Shared publicly  - 

hangout face to face to face in HD

connect with friends and family in high res with hd hangouts! we are rolling hd out to hangouts on air initially, then to all desktop hangout video calls over the next few weeks.

hd hangouts require an hd-capable webcam, more bandwidth and more processing power than standard definition. so if your computer and network are capable, turn the quality up to hd!

Hegemon HGI (John Miller)'s profile photoSvein Wisnæs's profile photoRandy Resnick's profile photoLovelie Chrisostome's profile photo
Chee the slider is a great idea! 
Thank you buddy! Keep up the amazing work over there! 
Great news for Hangout On Air shows!! Thanks +chee chew - Please pass on our sincere thanks to the rest of your team!!!
+Abe Abrahamian we're already working on it.  :)
encoding takes a lot more processing power.. and therefore battery, so mobile cpu's are always a challenge....  but we're definitely working on it!
This will be great fdor some .. scary for those of us with a bit more time in our faces!! LOL +chee chew 
I love it +chee chew! Can't wait to try it out. 
Is there a certain order these are being released to?
Does anyone know if I can use an external HD webcam on a chromebook?
Hopefully this means that recording directly to YouTube will have HD capabilities soon. Or at least when the switch to WebRTC is made. Less local software is a good thing. Thanks, +chee chew and team!
Sean S
Is this for Hangouts on Air also?
I know someone who does an online show but won't use Hangouts on Air to do it because it isn't in HD.
+chee chew now that we've got HD video in Hangouts, any improvements to Studio Mode audio on the horizon?
I suspect a sidebar vertical quality slider would be more intuitive, but very cool nonetheless.
+Hannes Schleeh  & +Sean S in our rollout path, we'll actually complete the hangouts on air rollout faster than the rest of hangouts.
OMG I thinkthis is commen sence
And something was said about no plugin needed is coming too?  I don't get a sense of when that may be.
+chee chew would you please clarify what is the exact news? I have several videos resulting from our HOAs on Youtube all recorded in HD (720 not 1080 though). Is the news about full HD? Or was I lucky to have it already? thanks.
Very good site and your family and friends 
I haven't actually used hangouts since back when I WAS ABLE TO KNOW WHO WAS ON LINE TO HAVE A VIDEO HANGOUT WITH!! If you don't fix that part, I really don't think I'm going to start a video chat with dead air hoping that the person I want to chat with shows up at some point. 
How many mbps will the HD version be?
+Guy Cook the gigaom article has a bit of a discussion of our future roadmap.  we haven't announced a date for webrtc yet.  but we did let him know it's in our future.

+Business Hangouts this one is a bit subtle..  your actual main video was 480.  you then add the thumbnails in and it's about 600.  then we stretched it up to 720.    with this rollout, your main video is natively 720, so it should be much clearer.  especially when you're full window.

+Willie King 1.2 minimum, recommend 1.5 or more.
+chee chew thanks for the clarification. So now on YT we'll have AT LEAST a 840ish resolution as the thumbnails will add in similarly, right?
The really big question for me is if Hangouts now will support other devices than webcams. It would be nice to see general support for any video device that is connected to the computer. This would allow for better quality and much better hangout productions.

Please? :-)
+Randy Resnick One device that is high on my list is the BlackMagic ATEM Television Studio. 4 HDMI inputs could let you use e.g. 4 DSLR's with HDMI outputs as a small studio setup... Feed that into Hangouts, use some of the other users/locations in a hangout for guests in your show and you have an interesting concept.

Another thing is to be able to take the output from a professional studio and input it through a higher end video board.
Isn't there switching software that can help? I'm sure Wirecast will, but it's $450 at least. Maybe there are others?
+Randy Resnick Sure - and by using that kind of software, you are building a monster by taking a software that is made for a different thing to do a single job. Also, the interfaces of these programs are about as far from ideal as you can get.

On top of that, they degrade the performance of the machine they are running on...

Always keep as little as possible running on the computer if you do any kind of production. With your signal running through hoops on your computer, only a small hiccup is needed before it all comes tumbling down.

Better get direct support for any video devices that are accepted on a computer. The same we have today with audio. There is no limitations on what audio source you can use. So why should there be any for video?
Your point is well-taken. While you are correct technically, I'm not sure it makes sense for Google devs to attempt to address all devices. I don't think audio and video can be compared so easily, either.  I use a program called Camtwist which brings in things like a Canon camcorder I can switch with other cameras. It doesn't degrade the video as far as I can tell, and the switching and effects are actually better in this free program than in the expensive Wirecast software. I'm not sure it would detect the hardware you mentioned, though.
Actually, the devs do not need to address all devices. They just need to address the operating interface for the video devices. This is how everyone else are doing things. There are standards on Linux, Mac and Windows for this. And the purpose is exactly so that programmers should not need to address specific devices.

They only have to support theses standards. Then all devices that comply with the standard will work.
+Svein Wisnæs I can't speak for the team, but obviously they're doing what they can in the context with priorities they've set.
What we do know is that they are listening and they do incorporate ideas expressed here, so if it can happen, it will!
Add a comment...