Greg, why two topics with the same request? Please remove one.

I've thought about this. Then I thought about it some more.

And I can't come up with a way that would allow this to work and make sense.

I think you'd better off asking someone like ZEN to see if they can use the SDK to make a simple, and inexpensive, NDI app that'll give you the raw Zoom feeds.

Otherwise, as I said, I don't see a way this would work. It'd require vMix to build a completely separate "Zoom" input (which I promise you isn't as easy as it sounds), and, then, the whole thing would be at Zoom's whim. They could take it away just as quickly as they gave it.

As for integrating it into vMix Call, they're completely separate things. Reading your post, I can't visualize a way to reconcile the two.

A third party program that's brought into vMix using existing implementations (NDI, virtual camera, etc.) would be a lot easier as a standalone and make a lot more sense.

I also have to ask: assuming you're correct & it's giving you the raw video, at what resolution is it giving you that video?

I use Zoom Room NDI and/or Zoom ISO almost daily. I have produced over 450 virtual events over the past 18 months, so I have extensive experience using all of these tools.

We used to use vMixCall almost exclusively because, like many, we felt it was easier to use since all an end user needed is a URL to login. This is a fallacy and misinformation. We found that vMixCall is actually more complicated for end users because of unfamiliarity with the interface and some of the limitations of WebRTC. We also ran into issues with high level C-Suite VIPs connecting over restrictive firewalls. We also frequently ran into Chrome quirkiness not letting end users select external cameras and microphones.

Once Zoom Room NDI became available we stopped using vMixCall almost entirely and went to Zoom exclusively because it is far easier and more familiar for an end user. At this point, nearly everyone who does any virtual conferencing has downloaded Zoom and is familiar with interface, so it's simply not true that vMixCall is easier to use because it doesn't require any download

We had to spend considerable time educating end users on how to manage the vMixCall interface and wasted a lot of time with people who couldn't connect but sat at their computer thinking they were connected simply because they saw their return video feed on screen. We also heard a lot of "why aren't we just using Zoom for this" comments.

Additionally, for those end users with 1080 cameras, I bring them in and broadcast them out at 1080 with Room NDI. Oh, and let's not forget Room NDI also includes isolated audio for each pinned participant.

So yes, I am familiar with all the remote contribution tools available to virtual producers, including Room NDI and Zoom ISO.

My point is that like it or not, Zoom is the defacto standard for virtual conferencing. Why not integrate that into vMix if the tools are available? The point of my post is that those tools ARE now available - so why not take leverage them here in vMix. Many people have asked for a stand alone vMixCall app that works similar to Zoom. So now the ability exists to integrate the Zoom tools into your own software and you don't have to re-invent the wheel to do so.

Using third party tools takes more resources and equipment to integrate further increasing costs. Imagine a vMix where you didn't need 2-3 extra computers to do Zoom pins for remote contributors. I would gladly pay additional for this type of one stop shopping.

I also want to make it clear that I do like vMixCall and don't want it to go away. I'd just like to see it improved. But even improving it isn't going to make it more familiar to people who don't use it regularly, as they do with Zoom.


greg

Because, as I'm pretty sure I mentioned, there's no guarantee that it'll still be available in 6 months/1 year/whenever.

And there's no guarantee that they won't tweak something in it in that same time frame that would require the code in vMix to be tweaked as well.

There's a reason that there's no "[Popular program] Input" in vMix beyond NDI or the browser.

They talked about it, with regard to Social, in the Fun Time Live show from October that I just posted elsewhere. Designing an element of your software around the whims of the developers at a third party can be a massive PITA. They made the very clear point that they don't love going through the process with Social--there's no way they're going to go through that with the main program, especially when NDI, etc. already exists to accomplish the same ends.

That's the crux of this: they're not going to add an Input option that requires a third party to not remove or change their SDK/API for it to not break. It's just not going to happen. Ever.



If you'd "gladly pay" for it, then why is your issue with third party tools that they increase costs?

Seems kind of weird to go from "Third party programs increase costs by requiring additional equipment/processing power to achieve this functionality, and, thus, are less than ideal" to "I'd gladly pay more for this functionality".

Even if the vMix team wanted to build this integration I don't know that it's feasible.

The Zoom Meeting SDK is a free to use SDK but it limits raw video feeds to 420p. (Edit: I misread the docs. This is not true.)

The Zoom Video SDK is a paid service that's charged by the minute by the software vendor, not the end user. As such, I highly doubt StudioCoast Pty would take on that cost (or perhaps they could pass it off to us as the end user with a small markup. But- I know how hesitant people in the vMix world get about having to pay extra for things, especially if it were by the minute.)

Supporting vMixCall incurs monthly recurring fees to StudioCoast Pty as well in maintaining the servers required for authentication, so there is precedence for this as well.


greg

Zoom has added NDI. Isn't it much easier to just use NDI as I/O. Same as with MS Teams.

+1