Video Conferencing Vs. Telepresence Robots: What Are the Differences?
Over time, technology has brought individuals together. Telepresence vs video conferencing has opened up new channels of communication for both commercial and private users. These two methods, which are sometimes confused, are two distinct possibilities, each with its own set of capabilities and features tailored to certain requirements.
Before looking at the differences between these 2 technologies, it’s vital to know what they have in common: Essentially, these are instruments that are used in meetings to stimulate an actual face-to-face connection through audio and video links. Let’s compare and contrast telepresence with videoconferencing now.
The visual structure of the video conference tool is pretty straightforward. Through a team conference, 2 end points achieve visual communication. A camera is placed at one end of the room throughout this conference, focusing on one person among the set of people assembled around a conference table. The camera would only be centred on the present speaker, and the other members would appear farther away from camera in usual definition, while 1 or 2 would seem closer.
Telepresence like the double telepresence robot, on the other hand, is a difficult concept to grasp. The look of a telepresence tool would be identical to that of a real conference room. Consider how it would feel to be with someone halfway around the world because the people would appear to be sitting at the same conference table. Telepresence was set up at a 1:1 ratio, with the cameras focused on a particular individual on each of the allocated high-def screens
For the most part, visual distraction from grainy, choppy visuals is manageable. However, unsteady audio is unavoidable—- a lost syllable is tolerable, but time lag, muffling, and disjointed audio quality distracts from the task at hand, causing frustration and tiredness. All of these issues are addressed by telepresence. Telepresence’s audio is clean, echo-free, provides ample loudness, and is comprehensible, as the experience is meant to resemble a conference with participants who appear to be in the same room.
If there are numerous persons in the meeting, it offers positional audio, which gives directional signals as to who is speaking. Videoconferencing audio, on the other hand, is not particularly impressive. Because it only has a single-channel audio outlet, the quality of voice communicated via videoconference is harmed. As a result, all audio packages are compressed and transmitted through one output, resulting in an unavoidable loss of audio quality.
The links that are made are one of the primary differences between telepresence and videoconferencing. The majority of video conferencing concerns centre on not being able to join their calls or having inconsistent connections, which results in a low-quality audio/video session. Telepresence, with its high-definition video, requires the same level of audio in their systems. Network evaluations have been done by telecom operators to verify that network traffic will not degrade call quality. The system was well-designed to the point where it often avoids traffic congestion.