So yesterday, I was having a meeting with a publisher where I needed to share several different screens... which is really annoying to do with Zoom. So something had to done about that ;)
What you see here is a multi-screen setup using OBS.

Screen 1: Me (full HD webcam view)
Screen 2: PowerPoint
Screen 3: Browser + me in split screen view
Screen 4: Full screen browser view
Screen 5: (not playing) ...a video

And I can then switch between them via the number keys
Here is a screenshot of what my 'switcher' look like. Each of the small pictures below is a preview of each view. The big window on the left is the preview (to set up the next view), and the big picture on the right is what is currently being shown to Zoom
BTW: Also take a look at my latest newsletter where I talk about setting up a better view for speakers baekdal.com/newsletter/how…
Another problem I have with Zoom is that the quality is often crap, even though at my end it looks both sharp and crystal clear. I just discovered this is because Zoom is not HD at all.

This is a problem because when you share a screen via OBS instead, it will only be 720p.
I have been wondering about this for a while. When people use OBS to create live streams for YouTube or Twitch, it's always super-high quality (Full HD), but when you instead use Zoom, it looks blurry.

...and it's all because Zoom doesn't allow Full HD.

I'm not amused!!
Let me show you what this looks like: The first picture is what OBS created. As you can see, it's very clear (Full HD ... well, except Twitter downsampled the quality). The second picture is what was sent over Zoom ... it looks bad.
It's even worse if you have something like an Excel spreadsheet. The first picture of what OBS was sending (you can easily read the text), the second picture is what Zoom showed to people ... I mean... WTH Zoom?
Okay... Things are getting slightly or of control at Studio Baekdal 😏
I mean, exactly how many computers and screens do you need to done a Zoom meeting? 🤔
Aha!! ... I found a way to force Zoom into HD mode.

Let me explain. So, in Zoom's support document, they tell you that the 'Video stream' will be in 720p, which also means that anything I send via OBS is 720p, but my shared screen will be in 'native resolution'.

Right?
So... why don't I just stream my OBS/Video stream to a second display, and then share that display in Zoom ... that way Zoom thinks it's just sharing the desktop, but it's actually sharing the OBS output ... hence it will do it in Full HD.
So let me show you the difference. Here is first what Zoom looks like when sharing a Excel spreadsheet as a video feed (via OBS) ... it looks terrible.

But, when broadcast this to a second screen and then share that via Zoom instead, it looks like the 2nd picture.
Another example. Let's say I want to do a split screen of something I'm explaining in a browser window, and me talking next to it (which you can do in OBS). As video to Zoom, it looks horrible ... but by broadcasting this to a second screen and then sharing that ...I get full HD)
It's not perfect. One of the problems is that all video is now 'screen recorded', so it sometimes struggle to record all the frame ... so yeah... But I need to experiment some more :)
A slight problem. When you trick Zoom into sending HD video, there is about a 1 second delay (the sound is still synched at the receiver) ... The screen you are in front is what the audience sees.
Okay, I need to stop playing and do some writing... but ... well... one more experiment. Here I have connected my smartphone to my computer, as a webcam, and then I can have a multicam view.
So this is now (available scenes):

1: Full webcam view
2: PowerPoint
3: Webcam + Browser (split screen)
4: Browser
5: Video
6: Excel
7: Picture
8: Smartphone camera

All instantly switchable with the number keys on my keyboard while Zooming (or livestreaming).
So, I made a short video illustrating how this works and what the quality is. You will notice that the video feed has trouble keeping up, but this is only a problem with Zoom. If you do any other form of live-streaming, none of this is a problem.

I can also get rid of the video lag of I instead go back to Zoom's default 720p, but then, as you can see in the screenshot above, everything get really blurry for the audience.

So it's tricky... I'm not that impressed by Zoom right now.
I want to show you the difference. Here is the same video as before, but this time I'm skipping zoom and recording it directly. So this is what I see on 'my end' ... and what it would stream out if we weren't limited by Zoom.

The difference is remarkable
One more note: What you can do with OBS is to record the video locally (on your computer), while also doing the presentation via Zoom. Meaning that if the conference isn't live, you can then send the conference organizers the much better high-quality video for them to use.
This is something TV stations often ask. I did an interview for a big TV station, and while we were connected over the internet, the actual video was recorded on my computer. That high-res video was then sent to the TV station, which is then what they used in their broadcast.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas Baekdal

Thomas Baekdal Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @baekdal

2 Dec
I don't know about you, but I'm definitely starting to feel 'virtual event fatigue' ... there are so many events at the moment (several every week, even sometimes every day) that it's a bit overwhelming.
Another problem is also that virtual events require you to dedicate time. It's at a specific time ("Join us at 2 PM Thursday"), so it's very hard to manage. If it was instead 'on-demand', I could watch/listen whenever it fitted into my schedule instead.
I truly believe this is something we need to change. Virtual events are great, but we are currently doing them like 1980s TV shows (Watch this at 8PM Friday!!)
Read 5 tweets
1 Dec
Just yesterday the news sites reported that: "The most positive thing is that it is fairly stable"

Today we set a new record in infections on a single day (in Denmark).
As I wrote back in October (because the news sites have reporting things as being stable ever since August).
Read 4 tweets
1 Dec
Back in 2018, I wrote about how I implemented GDPR, by taking it to the extreme. I created a totally privacy-first focused site.
baekdal.com/thoughts/insid…

This does create a few complications, though... 1/..
Take newsletters. I obviously want to know how many people who get each newsletter, how many who open it, and how many of the links people click on... but to do this in a totally privacy-first way means getting rid of all personal identifiers. baekdal.com/analytics/gdpr…
All of this requires some tricky coding. For instance, I have spent this day building a new newsletter sending system. But I'm not sending the email directly, instead I use a mail server (like everyone else) ... but how do you do that in a privacy focused way?
Read 10 tweets
22 Oct
For f... sake, newspapers. You seriously need to start thinking about what impact your reporting has on the public.

Take this headline. Sounds pretty bad, right?

So what impact will this have when people see this? Well, it's obvious. You are fueling the anti-vaxxers. Right?!
Well, then you read the article, and it says this:
And then at the bottom of the article, it says this:
Read 13 tweets
21 Oct
No they are not. If they were actually important to you, you would not show us this. GDPR came into effect on May 28, 2018 ... so it's pretty clear that this is not a priority for you at all.
Note to US publishers. I can understand why, as a local publisher in the US, that you don't want to deal with the cost and complication of implementing European legislation for an audience that is outside your market. I get that.

But then just say that. Don't lie to me.
What seriously annoys me as a media analyst is when publishers behave dishonestly. You say you care about my privacy, but you are asking me to give it up. That's not caring.

You say I'm important to you, but your actions say otherwise.
Read 5 tweets
20 Oct
One thing I hate is how publishers try to twist GDPR into meaning something different, when the actual law is extremely clear.

Here is how 'consent' is defined.

So no, you cannot say: "By continuing to use our site you will automatically consent." That is simply not a thing.
It's the same about controllers vs processors. It's the data controller that people give consent to, and the processors act on behalf of that controller. What this means is that no processor can ever claim to have the right to do something on another site without a new consent.
If you give your consent to tracking on one newspaper to include FB tracking, then FB cannot claim to have the right to track someone on another site, arguing that you already gave your consent once. People didn't give their consent to FB. They gave it to the newspaper.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!