Co-founder Fredrik Hörnkvist looks at other alternatives to 360-degree tabletop cameras….
What is a 360-degree tabletop camera? What's the idea behind it, what business need(s) does it serve?
In theory a 360-degree camera might seem an ideal choice especially for people who haven’t bought AV equipment before. Putting something in the middle of a table where four people are sat around, could be seen as a reasonable choice. But when you realise a display screen is needed too, then things can become a little complicated and messy when people are looking in different directions. It’s not always as simple as it sounds.
Does the camera have a permanent 360-degree field of vision, or does it swivel round to point in different directions? And does it always have to cover a full 360 degrees? If not, why not?
There are various ways a camera works but it depends if you are an internal or external participant. Software can stitch everyone together but for those in the same room it can be difficult to maintain eye contact and know where to look.
Who or what does the camera focus on - individuals, groups, the person speaking, people moving? How does it decide who or what to show? And how quickly does it react, e.g. when a new person starts talking?
Videobars can work with table top devices. Generally fish-eye stitching is most common. But it’s not always a natural experience in our opinion.
Supposing the conversation round the table gets animated - does the poor camera spin round and round like a top (literally or figuratively), or does it have ways of taking things more calmly? And does this mean it's not so suitable for very animated conversations?
We do find 360-degree cameras can have some severe limitations, just from a general meeting room perspective. They do have a place in certain situations though. One advantage is they sit at an optimal height on a desk for natural eye contact. However the Boom UNO complete conferencing system can provide a much simpler experience with just one front facing camera.
How are 360-degree cameras actually being used? Are they employed standalone, or in combination with other cameras (some people suggest they're best when combined with a front-of-room camera, for example)? What are the pros and cons of this?
Museums and lecture halls are where PTZ cameras can be popular. They can offer a more dynamic experience compared to some standard camera deployments. However if a PTZ camera is ceiling-mounted this can often be a better experience. They can track a presenter as they move around the room to showcase artefacts etc. 360-degree coverage can be achieved even if it’s not a 360-degree camera.
What other alternatives are there to a 360-degree camera (e.g. multiple cameras dotted around the room)? What are the pros and cons of these alternative approaches?
Personal engagement really matters on a video call. PTZ cameras for us are generally a much better choice. They can focus on every corner of the room in great detail. Zone tracking can provide a more tailored approach too for more control on what people see.
Are there issues or pitfalls to watch out for? For example, how easy is it to interface 360-degree cameras with conventional meeting room systems and remote conferencing platforms?
I think there are many pitfalls and issues. On paper a 360-degree camera might seem a good choice but in practice that’s not always the case. Knowing where to look is one key area of concern for room-based participants. PTZ cameras are often easier to interface and more natural to use.
It’s important to consider the room design and user needs and select the best options for that space which could sometimes be a centrally mounted PTZ camera that can cover the full 360-degree of a room – or a wide angle camera or videobar that easily incorporates all participants in a meeting room.