AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Ivy__'s cam quality on MFC

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 27, 2011
1,218
2,159
213
OK, so first time I saw her tonight... and HOLY SHIT! How the hell does she get her cam quality to be so good? It's practically SM quality while still being on MFC. I know part of it is her lighting setup, but lighting alone doesn't explain the crisp quality seen on her cam.

Seriously, ladies, you need to find out and do it, yourselves. The cam quality compared to even what is normally the best cams on MFC is a world of difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crumb
Oct 16, 2011
559
943
143
Great White North
yeah, her cam quality/feed is far and away better than anything else on MFC
makes me wonder why more models don't replicate it.
 

IsabellaSnow

Cam Model
Feb 3, 2012
4,991
16,109
243
myfreecams!
profiles.myfreecams.com
No idea how she does it, but being in the UK pretty much means I get the butt end of cam quality... Nothing I can do with my lighting etc, it is sheerly that my cam feed is travelling around the world several times and back again just to get to members. Actually... thinking about it and the speed of it makes it pretty remarkable the quality we do get...
 
Dec 27, 2011
1,218
2,159
213
Isabella_deL said:
No idea how she does it, but being in the UK pretty much means I get the butt end of cam quality... Nothing I can do with my lighting etc, it is sheerly that my cam feed is travelling around the world several times and back again just to get to members. Actually... thinking about it and the speed of it makes it pretty remarkable the quality we do get...

Not always true, Isabella. Some Ro and Czech studios have very good cam quality, and they're further into Europe than the UK is. Part of it is your upstream, if it's not that great, your quality will be lower, automatically. So, obviously those EU girls with good quality have good upstream bandwidth. Technically their streams travel at least as far as yours, if not further, unless you are VPNing it, as well.

But I was completely mesmerized by Ivy__'s stream quality. She wasn't even naked and I couldn't take my eyes from it, just wondering how in the ever holy fuck she does it, and can I replicate it with my own cam online and when recording videos from my webcam. :lol:
 

IsabellaSnow

Cam Model
Feb 3, 2012
4,991
16,109
243
myfreecams!
profiles.myfreecams.com
UncleThursday said:
Not always true, Isabella. Some Ro and Czech studios have very good cam quality, and they're further into Europe than the UK is. Part of it is your upstream, if it's not that great, your quality will be lower, automatically. So, obviously those EU girls with good quality have good upstream bandwidth. Technically their streams travel at least as far as yours, if not further, unless you are VPNing it, as well.

Some are fortunate apparently, but I cammed for 6 months with an upload speed of 20, it made as far as I can tell or anyone else can tell 0 difference to my cam quality than having an upload of under 2. It's not on my side, it's MFC. I wonder if maybe certain models get better quality... Maybe if it's studios they run a deal with Mfc for it, I don't know. What I do know is that regardless of what lighting I have my cam quality is dramatically different on Mfc to what it is on Skype/photobooth.

It really amazes me that Myfreecams makes so much money off cam streaming, yet the quality is still so poor. You'd think that'd be the one thing they'd try to make better (and without making it totally crash the site).
 
Dec 27, 2011
1,218
2,159
213
Isabella_deL said:
It really amazes me that Myfreecams makes so much money off cam streaming, yet the quality is still so poor. You'd think that'd be the one thing they'd try to make better (and without making it totally crash the site).

As we joke when I am in the lounges, that would cost money. But if MFC had the same cam quality as Streamate, holy fuck the money they would bring in over top of what they already do. But Leo apparently feels that cam quality is the least of his concerns over other features that get added that add no real value to models or members... even though cam quality would be beneficial to both.

But, then he might also have to pull a SM and give less per token to help maintain the infrastructure.
 
Sep 15, 2010
3,768
7,861
743
Wow, that is pretty awesome for MFC. :clap:

The thing I notice most about model's rooms is sound and lighting, rather than resolution. I have seen independent models, even in Europe, with very limited budgets and basic equipment achieve near-miracles with their rooms, just by doing their homework and experimenting with what they have available. I have no doubt that a bit of technical talent has something to do with it, but mostly it seems to be a result of diligence and an unwillingness to settle for a poor result.

On a related note, I read people elsewhere complaining about, for instance YouTube, and mostly about the compression. But then, you come across some videos that look amazing at low resolution. Go figure. Awesome in, awesome out?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleThursday

IsabellaSnow

Cam Model
Feb 3, 2012
4,991
16,109
243
myfreecams!
profiles.myfreecams.com
UncleThursday said:
Isabella_deL said:
It really amazes me that Myfreecams makes so much money off cam streaming, yet the quality is still so poor. You'd think that'd be the one thing they'd try to make better (and without making it totally crash the site).

As we joke when I am in the lounges, that would cost money. But if MFC had the same cam quality as Streamate, holy fuck the money they would bring in over top of what they already do. But Leo apparently feels that cam quality is the least of his concerns over other features that get added that add no real value to models or members... even though cam quality would be beneficial to both.

But, then he might also have to pull a SM and give less per token to help maintain the infrastructure.

It'd be a tricky thing with Myfreecams, part of why it works is because there's such a high payout. If Leo ever were to put the percentage models take down I would hope it would be because Mfc would have perfect HD streaming and not crash all the time, oh and of course actually hire decent contact support... I think it would work much better if they didn't change how much a token pays the models, but just charged more for token packages.

I'm not sure it'd work on a site like Myfreecams though, which relies a lot on members who genuinely care about the model and want to give her a load of money in bulk. They'd probably be less tempted to do that if Mfc took an even bigger cut. Only way I guess it'd work is if they kept the larger token packages the same price, but made the smaller token packages slightly more expensive. It might encourage members to buy in bulk... but at the same time might alienate newer members...

I don't know, I'd probably except having a lower percentage if my traffic and income increased dramatically. But if with a lower percentage I made around the same amount of money I would rather it be as it is and be able to give more attention to my regulars rather than having to appeal to the crowds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleThursday

SexySteph

Cam Model
Mar 11, 2013
6,053
44,348
293
30
Kansas
sexysteph.net
Twitter Username
@SexyStephMFC
MFC Username
SexySteph
Streamate Username
SexySteph
Clips4Sale URL
http://clips4sale.com/store/61365/stephaniexs
Crumb said:
yeah, her cam quality/feed is far and away better than anything else on MFC
makes me wonder why more models don't replicate it.

Models might not be replicating it because she might be using a REALY expensive webcam. I know there's one for $800 that some people use because it has a remote and I imagine the quality is good too. Or she might have rigged a video camera or DSLR which isn't good for the life of the camera, is really complicated and can force you to replace an expensive piece of equipment very often.

That might be why other models aren't replicating it. I feel like it's a little insulting the way you said that. As if we're all slacking because our feed isn't like hers.
 

JerryBoBerry

V.I.P. AmberLander
Jul 6, 2011
7,100
17,028
793
SexyStephXS said:
Crumb said:
yeah, her cam quality/feed is far and away better than anything else on MFC
makes me wonder why more models don't replicate it.

Models might not be replicating it because she might be using a REALY expensive webcam. I know there's one for $800 that some people use because it has a remote and I imagine the quality is good too. Or she might have rigged a video camera or DSLR which isn't good for the life of the camera, is really complicated and can force you to replace an expensive piece of equipment very often.

That might be why other models aren't replicating it. I feel like it's a little insulting the way you said that. As if we're all slacking because our feed isn't like hers.
She's actually using a c910 or c920. I can't remember which for sure but she showed it on cam one night, it was just the same one most other models are using. But I do know she's got a pretty powerful laptop. Been talking with a friend of mine on mfc in pm's about her cam quality for months. Never been able to figure it out. Even asked about her bandwidth one night. Sounded normal range for most cam models.
 
Sep 15, 2010
3,768
7,861
743
UncleThursday said:
As we joke when I am in the lounges, that would cost money.

Does it cost MFC any more money to broadcast Ivy's stream than any other model's? If Ivy can make her stream look that good on MFC, then it's not MFC that is the problem.
 
Dec 27, 2011
1,218
2,159
213
SexyStephXS said:
Models might not be replicating it because she might be using a REALY expensive webcam. I know there's one for $800 that some people use because it has a remote and I imagine the quality is good too. Or she might have rigged a video camera or DSLR which isn't good for the life of the camera, is really complicated and can force you to replace an expensive piece of equipment very often.

That might be why other models aren't replicating it. I feel like it's a little insulting the way you said that. As if we're all slacking because our feed isn't like hers.

Those $800 cams are also used by studios for the remotes. But on MFC they don't get up to that quality. One Ro studio girl I know, when we went Skype, though, had a supremely better cam quality on Skype as opposed to MFC, and her MFC stream is one of the better ones.

JerryBoBerry said:
She's actually using a c910 or c920. I can't remember which for sure but she showed it on cam one night, it was just the same one most other models are using. But I do know she's got a pretty powerful laptop. Been talking with a friend of mine on mfc in pm's about her cam quality for months. Never been able to figure it out. Even asked about her bandwidth one night. Sounded normal range for most cam models.

Yes, there's even an emote her regulars made for it. Emote code is :weknow ... Apparently when people comment about her quality in the room, her regs just claim it's her c910 or c920, whichever it is. But, I know lots of models who use c910 or c920 cams, and none of them come close to her quality on MFC. For those models on SM and MFC that use those cams, yes, on SM the quality is much better using just those cams.

Since MFC and SM use different codecs, and SM's uses more bandwidth, you get a better stream from the models on SM. Kittywilde's cam I have personally seen on SM and it is like night and day compared to her MFC stream. I have heard LacieLaPlante's SM quality is also worlds better on SM compared to her MFC stream.

So, it isn't just her cam and she didn't spend a fuckton of money on her cam. It might be a powerful laptop, but I don't think that is just it, either. My iMac was pretty powerful when I got it, and still isn't a slouch, but even with a HD cam, I can't get that quality when streaming, or even just recording videos of me talking for my YouTube. Obviously, my lack of a decent lighting setup hurts, there, too; and I only have a c615, not a c910 or c920.

She might be using software to filter out the noise and stuff, but I'll be damned if I know which software. Or how much it costs... but I don't think it's too expensive. I can't see anyone spending thousands on some software with no guarantee it will bring its money back fairly quickly. There is a reason that software like Adobe's is some of the most pirated out there, after all... it's too expensive for regular users to consider getting unless they are professionals in the graphics/editing fields already and know they will get a good return on their investment.

Sevrin said:
UncleThursday said:
As we joke when I am in the lounges, that would cost money.

Does it cost MFC any more money to broadcast Ivy's stream than any other model's? If Ivy can make her stream look that good on MFC, then it's not MFC that is the problem.

The extra bandwidth would cost money, obviously. But, if she's doing it on her end through software, then it might not actually take all that much extra bandwidth if the software is using good compression techniques to keep the quality high while keeping the bandwidth low (like a h.264 codec or something).

It's just something I think would help some of the models on here and across the site, overall. I've seen many pretty girls that I just can't watch because their cams are horrible. I know others with decent cam quality on MFC, then when we talk on Skype it's like WOAH worlds better. If the models on here and not on here could use similar techniques to up their cam quality, then they may see increased traffic and income. And that would make members and models happier in the long run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
Sep 15, 2010
3,768
7,861
743
UncleThursday said:
Sevrin said:
Does it cost MFC any more money to broadcast Ivy's stream than any other model's? If Ivy can make her stream look that good on MFC, then it's not MFC that is the problem.

The extra bandwidth would cost money, obviously. But, if she's doing it on her end through software, then it might not actually take all that much extra bandwidth if the software is using good compression techniques to keep the quality high while keeping the bandwidth low (like a h.264 codec or something).

It wasn't a hypothetical question. MFC, in its current configuation, is broadcasting Ivy's stream. Is MFC doing anything special for Ivy that they are not doing for other models with an HD feed that would make it more expensive for them to broadcast her stream?
 
Oct 16, 2011
559
943
143
Great White North
SexyStephXS said:
Crumb said:
yeah, her cam quality/feed is far and away better than anything else on MFC
makes me wonder why more models don't replicate it.

Models might not be replicating it because she might be using a REALY expensive webcam. I know there's one for $800 that some people use because it has a remote and I imagine the quality is good too. Or she might have rigged a video camera or DSLR which isn't good for the life of the camera, is really complicated and can force you to replace an expensive piece of equipment very often.

That might be why other models aren't replicating it. I feel like it's a little insulting the way you said that. As if we're all slacking because our feed isn't like hers.
no offence was intended. my apologies.
but she isn't using a super expensive cam (as uncle pointed out)... I know another non studio model in the US that has used one of the expensive remote cams and still her stream wasn't as good as Ivy's.

is Ivy on these boards? can she chime in on this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SexySteph
Jul 17, 2011
1,178
1,665
213
What about location? I checked her profile and it just says United States. Is it possible she is located near where the MFC servers are located? I do not know if that would make as much of a difference as has been noted here. Computer is a possibility. If it is a powerful and not a low end laptop, maybe she makes sure nothing else is running in the background, including anti-viral software, while she is camming?

So many variables but I will have to check it out next time she is on to see if I notice that much of a difference.
 
Dec 27, 2011
1,218
2,159
213
Sevrin said:
UncleThursday said:
Sevrin said:
Does it cost MFC any more money to broadcast Ivy's stream than any other model's? If Ivy can make her stream look that good on MFC, then it's not MFC that is the problem.

The extra bandwidth would cost money, obviously. But, if she's doing it on her end through software, then it might not actually take all that much extra bandwidth if the software is using good compression techniques to keep the quality high while keeping the bandwidth low (like a h.264 codec or something).

It wasn't a hypothetical question. MFC, in its current configuation, is broadcasting Ivy's stream. Is MFC doing anything special for Ivy that they are not doing for other models with an HD feed that would make it more expensive for them to broadcast her stream?

I truly doubt they are. She has a high camscore, but its not like she is #1 every month, where they would consider giving her a special stream boost or anything because of how much she earns for the site with random people buying tokens to spend on her. I really think most of the work is being done on her end, and the final stream out is just such good quality that even MFC's pretty craptacular Flash encoding can't mess it up.

Just Me said:
What about location? I checked her profile and it just says United States. Is it possible she is located near where the MFC servers are located? I do not know if that would make as much of a difference as has been noted here. Computer is a possibility. If it is a powerful and not a low end laptop, maybe she makes sure nothing else is running in the background, including anti-viral software, while she is camming?

So many variables but I will have to check it out next time she is on to see if I notice that much of a difference.

I think I heard her say she was in Cali. And MFC is in Chicago, I believe. But, even so, SarahJean is in Chicago, thus being practically right on top of the servers; and her cam quality is pretty much the normal quality you find on MFC. So, I don't think distance to the server is a mitigating factor. If it was, SarahJean and any other Chicago models would all have fantastic streams while everyone else would get lower quality the further from Chicago they were.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sevrin
Mar 8, 2012
119
294
123
twitter.com
UncleThursday said:
I think I heard her say she was in Cali. And MFC is in Chicago, I believe. But, even so, SarahJean is in Chicago, thus being practically right on top of the servers; and her cam quality is pretty much the normal quality you find on MFC. So, I don't think distance to the server is a mitigating factor. If it was, SarahJean and any other Chicago models would all have fantastic streams while everyone else would get lower quality the further from Chicago they were.

MFC's headquarters are near Chicago, but the servers are in Washington state. Reference:

http://wiki.myfreecams.com/wiki/Technical_Help

But it's bandwidth and latency to the server that matters, not physical location.
 
Aug 28, 2013
49
69
101
I'm pretty sure it's just her cam settings.

For instance, on my crappy, aged external Orbit 1.2mp webcam, it will look just like most mfc girls' webcams when set to manual mode in preferences, very grainy but great frames per second.

However, as soon as I enable 'auto' mode for exposure, etc...it instantly transforms into a completely different webcam, and the output is high definition. However, the auto mode requires I have exceptional lighting or it under exposes and the stream is very choppy/laggy.

I'm pretty sure it's just her mastering the webcam settings and nothing more. There are actually several other select models who have near her cam quality, namely Esmeralda Bel and Astrokittie. But Ivy's just looks a lot more dramatic due to her always being close up to the cam (picks up details a lot clearer) and her bedroom lighting.

You'd be surprised how many established mfc models still don't even know how to access their webcam properties, or have bothered to (when asked). Some frankly just don't care, so long as members keep tipping.

Either way, it's awesome, and I wish more models would follow suit.
 

Jessi

Deactivated Account
Inactive Cam Model
May 17, 2011
5,897
25,605
293
Twitter Username
@JessiDeer
MFC Username
JessiDeer
ManyVids URL
https://www.manyvids.com/Profile/43191/JessiDeer/
rwesmill said:
I'm pretty sure it's just her cam settings.

For instance, on my crappy, aged external Orbit 1.2mp webcam, it will look just like most mfc girls' webcams when set to manual mode in preferences, very grainy but great frames per second.

However, as soon as I enable 'auto' mode for exposure, etc...it instantly transforms into a completely different webcam, and the output is high definition. However, the auto mode requires I have exceptional lighting or it under exposes and the stream is very choppy/laggy.

I'm pretty sure it's just her mastering the webcam settings and nothing more. There are actually several other select models who have near her cam quality, namely Esmeralda Bel and Astrokittie. But Ivy's just looks a lot more dramatic due to her always being close up to the cam (picks up details a lot clearer) and her bedroom lighting.

You'd be surprised how many established mfc models still don't even know how to access their webcam properties, or have bothered to (when asked). Some frankly just don't care, so long as members keep tipping.

Either way, it's awesome, and I wish more models would follow suit.

Putting my webcam on auto is a huge mistake, it can't seem to compensate for the amount of light I throw at it and always looks over exposed.
Sure, I can get my camera to look ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, great light, exposure, 1080p etc. But as soon as I hit broadcast, MFC can't seem to handle it and it lags like crazy.

Putting the webcam on auto or broadcasting in true HD doesn't seem to be the solution here.
 
Dec 27, 2011
1,218
2,159
213
Jessi said:
rwesmill said:
I'm pretty sure it's just her cam settings.

For instance, on my crappy, aged external Orbit 1.2mp webcam, it will look just like most mfc girls' webcams when set to manual mode in preferences, very grainy but great frames per second.

However, as soon as I enable 'auto' mode for exposure, etc...it instantly transforms into a completely different webcam, and the output is high definition. However, the auto mode requires I have exceptional lighting or it under exposes and the stream is very choppy/laggy.

I'm pretty sure it's just her mastering the webcam settings and nothing more. There are actually several other select models who have near her cam quality, namely Esmeralda Bel and Astrokittie. But Ivy's just looks a lot more dramatic due to her always being close up to the cam (picks up details a lot clearer) and her bedroom lighting.

You'd be surprised how many established mfc models still don't even know how to access their webcam properties, or have bothered to (when asked). Some frankly just don't care, so long as members keep tipping.

Either way, it's awesome, and I wish more models would follow suit.

Putting my webcam on auto is a huge mistake, it can't seem to compensate for the amount of light I throw at it and always looks over exposed.
Sure, I can get my camera to look ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, great light, exposure, 1080p etc. But as soon as I hit broadcast, MFC can't seem to handle it and it lags like crazy.

Putting the webcam on auto or broadcasting in true HD doesn't seem to be the solution here.

I think part of the problem is MFC doesn't do true HD streaming video. I think its just 640x480 instead of 320x240 resolution. So streaming true HD it just can't handle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna

JerryBoBerry

V.I.P. AmberLander
Jul 6, 2011
7,100
17,028
793
UncleThursday said:
I think part of the problem is MFC doesn't do true HD streaming video. I think its just 640x480 instead of 320x240 resolution. So streaming true HD it just can't handle.
You mean they ARE 320X240 right? I just checked all my privates, that's the resolution of all of them.
 

Jessi

Deactivated Account
Inactive Cam Model
May 17, 2011
5,897
25,605
293
Twitter Username
@JessiDeer
MFC Username
JessiDeer
ManyVids URL
https://www.manyvids.com/Profile/43191/JessiDeer/
JerryBoBerry said:
UncleThursday said:
I think part of the problem is MFC doesn't do true HD streaming video. I think its just 640x480 instead of 320x240 resolution. So streaming true HD it just can't handle.
You mean they ARE 320X240 right? I just checked all my privates, that's the resolution of all of them.

Shit, I thought they were 640x480, thats what I have always set my cam to
 
Aug 28, 2013
49
69
101
Jessi said:
rwesmill said:
I'm pretty sure it's just her cam settings.

For instance, on my crappy, aged external Orbit 1.2mp webcam, it will look just like most mfc girls' webcams when set to manual mode in preferences, very grainy but great frames per second.

However, as soon as I enable 'auto' mode for exposure, etc...it instantly transforms into a completely different webcam, and the output is high definition. However, the auto mode requires I have exceptional lighting or it under exposes and the stream is very choppy/laggy.

I'm pretty sure it's just her mastering the webcam settings and nothing more. There are actually several other select models who have near her cam quality, namely Esmeralda Bel and Astrokittie. But Ivy's just looks a lot more dramatic due to her always being close up to the cam (picks up details a lot clearer) and her bedroom lighting.

You'd be surprised how many established mfc models still don't even know how to access their webcam properties, or have bothered to (when asked). Some frankly just don't care, so long as members keep tipping.

Either way, it's awesome, and I wish more models would follow suit.

Putting my webcam on auto is a huge mistake, it can't seem to compensate for the amount of light I throw at it and always looks over exposed.
Sure, I can get my camera to look ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, great light, exposure, 1080p etc. But as soon as I hit broadcast, MFC can't seem to handle it and it lags like crazy.

Putting the webcam on auto or broadcasting in true HD doesn't seem to be the solution here.

Oh, I totally don't doubt you. But I think it may be a situation of playing with a combination of webcam settings. Fullscreening Ivy's webcam, it is still extremely clear, which leads me to believe she is using the webcam in 1080p HD, and MFC is simply downconverting the stream to native 320x with very little artifacting/compression.

I have noticed with certain models that their webcam can indicate 'HD' on one day and be quite clear, then the next day it won't be broadcasted on MFC with the 'HD' indicator and noticeably more grainy/pixelated. I'll ask the model what they did and each time they mention they didn't touch anything and just logged on as normal.

This indicates to me mfc most likely is still very glitchy with their HD implementation and perhaps doesn't play as nicely with certain webcams/drivers and/or properly detecting a models' connection speed. If memory serves correctly the 'hd' indicator wasn't introduced until sometime last year.


I'd be really interested to know if Ivy would be willing to divulge more details, such as the exact driver version she's using with her webcam, as well as a screenshot of her webcam properties settings...and finally, if she uses any 3rd party cam software such as Manycams.

I still think it's a settings/software issue, and hopefully with a little more info for her it might lead other models in the right direction. I highly doubt she's the only one with a traditional HD cam and decent cable connection out there.
 

Jessi

Deactivated Account
Inactive Cam Model
May 17, 2011
5,897
25,605
293
Twitter Username
@JessiDeer
MFC Username
JessiDeer
ManyVids URL
https://www.manyvids.com/Profile/43191/JessiDeer/
rwesmill said:
Jessi said:
rwesmill said:
I'm pretty sure it's just her cam settings.

For instance, on my crappy, aged external Orbit 1.2mp webcam, it will look just like most mfc girls' webcams when set to manual mode in preferences, very grainy but great frames per second.

However, as soon as I enable 'auto' mode for exposure, etc...it instantly transforms into a completely different webcam, and the output is high definition. However, the auto mode requires I have exceptional lighting or it under exposes and the stream is very choppy/laggy.

I'm pretty sure it's just her mastering the webcam settings and nothing more. There are actually several other select models who have near her cam quality, namely Esmeralda Bel and Astrokittie. But Ivy's just looks a lot more dramatic due to her always being close up to the cam (picks up details a lot clearer) and her bedroom lighting.

You'd be surprised how many established mfc models still don't even know how to access their webcam properties, or have bothered to (when asked). Some frankly just don't care, so long as members keep tipping.

Either way, it's awesome, and I wish more models would follow suit.

Putting my webcam on auto is a huge mistake, it can't seem to compensate for the amount of light I throw at it and always looks over exposed.
Sure, I can get my camera to look ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, great light, exposure, 1080p etc. But as soon as I hit broadcast, MFC can't seem to handle it and it lags like crazy.

Putting the webcam on auto or broadcasting in true HD doesn't seem to be the solution here.

Oh, I totally don't doubt you. But I think it may be a situation of playing with a combination of webcam settings. Fullscreening Ivy's webcam, it is still extremely clear, which leads me to believe she is using the webcam in 1080p HD, and MFC is simply downconverting the stream to native 320x with very little artifacting/compression.

I have noticed with certain models that their webcam can indicate 'HD' on one day and be quite clear, then the next day it won't be broadcasted on MFC with the 'HD' indicator and noticeably more grainy/pixelated. I'll ask the model what they did and each time they mention they didn't touch anything and just logged on as normal.

This indicates to me mfc most likely is still very glitchy with their HD implementation and perhaps doesn't play as nicely with certain webcams/drivers or or properly detecting a models' connection speed. If memory serves correctly the 'hd' indicator wasn't introduced until sometime last year.


I'd be really interested to know if Ivy would be willing to divulge more details, such as the exact driver version she's using with her webcam, as a screenshot of her webcam properties settings...and finally, if she uses any 3rd party cam software such as Manycams.

I still think it's a settings/software issue, and hopefully with a little more info for her it might lead other models in the right direction. I highly doubt she's the only one with a traditional HD cam and decent cable connection out there.

Models can set their cam to "HD" mode and new "beta video" in the settings, just in case you want to tell your model friends how to fix it.

I don't see why MFC would have no trouble downgrading & broadcasting her HD webcam, but not mine (for example) when I give my cam tons of light and have a great connection.
 
Aug 28, 2013
49
69
101
Jessi said:
rwesmill said:
Jessi said:
rwesmill said:
I'm pretty sure it's just her cam settings.

For instance, on my crappy, aged external Orbit 1.2mp webcam, it will look just like most mfc girls' webcams when set to manual mode in preferences, very grainy but great frames per second.

However, as soon as I enable 'auto' mode for exposure, etc...it instantly transforms into a completely different webcam, and the output is high definition. However, the auto mode requires I have exceptional lighting or it under exposes and the stream is very choppy/laggy.

I'm pretty sure it's just her mastering the webcam settings and nothing more. There are actually several other select models who have near her cam quality, namely Esmeralda Bel and Astrokittie. But Ivy's just looks a lot more dramatic due to her always being close up to the cam (picks up details a lot clearer) and her bedroom lighting.

You'd be surprised how many established mfc models still don't even know how to access their webcam properties, or have bothered to (when asked). Some frankly just don't care, so long as members keep tipping.

Either way, it's awesome, and I wish more models would follow suit.

Putting my webcam on auto is a huge mistake, it can't seem to compensate for the amount of light I throw at it and always looks over exposed.
Sure, I can get my camera to look ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, great light, exposure, 1080p etc. But as soon as I hit broadcast, MFC can't seem to handle it and it lags like crazy.

Putting the webcam on auto or broadcasting in true HD doesn't seem to be the solution here.

Oh, I totally don't doubt you. But I think it may be a situation of playing with a combination of webcam settings. Fullscreening Ivy's webcam, it is still extremely clear, which leads me to believe she is using the webcam in 1080p HD, and MFC is simply downconverting the stream to native 320x with very little artifacting/compression.

I have noticed with certain models that their webcam can indicate 'HD' on one day and be quite clear, then the next day it won't be broadcasted on MFC with the 'HD' indicator and noticeably more grainy/pixelated. I'll ask the model what they did and each time they mention they didn't touch anything and just logged on as normal.

This indicates to me mfc most likely is still very glitchy with their HD implementation and perhaps doesn't play as nicely with certain webcams/drivers or or properly detecting a models' connection speed. If memory serves correctly the 'hd' indicator wasn't introduced until sometime last year.


I'd be really interested to know if Ivy would be willing to divulge more details, such as the exact driver version she's using with her webcam, as a screenshot of her webcam properties settings...and finally, if she uses any 3rd party cam software such as Manycams.

I still think it's a settings/software issue, and hopefully with a little more info for her it might lead other models in the right direction. I highly doubt she's the only one with a traditional HD cam and decent cable connection out there.

Models can set their cam to "HD" mode and new "beta video" in the settings, just in case you want to tell your model friends how to fix it.

I don't see why MFC would have no trouble downgrading & broadcasting her HD webcam, but not mine (for example) when I give my cam tons of light and have a great connection.

Well sheesh, thank you for the info. I completely did not know that was a clickable option, but it now makes sense...as I did take a particular model private and asked her why her cam was not in HD as usual. She told me 'I'll enable it in private just for you, but don't do it in public because it lags some peoples' computers.'

I'd always assumed it was just her webcam settings, but I guess mfc has their own implementation as well.

Yeah, I'm going to try and eek out some information from Ivy in a polite mfc mail if she ever gets a few seconds. Hopefully she'll reply and I'll share back my findings...MFC should really be more pro-active with their model broadcasting documentation, as there ARE many girls out there looking to give their members the best viewing experience possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna and Sevrin
Dec 27, 2011
1,218
2,159
213
She's in her tub right now, and the quality is still phenomenal. So it's not just lighting and such.
Jessi said:
JerryBoBerry said:
UncleThursday said:
I think part of the problem is MFC doesn't do true HD streaming video. I think its just 640x480 instead of 320x240 resolution. So streaming true HD it just can't handle.
You mean they ARE 320X240 right? I just checked all my privates, that's the resolution of all of them.

Shit, I thought they were 640x480, thats what I have always set my cam to

I thought the regular stream was only 320x240 and MFC's HD option was just a doubling of the resolution to 640x480. Amber might know more, though. She normally seems pretty up to date on what the model broadcaster can do and such, thanks to her due diligence and testing.

rwesmill said:
Oh, I totally don't doubt you. But I think it may be a situation of playing with a combination of webcam settings. Fullscreening Ivy's webcam, it is still extremely clear, which leads me to believe she is using the webcam in 1080p HD, and MFC is simply downconverting the stream to native 320x with very little artifacting/compression.

I have noticed with certain models that their webcam can indicate 'HD' on one day and be quite clear, then the next day it won't be broadcasted on MFC with the 'HD' indicator and noticeably more grainy/pixelated. I'll ask the model what they did and each time they mention they didn't touch anything and just logged on as normal.

This indicates to me mfc most likely is still very glitchy with their HD implementation and perhaps doesn't play as nicely with certain webcams/drivers and/or properly detecting a models' connection speed. If memory serves correctly the 'hd' indicator wasn't introduced until sometime last year.


I'd be really interested to know if Ivy would be willing to divulge more details, such as the exact driver version she's using with her webcam, as well as a screenshot of her webcam properties settings...and finally, if she uses any 3rd party cam software such as Manycams.

I still think it's a settings/software issue, and hopefully with a little more info for her it might lead other models in the right direction. I highly doubt she's the only one with a traditional HD cam and decent cable connection out there.

I actually know a model or two who use HD webcams but can't find the HD enabling option. Their cams still look good, but at least one of them is also using splitcam between her cam and the software. I am pretty sure she is using the web broadcaster, too, so the HD option should be there. c920 cam on her, but she said she heard that the 910 might actually work better on MFC. I dunno.

But, yes, MFC is still glitchy with its HD option. I did a private with a girl when it was first implemented and she was using it, and MFC didn't save the archive. It also doesn't always seem to save in the model's settings, making some girls apear in good streams one day, then the next it isn't checked and they look horrible.

Jessi said:
Models can set their cam to "HD" mode and new "beta video" in the settings, just in case you want to tell your model friends how to fix it.

I don't see why MFC would have no trouble downgrading & broadcasting her HD webcam, but not mine (for example) when I give my cam tons of light and have a great connection.

Ironically, Jessi, she doesn't use tons of light. she uses a mix of soft back and front lighting it seems, but there's a decent amount of natural shadow in her cam. Next time she isn't nakie I'll cap a pic of it to show you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna

Alisa

Cam Model
Jan 23, 2013
1,721
8,141
213
I don't believe her stream quality has anything to do with her pc specs. My desktop which I use for camming is a high end gaming power bomb and in combination with my c920 and 4mb upload it gives out medium quality stream on MFC. It looks way better on SM though. I should test my friends 8 cored laptop once but I don't think anything will change. :twocents-02cents:
 
Dec 27, 2011
1,218
2,159
213
Here's a pic of her lighting for you, Jessi.



EDIT: It's not appearing to be a lot of light, but still moving smooth as silk.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2013-09-10 at 11.47.13 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2013-09-10 at 11.47.13 PM.png
    220.8 KB · Views: 230
Aug 28, 2013
49
69
101
UncleThursday said:
Here's a pic of her lighting for you, Jessi.



EDIT: It's not appearing to be a lot of light, but still moving smooth as silk.

That's really the thing that gets me. Almost always, indoor lighting will result in webcams and cameras in general overcompensating with higher ISO in order to capture full detail. Hers is always smooth as silk, I'm guessing a good 60fps or higher.

Still no reply on my mfc mail kindly asking for her settings, but if she ever does, I shall report back. She's definitely got this thing down to a science.
 

Nordling

V.I.P. AmberLander
May 17, 2011
12,273
10,945
893
Pacific Northwest
Twitter Username
@Norderling
The resolution seems great for MFC, but her room's color appears to be almost monochromatic--sepia at best. Does her room really not contain objects with greens or blues?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WickedTouch
Status
Not open for further replies.