Stupid Question Time
I took some time to experiment with OBS today (finally). I tried to select OBS as a source in Skype, but it wasn't available. I found a forum post stating that, as of two years ago, OBS virtual webcam output had not been enabled. Is this still the case? Or is it now available? I couldn't find it.
https://obsproject.com/forum/threads/output-to-virtual-webcam-device.4010/
Right - OBS does not have a virtual camera feature. You can bring up your capture card that is capturing a full-screen preview of OBS on the other computer into Skype, though.
ReplyDeleteWirecast, Xsplit and Manycam are like OBS but those do include that "virtual webcam" feature.
But the original discussion we had described the other method - using OBS to composite a signal you would send to the other computer's capture card.
BTW - you get to full-screen preview by right-clicking on the preview and selecting the second item from the top. Have keyboard shortcuts set up to change scenes and you'll be set. (Right-click on a scene and set the hotkeys...)
OBS is primarily developed for gamers who want to stream their gameplay live to Twitch.tv or YouTube live streaming. It has never been developed with Skype or Hangouts-On-Air and similar in mind, so they placed the idea of it acting as a virtual webcam at low priority.
ReplyDeleteTerry Leigh Britton
ReplyDelete"But the original discussion we had described the other method - using OBS to composite a signal you would send to the other computer's capture card."
True. And it does have a very good full screen preview. Thanks Terry.
I wouldn't say that it's developed primarily for gamers, though that is the most common use of it due to the focus on performance.
ReplyDeleteTruth is I just haven't had time to implement the feature. There's always been something higher priority, and I don't really have anyone helping out with this sort of stuff so even despite all this time it's still on my (very large) to-do list, waiting to be implemented.
One note from my experience, virtual cameras can work for linear broadcasting (Hangouts on Air, etc) but usually introduce latency which makes them not ideal for two-way communications unless your system is really fast.
ReplyDeleteHugh Bailey
ReplyDeleteGamers are the hot rodders of today. They are driving much of the HW/SW advancement that takes place, and for that reason I'm glad they exist. I took for granted that this feature was present though, and I was surprised to find it wasn't.
Dan McDermott
ReplyDeleteI've experimented with virtual cameras. I have found the resource burden to be minimal. It is an acceptable price to pay, and a necessary evil. So far I've found that the primary burden on the system is caused by the limitations of the USB bus.
Teleconferencing, for lack of a better term, has the potential to be of much greater utility to mainstream society than gaming. We don't know it yet because the marketing people haven't told us yet. There is more to it than putting a big moustache on your screen image. :-)
He's not referring to resource burden, resources used aren't really a concern for virtual camera output, he's referring to latency, as in how long it has to take to process the final output. Mixing audio and video incurs some measure of latency, and capturing audio requires a certain amount of buffering to ensure that audio can be played back in sync. It depends on a number of factors, but you could probably get it down to 30 milliseconds as long as you have low latency audio devices.
ReplyDeleteThe judgment of what should be prioritized doesn't come down to "gaming" versus "teleconferencing", I have a lot of things to do that are completely unrelated to either of those things that are higher priority, like finishing the back-end API, then documenting that API, fixing bugs/issues, improving certain core plugins, implementing support for certain hardware features.
In terms of new features, I prioritize in the order of highest demand, as well as features I personally want to implement for myself. In terms of "how often I get requested for features", virtual camera output unfortunately is somewhere between "rare" and "uncommon". Additionally, I very much dislike programming with DirectShow, the API required to implement virtual camera output, so it has that going against it as well.
So to sum it up, for me personally in terms of what I plan or even want to spend my time on, virtual camera output one of the lower priority items. There's almost always going to be something I find more important to be working on. Being that I am the only guy working on the program at the moment, I have to make some sacrifices.
Hugh Bailey Hugh, I didn't come here to question your decisions or attack your program. I came here in hopes of learning something. And I have done that. I respect anyone who can do something I can't do, and coding is way up on that list. I strongly acknowledge your right to do or not do anything you want with the program, and anybody who doesn't like it can write their own program.
ReplyDeleteLatency between me and other people on the call is, as I understand it, largely dependent on the network, and so is something I can't control. The only time I can see it is when they show me their desktop, and I'm on it. As long as my audio and video is in sync, and as long as we can converse in what feels like real time, I accept what I get. If I should see acid trails coming off my fingertips on the remote screen, I don't know what I can do about it. I referred to resources rather than latency because that's something I can control (I know the difference). An exception might be my choice of 1080 vs 720. I'm planning to stick with 720 for the time being.
I had the Cat Cam on Ustream once, it was fun till the cat decided to sleep somewhere else. I've been dabbling with this tech for a while. Videophone, as it was called when it was demonstrated at the 1964 World's Fair, just hasn't caught on. I believe this is going to change soon.
Ookina Maguro
ReplyDeleteAh don't worry I know you're not attacking it or anything, I was just trying to say that it's difficult to get it to do everything that everyone wants it to do sometimes.
The latency he was referring to was program -> virtual camera output latency, not your network latency.