Blackmagic Forum

Can someone help me with the differences between these three devices? Here is what I see them as.

Web Presenter
-Turns hdmi/sdi into a USB web cam source.
-Changes the format to 720p, ostensibly to make things easier on the streaming machine. No encoding necessary.
- works easily with Skype and Facebook Live, but YouTube still requires OBS.
- Can also function as a limited two source switcher
-$550 or so with smart panel

AJA U-tap
-hdmi OR sdi into usb
- No format changing, so computer has to do the encoding and syreaming
- assume you need OBS for Skype, YouTube or Facebook?
- $350

Magwell Capture Dongle
Hdmi or SDI (3g sdi?) into usb
Pretty much the same as the AJA U-tap
- $300

Am I missing anything or have something in error?

Yes you're using incorrect terms.

None of these devices do "encoding". Encoding is the process of compressing the SDI /HDMI uncompressed stream into H264 video required for sending to YouTube / Facebook or another CDM.

The Web Presenter has a built in scaler which will down size 1080 to 720p, the encoding is still done by the software in your computer.
It has a built in switch and offers analog audio inputs (which currently have serious bugs)

The AJA and Magewell devices are USB3 capture cards. All three devices use UVC/UAC drivers and work with the built in "webcam" drivers that all computers have.

TBH I see very little appeal in the Web Presenter. Any vaguely modern computer can handle the video scaling and encoding using something such as OBS. The additional functions (switcher and analog audio) are buggy. Most computers already have an analog audio input.

Personally I'd get a Magewell if I were wanting a USB streaming capture solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You still need some sort of device to:

- Convert a high end camera with a high end lens from SDI into your computer

- Perform switching on the fly to cut from one cam to another cam

BM Web Presenter does this easily. And with the controls on the Web Presenter/Smart Panel I think much more is to come.

Web Presenter has greatly improved the internal corporate training setups we made in past using web cams. Just being able to use a real lens to control field of view and blur out background distractions as well as much improved clarity is a huge improvement. For $500 bucks well worth the investment. Audio needs improvement and I think more is on the way.

Tom, great info. Thank you. So really, the only advantage of the web Presenter is the switching ability (assuming same frame rates, etc), but some have reported some bugs. And no real difference between Magwell and aja u-Tap devices, correct?

John, Magwell makes an sdi version of its capture dangle, so we should be able to get the high-end camera and high-end lens.

Yes. That's about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How does the Magwell device allow you to switch between 2 cameras like the BM Web Presenter?

Where did anyone say it does?

The vast majority of users don't need a switch between 2 inputs. Either they have a single camera or they have more complex needs and will want a vision mixer upstream if their capture / streaming solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I use an SDI magewell - and have had no problems with it.

It does the job perfectly.

Driverless - and combined with the Atem HD its a great setup for training videos and presentation / live production.

I considered the Web presenter - but after seeing the current issues - I'm happy I didn't buy one.

I must try OBS - as it looks like a useful lightweight setup for my laptop.

Really would like the web presenter to have the option of 720p or 1080p.

Web cams are 720p, the WP sets its output to simulate at web cam, so 720p it is. 1080p is too wide a bandwidth for most web cam applications like FaceBook Live, or Skype, etc.
Cheers

The issue that I have with the web presenter is that you can already do everything it offers (and more) using OBS. Using OBS gives more flexibility and a higher quality output (at the cost of being a little more complex to configure). The key features of the Web Presenter (Multiple inputs, Scaling, Analog Audio) can all be better achieved in OBS..
Multiple video inputs - just add a capture device for each one you need and mix / fade / transition / pip them as required.
Scale your outgoing video to the format best suited to your CDN whilst you record at your native resolution.
Accept embedded audio alongside analog inputs and select as required.

The Web Presenter just seems like an expensive way to reduce your flexibility.

I have the Web Presenter, and with the newest firmware, it's "ok". It suits my needs for the time being, although there are cheaper options out there. Once Facebook Live accepts 1080, I'll probably move on to something else.

3 years ago, I bought a Magewell. It didn't work worth a crap, and I literally threw it in the trash can in frustration. Maybe they are fine now. Maybe I just got a lousy unit.

I ordered the BMD Web Presenter, and it remained on backorder for a good while. As I was waiting, I kept seeing complaints about the performance of the unit on these forums, and eventually decided to cancel my order.

I picked up 3 of the AJA U-Tap boxes (2xHDSDI & 1xHDMI) and have been very happy with their performance.

We use these when we have to do something like Skype or other teleconferencing software. We end up having to do that format type for live remotes during shows we produce. I will probably get another couple of AJA-UTap HDMI that I can ship out to the remote sites when needed, for them to use with a halfway decent camera. We have also used it once for a Facebook Live stream. They work great, and I have zero complaints. The magewells might also be good now, but I'm not trying them out again, having been burned once.

I'd be interested to know what problem(s) you had with the Magewell - just in case it bites me later !
Did you have HDMI or SDI ?
Be aware that there are "copies" - I know mine is a genuine one ( bought from Magewell ).

Perhaps it was a USB controller problem ?
Anyway more detail would be nice to know - perhaps helpful to others.

Honestly, I don't completely recall. I think it was that the 16:9 720x1280 video would only show up as a 4:3 squeezed image in all software I tried to use it in - as if the box was only recognized by all software as a 4:3 camera source. And it didn't look good. But as I said, I can't 100% recall.

I mainly remember being excited that I had a potentially good solution to get HDSDI into Skype, GoToMeeting, Adobe Connect, etc., and it did not do what it was supposed to do on any of those programs. It, frankly, pissed me off so much that I threw it angrily into the trash can. That part I remember best. Only later did I think to myself . . ."You know, you could have returned that."

Thinking back on it, it was possibly even the fault of Skype, etc., and not the box. Though those programs should have been able to handle 720p, even then. Anyway, I expected much more, and the Magewell was absolutely worthless to the job I had for it.

The AJA U-Taps I am using now, just worked immediately out of the box.

A) My memory isn't very good.
B) As a counter to A, I don't delete emails - or much of anything, for that matter.
C) I forgot a lot of what the problem was with the Magewell, but it turns out, I was pretty thorough with my complaints at the time.

I just did a search in my email to see when I bought that Magewell, and where I got it. Lo and behold, I found a verification email for my product review on B&H. Apparently it was 2 years ago, not 3. I was close in my recollection of it being 4:3 and stretched, but I didn't have it quite right.

This is what I said at the time:

It sort of did work, just badly. The problem is that it automatically cropped the video top and bottom, then stretched the remainder back out to fill the window. I don't know if I got a bad unit, if it is a Mac compatibility thing, or if this is just junk by design. It did automatically sense the unit, it showed up as a web-cam, it was select-able in many programs to use as your camera. But the crop - then stretch thing makes this unusable. I am saddened, as I had high hopes.

tried on Mac OSX10.10 and 10.8.
tried on 3 different macs
tried in Webex, Skype, Facetime, and Quicktime
tried at 1080i29.97, 720p59.94, and 480i29.97
tried different cameras
. . in all cases, it cropped off the top 20% and bottom 20% of the screen, then stretched the remainder out to fill it back in.

At the time, I even made a simulation of what it did to the video, the top is what it should've looked like, and the bottom was what it did look like:




Also . . . . i now recall not liking that it had the miniBNC instead of a regular BNC. I guess others haven't had these issues with it, but it was enough for me to not buy it again. Plus, AJA is very well known for having products that are reliable.

Yes - the MCX connector is a problem totally with you on that.
( I see that Magewell have a new version with a full size BNC and loop thru )

There is a configuration app for setting aspect ratio ( and many other options ) - and yes I had that problem as well - but I think it was all fixed with that app ( or maybe a firmware update ).

Thanks for taking time to point out the issues - I think its very useful for people to have as much info possible to make their purchasing choices.

Sure. This was not long after that product was released. There might have been a firmware update after, but there honestly shouldn't be any software for it since the intent is for it to use UVC/UAC drivers to appear as a simple webcam. It ought to just show up as a camera, and work, without regard to OS or special software. Of course, Skype (or whatever other software you are using) needs to be able to recognize it properly.

This is how the U-Tap worked for me. I plugged it in right out of the box, and it showed up in Skype and gave me a perfectly good and accurate picture and sound. Maybe the Magewells do that now, I have no idea. Obviously the Web Presenter isn't quite yet ready for primetime. Maybe soon.

I'm assuming that the problem with aspect ratio is that SDI doesn't convey that information ?
So you need to tell the Magewell how to present the video to the UVC layer. ( I assume UVC does provide aspect ratio information ).
I think the software is only to configure parameters that the UVC protocol doesn't deal with.
There is no software requirement to provide UVC video.

Interested to know how the AJA copes with that ? Or are there external controls ?

The UVC video standard has that data as a part of the standard. http://avschemadocs.usb.org/v1/avconfiguration.html

SDI may or may not carry that info (not sure, but i think it does). But either way, it always seems pretty easy to obtain, however they do it, as lots of gear will very quickly let you know what frame rate and resolution you are inputting.

So it would then be a matter of translating the info from the SDI to the UVC.

So, it should be working right out of the box, with no need for software modifications, if the unit is designed properly.

Sorry - I should be clearer.
Analog video indicates aspect ratio through the Wide Screen Switching signal ( a Vertical Blanking Interval line ).
SDI can of course represent this in the non visible picture info.
I'm not sure if there is a VANC signal which indicates this.

And yes UVC implements the control channel to set format / colour / contrast etc.

What I'm trying to say is
1. Can the capture device recogise aspect ratio - perhaps through WSS or VANC
2. Can the UVC driver ( device not computer ) then change the data in the UVC control data to correctly represent this when passed to the driver on the computer.
3. Is it valid for the UVC device to change the format without a request from the computer.

There appears to be a lot of opportunity for the process to fail.
Perhaps the AJA does perform this automatically - and the magewell requires manual intervention.

I think it's time I did some tests ( on the magewell ).
I suspect that the magewell ( when Scott had problems ) was set to 14:9 and should have been 16:9

Tom_Bassford wrote:The issue that I have with the web presenter is that you can already do everything it offers (and more) using OBS. Using OBS gives more flexibility and a higher quality output (at the cost of being a little more complex to configure). The key features of the Web Presenter (Multiple inputs, Scaling, Analog Audio) can all be better achieved in OBS..
Multiple video inputs - just add a capture device for each one you need and mix / fade / transition / pip them as required.
Scale your outgoing video to the format best suited to your CDN whilst you record at your native resolution.
Accept embedded audio alongside analog inputs and select as required.

The Web Presenter just seems like an expensive way to reduce your flexibility.

Well not only expensive but I have yet to get one that actually works as advertised. Now sending back number two Web Presenter along with a horror story of sad tech support. I purchased WebCaster but it is not compatible with Web Presenter, so OBS is next and I will probably go with another converter from AJA or Magwell or ? VERY disappointed in BM!

Andy Coulthurst - trimmed wrote:Analog video indicates aspect ratio through the Wide Screen Switching signal ( a Vertical Blanking Interval line ).
SDI can of course represent this in the non visible picture info. . . . . .
What I'm trying to say is
1. Can the capture device recogise aspect ratio - perhaps through WSS or VANC
2. Can the UVC driver ( device not computer ) then change the data in the UVC control data to correctly represent this when passed to the driver on the computer.
3. Is it valid for the UVC device to change the format without a request from the computer.
I suspect that the magewell ( when Scott had problems ) was set to 14:9 and should have been 16:9

I might expect some issue to arise with aspect ratio if you are using software with no control or settings AND you are sending it SD video. But if you are sending the box 1280x720, and there is a setting in Skype for 1280x720, any box that suddenly puts you in some 14:9 aspect ratio is a stupid damned box. Square pixels should be the default in HD resolutions.

The idea behind the UVC driver is that Skype (or whatever software you are using) tells the UVC Camera or box what aspect ratio and number of pixels it should be - or that it properly relays to skype what aspect ratio it already is. If I can plug a camera at 1280 x 720 into a monitor, and it can automatically figure out my aspect ratio and set itself properly, then so should one of these little boxes. You really shouldn't have any potential issues unless you are doing standard def, where the pixels aren't square and the same number of pixels could be 16:9 or 4:3 or some 14:9 crop is desired.

Tom_Bassford wrote:The Web Presenter just seems like an expensive way to reduce your flexibility

Not everything will accept an RTMP stream, unfortunately. Skype for Business (formerly Lync) won't, and when I tried did not play well with a Decklink card. I imagine the Web Presenter is aimed at crippled software without the control professionals need for their gear to work.

Jack Fairley wrote:

Tom_Bassford wrote:The Web Presenter just seems like an expensive way to reduce your flexibility

Not everything will accept an RTMP stream, unfortunately. Skype for Business (formerly Lync) won't, and when I tried did not play well with a Decklink card. I imagine the Web Presenter is aimed at crippled software without the control professionals need for their gear to work.

We are using Skype for Business and have no problem. Very simple; but only doing 1 camera at the moment. Using an Ursa Mini Pro SDI out. Just set Skype Video to use Web Presenter as the camera.

Jack Fairley wrote:

Tom_Bassford wrote:The Web Presenter just seems like an expensive way to reduce your flexibility

Not everything will accept an RTMP stream, unfortunately. Skype for Business (formerly Lync) won't, and when I tried did not play well with a Decklink card. I imagine the Web Presenter is aimed at crippled software without the control professionals need for their gear to work.

Skype will work with any driverless capture device. AJA UTAP / Magewell / BMD Webpresenter.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tom_Bassford wrote:Skype will work with any driverless capture device. AJA UTAP / Magewell / BMD Webpresenter.

Skype should work with any driverless capture device. AJA UTAP / Magewell / BMD Webpresenter.

I fixed that for you.

magewell device is total crap
I had one a year or two ago when i was first starting to stream my switched feed from an ATEM system

Magewell broke in under a month and was no longer recognized by any pc
Support is even worse than Blackmagic Design is you can imagine and they provide no documentation
Not a professional product by any means.

AJA is at least a pro video brand

We've got Magewell USB dongle devices deployed across our enterprise. They work well for Skype, WebEx, Zoom and Panopto. Their PCI devices (that rely on the custom driver) are not necessarily universally supported by all software. Seemingly, it works a fair bit better than the BMD device.

I'd really like the WP to be a success but at this point in time it still isn't ready for prime time use. Whilst the video switching is now better (providing you use devices running the same video resolution and frame rates ) the audio is still a long way off. Having no control over what connection carries the audio and all sources being live at the same time still needs work. Like the others above we use magewell usb and Aja u-tap devices and they work great. The fact you could purchase two for the price of the WP plus panel and run them with OBS to do the same as a WP is where were at.

Andrew Martin wrote:Having no control over what connection carries the audio and all sources being live at the same time still needs work.

Did you get the latest update? I've had the ability to choose audio sources and adjust levels for a while, you just can't easily do it on the fly since it's in the menus. I've heard of people having problems getting the updates but don't know much about it. You might need to look into that.

I think the Magewell's give more flexibility if you've got a powerful computer but for me the compression is what makes the WP worth it, plus it can accept (and output for recording) up to 4K i think. Blackmagic started this one off on the wrong foot so now I reckon it's a hidden gem.

Tim, thanks for the info.
Im fairly certain were on the latest firmware update but I'm not getting the ability to choose one audio input as the dominant connection. Where getting the embedded audio for each camera which comes through, along with the audio from a small mixer we run attached to it.

I'll double check to see what the newest release is..