Personal Video Conferencing (PVC) versus Meetinghouse Webcast

Discussions about the desktop video conferencing solution provided by the Church

Moderators: rodhyde, MarchantRR

rgme
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:58 pm

Personal Video Conferencing (PVC) versus Meetinghouse Webcast

Postby rgme » Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:51 am

I'm beginning to put together a proposal for video conferencing/webcast for my stake. The Personal Video Conferencing (PVC) and Meetinghouse Webcast (MW) systems seem to overlap in the utility they provide. However, PVC has the added benefit of two-way communication. Is there any instruction or advice that would direct towards one of the systems? Here are a few thoughts I've gathered (and please correct if I'm mistaken):

  1. Both can use external video sources, including the Sony EVI-D70 (Link, Post, Post)
  2. Both require either a computer (or Meetinghouse Webcast Communicator) at either end of the communication
  3. MW has options for a more complete production (e.g., multiple cameras).
  4. MW definitely has a lot more forum support.
  5. To me, the PVC setup seems easier to implement, and can be scaled from one-to-one meetings to full conferences.
Any thoughts? Is there a particular "right" solution? I'm also wondering the future direction; is the Church planning to proceed with both?

harddrive
Member
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:52 pm

Postby harddrive » Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:10 pm

rgme wrote:I'm beginning to put together a proposal for video conferencing/webcast for my stake. The Personal Video Conferencing (PVC) and Meetinghouse Webcast (MW) systems seem to overlap in the utility they provide. However, PVC has the added benefit of two-way communication. Is there any instruction or advice that would direct towards one of the systems? Here are a few thoughts I've gathered (and please correct if I'm mistaken):

  1. Both can use external video sources, including the Sony EVI-D70 (Link, Post, Post)
  2. Both require either a computer (or Meetinghouse Webcast Communicator) at either end of the communication
  3. MW has options for a more complete production (e.g., multiple cameras).
  4. MW definitely has a lot more forum support.
  5. To me, the PVC setup seems easier to implement, and can be scaled from one-to-one meetings to full conferences.
Any thoughts? Is there a particular "right" solution? I'm also wondering the future direction; is the Church planning to proceed with both?


I don't know what the church's direction is, but I'm planning to use PVC so that my stake can do multiple building broadcast with it. I expect that we will do training using PVC and if everything works correctly, I can see PVC replacing Webcasting.

I'm just trying to figure out the best solution for what we are trying to accomplish. The big thing is about the second camera, which I will write about in the next thread.

Terry


Return to “Personal Video Conferencing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest