consult any documentation at all in order to start using the software. When in a call it is possible to maximise the video window, use in full screen mode, or resize the video window to any size preferred by the user.
The video display is maintained while the window is resized, so the transition from one size of video window to another is smooth. It is not possible to specify or control the call settings, for example the outbound video format. Video and audio encoding is auto-negotiated by the endpoint with the remote end with little user control, and there is no video test facility or video options in the configuration menu there is no choice for the user to make between the prioritisation of sharpness and motion, for example.
It is not possible to mute or pause the video sent during a call, as it is in some other desktop clients. Figure 7. The software in full-screen mode, during a call with another m user.
Figure 8. The user interface on the desktop. The single menu makes accessing all configuration options very simple. They are simply laid out and it is apparent what each is for, making configuration of the software straight forward. There is an audio testing tool to assist the set-up of microphone and speakers. An unusual feature is the ability for the administrator to protect some of the configuration options with a password. As mentioned above, it was necessary to change the settings on the firewall of the local PC.
It would have also been necessary to change the settings on the organisation firewall to allow inbound and outbound calling without an H.
There was no problem in registering with the local H. A number of successful test calls were made involving the JVCS, as well as many made point-to-point. Successful point-to-point calls were made at various bandwidths, to a number of different manufacturers' equipment. In general interoperation with other modern systems was very good. See Appendix 2 for a list of all of the CODECs that the m called during these tests, what encoding was negotiated, and how successful the testing was.
It is possible to make calls by both IP address and E. It is not possible to change bandwidths on a per call basis without making this change each time. The software allows you to choose whether or not to use an H.
Depending on their configuration, some gatekeepers do not allow calls to be made by IP address when the endpoint is registered to the gatekeeper. If this is the case, E. The software uses the H. At kbps the desktop sharing started very quickly and was of a very high quality. At kbps it was slightly slower but still very good. The data sharing is easy to use, quick to start and is presented very clearly, but it is restricted when compared to similar desk-top clients, in that it only offers the possibility of full desktop sharing.
It is not possible to share an individual application, window or region of the screen — it is the whole screen that is shared, or nothing. These tests were performed on the PC and equipment described in Appendix 1. It should be noted that tests are conducted on a live network and so any results could be the affected by the state of the live network at the time of testing.
The standard equipment i. Tests were conducted at kbps and kbps bandwidth with the bandwidth capped and uncapped. The capped calls at kbps were set up to simulate an ADSL broadband connection. Audio tests were conducted in a talking heads scenario, and in a scenario with movement and data sharing.
All tests were made with the picture at full screen. For the kbps bandwidth calls, the bandwidth was set using the software at kbps, for the kbps calls a router was set up to restrict bandwidth to the required level, and bandwidth settings for the call were altered in the software to kbps.
All testing was done with a good quality Logitech pro camera and using a modern Windows 7 PC. The various test criteria are described in the version of the Evaluations Documentation [REF], and the detailed results are reproduced in Appendix 2. Talking heads — the audio was consistently of good quality. The audio levels, audio quality and echo cancellation were of excellent quality throughout, and were all given top marks by both testers, with the bandwidth available making no difference to the scoring.
This was true irrespective of whether the audio was part of a talking heads test or a talking heads with movement and data test. The only criterion on which the audio was given less than full marks was double-talk both ends talking at the same time. Figure The audio test allows the user to react to the visual representation of the microphone gain but there is no control of the gain levels.
Volume can also be reviewed. Constant movement both ends with shared data — as mentioned above, adding the movement and data sharing to the calls did not impact at all on the test results.
The audio still scored top marks throughout with the single exception of a slightly perceptible occasional stutter when double talking. In general the audio consistency and quality were of a very high standard. It was noted that the software used VGA x pixels as the video format when in calls at kbps but QVGA x pixels when calling at kbps.
Talking Heads, kbps — The quality was generally good for both testers although lack of lip synchronisation with speech, and some blockiness was slightly perceptible. Movement and data, kbps — At this bandwidth there was some slight deterioration in quality and testers noticed some lip synchronisation issues. There was also some blurriness and blockiness, although this was not constant, and generally the hardware and software coped very well with the extra load.
Movement and data, kbps — The issues noticed in the previous test seem to be a result of the low bandwidth, rather than limitations of the hardware or software, and at kbps, the software scored well on all criteria, although, as at kbps blockiness and object persistence were slightly perceptible on occasions. PolyCom m is an excellent desktop videoconferencing client. With sufficient bandwidth and in full-screen mode it successfully emulates an H.
It handles low bandwidth very well and supports a wide variety of audio and video encoding standards. The picture and audio quality were consistently of a very high standard. In the opinion of the testers, however, to call the experience Telepresence is still inaccurate as the experience is not as if you are in the same room as the remote caller.
This fully standards compliant software worked well with all but one of the other H. It also offers SIP which was tested and worked fine. The user interface is kept clean and simple.
Configuration options are clearly laid out. But there is some wasted space in the user interface and also a lack of user control over the interface itself. This may not be a consideration for many users, and it does help to keep the options and interfaces simple; but some users would appreciate having the options available.
This system is intended to replicate an average priced typical PC purchased in to be used for videoconferencing.
0コメント