I got the logitech 9000, but im curious why a dual core is needed for video's from 640x480.

I can't imagine that a 4000+ AMD single core isn't fast enough to process this video quality?

Greetz

I can't imagine why the camera needs to be a LogiTech. I have a perfectly good USB webcam which is capable of producing 640x480 images. It would be nice to know if these things are "precise requirements" or just "suggestions".

probably just some advertisement deal.

eagerly downloaded the new beta release... was put right off it as soon as i saw that ad... that is what it is afterall.

Due to close cooperation with Logitech, Skype can only vouch for Logitech webcams and this is really what HQ video is about.
Of course other cams can reach 640x480, there are no limitations.
Regards,

Regarding the dual core issue. With single core cpu's the cpu usage would be so high that you couldn't really enjoy it anyway .

There are only very few cameras on market that actually are being able to produce 640x480 @ 30 FPS.

Skype works very well with others cams also.

Dual core requirement is per processing power needed to deliver the High Quality Video.

my test environment:

2.8G HT P4 xeon 2Gb
intel pro 640x480 camera (old, but quality camera)
skype 3.6.127

2.6 HT P4 xeon 2Gb
no camera
skype 3.6.127

100mb LAN


I have been running using the skype HD setting (mod the config.xml file) ever since they came out, so for quite a while. I have not had any problems with it, the only issue was when I called a slower machine (1.8G P4m) and it really bogged it down although it still worked (long lip sync lag .

I tried out the new skype 3.6 (I left the old config.xml modifications in) and everything worked. I was a bit surprised at the video though. I don't have dual core processors (but HyperThreaded), but the call info reported 640x480 send video at least at first. UDP. The frame rate was around 15. The cpu was at 50 which is fine, but then later I noticed that the resolution dropped to 160x180 (or something like that) and the video quality dropped. skype cpu was at 30. Evidently skype thought it didn't have enough of something and pulled the settings back, yet task manager reported plenty of headroom available. Network throughput did not show a change. I never saw an icon or any indication of what mode I was in, except for what was reported by the call stats info.

I run distributed computing projects (BOINC) and other tasks in the background, so my cpus are always pegged, but at an idle priority level. I don't know how skype measures how much cpu it has available to it, but please allow skype to be agressive in obtaining the cpu and 100% cpu usage does not mean processor time is not available to a higher priority process. And as usual give audio priority over video and continually try to improve the quality (as in don't ratchet down the quality and leave it there because of a blip)

While we are on that topic, the same goes for relayed connections. I frequently find that when I receive a relayed connection, that if I start a chat before the call, the call is frequently not relayed. Chat seems to stimulate skype. So if skype drops from UDP to direct_Tcp or then to relay, keep trying to move back up the scale. I find that when a call is relayed, all calls to that user will then be relayed for several hours afterwards. Yet the day before under the same circumstances, the call was direct_tcp. (facist firewall).

From this test, skype 3.6.127 will run 640x480 at least one way and for a while, on non dual core processors and without logitech cameras, in fact with a webcam which is nearly 8 years old.

rearden

I did another test this time over the internet and a facist firewall.

2.8G HT P4 xeon
Intel 640x480 usb webcam
skype 3.6.127

2.4 HT P4
Intel 640x480
skype 3.6.127
dsl 6000/512

internet

The connection was relay_TCP. Video and audio were good. Frame rate was acceptable (<15fps). The video was 640x480 for about 30 sec. cpu 50%, then everything flashed and dropped down to 320x240 cpu 30%, then 30 sec later it flashed again dropped to 160x120. The bandwidth stayed the same. The video quality noticeably changed for the worst at each step down.

I ask that the skype be a bit more aggressive in keeping the resolution high. If it could somehow point out my bottleneck that would be for me also. But right now it seems to be lowering the quality unnecessarily. I know 50% on a HT cpu means you are pegging the cpu and you don't have a full second cpu available, but skype is not threading such that it is getting over that 50% mark.

I also think that people would like a higher frame rate with a smaller window size and more resolution with the larger window (and would be willing to put up with lower frame rates).

Is it possible to post process skype video through ffdshow using the raw video filter and resize? that would chew some cpu, but it would be interesting.

rearden

I watched more closely this time and determined the following:

It takes skype about 45 seconds to drop to a lower resolution mode. It seems to give priority to frame rate over resolution. The resolution would drop even though it seemed to have cpu available.

When I shut down lower priority processes skype increased the frame rate. This is a bit odd b/c the process I shut down was running that the "idle process" priority level and should (and from task manager's view does) not interfere with what skype has available to it. Increasing skype's priority to "Above normal" helped some. I was then able to stay at the 320x240 10fps level (5-15fps with most between 8-11) and 40% cpu.

I don't know what skype is using to determine what it can handle, but the usual suspects of cpu, jitter, roundtrip and bandwidth don't appear to be it. While it sustains 640x480 and 10fps it looks quite good.

rearden

Thanks rearden for the detailed description .
I will check regarding proces priority levels if those are indeed checked or not. It seems to me that skype considers your cpu overloaded than atomatically drops resolution to reduce cpu consumption.
Skype uses a combination of things to determine what it can handle and it uses the recevers metrics also. It wouldn't be nice if you overloaded the receiver either.
Did you test always with the same person?
Regards,

No I tested with two different people.

LAN based test: Same person for all tests. U1 <-> U2
Internet relayed test: Different person from LAN test. U1 <-> U3

The receivers (U2, U3) on both tests were also running idle priority distributed computing projects in the background (BOINC) and I didn't turn them off on the receiver side for the tests.

rearden

Hi,
As far as I know skype doesn't check for priority levels, it just notices that your CPU is overloaded, so this is more like a feature request so that it should take prio levels into consideration when making judgement on cpu load. Also worth mentioning here that relayed video calls will never get the same quality as a direct connection.
Regards,

I have a CPU that Skype could definitely not load and I still get the drop in resolution and frame rate. Could this be because of bandwith limitations? Does Skype lower resolution and frame rate depending on bandwith also?

Yes, both directly and indirectly. In the Skype technical data, on the line for Video out, you will see a value for "BW", which presumably is what it has calculated the video capacity of the bandwidth to be. It this is not sufficient for the video mode you are running, Skype will adjust the video accordingly. Also, if Skype finds that it cannot send data fast enough, for whatever reason, it will then reduce the frame rate, and eventually the resolution. This data limitation could be because the communication bandwidth is not as high as Skype thought it was (meaning they botched the calculation, which they often do), or because the computer on the other end of the video call cannot accept, process and display the data at the rate you are sending it.

I will leave it up to you to decide if determining the actual CPU load properly should be considered a "feature" or not.

Ok, for some user feedback on "computer capability" estimation. Please consider something other than "System Idle Process %" There are many background processes (say FASTFIND) which may be useful, but should not affect skype's performance. This is in addition to things like distributed computing projects, media conversion, etc. If I am in a skype call, skype is what I am focused upon and everything else is, at that moment, a background process and should allow skype to cut in line. I don't want a long database query or spreadsheet recalc to give poor performance to my calls; they should fight over what my communications package doesn't need. It is the same kind of prioritization which happens on network QoS systems.

OTOH, I _don't_ want skype to hog cpu or resources in general when I am not specifically using it. In that scenario, it should take a way back seat to a spreadsheet calc, database query, media conversion or playback, etc.
rearden

I agree with you Rearden, I brought this issue up and it is being considered. Thanks for openning a discussion on the subject
Regards,

Update:
I downloaded 3.6.216 on to the two LAN based computers mentioned earlier.
This time I was unable to get 640x480 to work, even though it was specified in the config.xml file. With the previous betas it used 640x480 for at least 45 sec before potentially dropping back. This time it came up on 320x240 and never went higher no matter what the bw, cpu or cam stats displayed.

I reverted back to 3.5.159 on the video sending machine and 640x480 worked.

Could skype staff please comment upon what may be causing high res mode to no longer work? I have been using high res ever since the original posting in skype garage and it worked until the most recent non beta release. What would have changed in the evaluation parameters?

rearden

I don't work for Skype, but ...

support for the xml patch was pulled from the gold release

for now you must be using one of the 3 new Logitech cameras for which the drivers and the client were optimized (this is only one of the current requirements for HQ, but it is probably the one you are missing)

suggest you research other threads

I have been active in most of the other threads, but skype has not confirmed or announced that other cameras would not work at 640x480. In fact, just the opposite, they have stated that other cameras _would_ work and we have demonstrated that other cameras _have_ worked. The previous statements have been that other cameras would work at 640x480, but Logitech cameras would work the _best_ and the HD logo would not necessarily be displayed unless dual core, bandwidth and logitech cameras were in play.

"Work Best" is fine, having others not work at all by fiat instead of capability is another matter; especially since the trend is to include cameras as standard equipment in laptops instead of having them as accessories. As a beta tester, all the non logitech cameras have worked just fine until now. If this has changed, I would have expected skype to make a statement about such at least to those of us who tested.

rearden

HQ is defined as the result when you have satisfied ALL the requirements, not just the resolution and frame rate

from http://share.skype.com/sites/en/skype_beta_and_new_releases/ :

"To experience free High Quality Video, this is what both sides of the conversation will need:

* Skype 3.6 for Windows (expected to be available in November)
* a Logitech webcam that has been optimized and certified for High Quality Video (the Logitech QuickCam Pro 9000, the Logitech QuickCam Pro for Notebooks or the Logitech QuickCam Sphere AF (Logitech QuickCam Orbit AF in the U.S.)
* Logitech QuickCam software, version 11.5 (expected to be available in November at www.logitech.com/downloads)
* a dual-core PC
* a broadband connection (384 kbps and above)."

the drivers are clearly Logitech and the Skype client was optimized to work with those drivers

seems pretty clear to me that you must be using one of these cameras, AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING, before you can experience HQ in the gold release -- nowhere that I can find does it say that other cameras will not be certified in the future

and the current requirements are echoed here as well http://about.skype.com/2007/11/high_qualit...now_a.html#more

Maybe I should have been more clear. What I define as "high def" was the previous definition in skype garage: 640x480 at a reasonable frame rate. "High Quality Video" and it's criteria is the definition you pasted below.
What appears to have changed is that 640x480 resolution will not be attempted on a camera except the ones listed in "High Quality Video". If this is the case, it would be a different policy than was used in 3.6.159 and earlier. During the latest beta period, the statements about minimum requirements were made, but it was demonstrated that improved quality was possible below those stated requirements. In 3.6.159 and earlier 640x480 at reasonable frame rates have been demonstrated using both non logitech cameras and non dual core machines The "High Quality Video" logo was not displayed, but the call technical stats (as well as eyes) reported the improved quality. I don't care about the logo, I care about the quality. If you have questions about previous capabilities you can read the earlier portions of this thread and others in skype garage.

rearden