The example video clips in the post look nothing like me and my team's view when using the new feature. Most of the time half of our hair gets blurred or replaced and hand gestures will cause either our hands or head to disappear.
In my experience, it doesn’t completely cover the background most of the time, and if you move at all, as you point out, it can’t keep up.
Kind of funny to see Google engineering blogging about it when it feels extremely half baked.
This makes me sad, because in all other areas, I think Meet excels well beyond the competition.
EDIT: removed my general sentiment on Google
I've always wondered what proportion of modern real-time video effects rely on ML vs. classical image processing; this not only answers that question, but provides details down to the level of model architecture and the final latency and IOU benchmarks.
Of course I'd be more interested to read how Zoom manages to do even better, but I'm not holding my breath for them to publish those details.
ML is a classical tool for image processing, what do you mean here?
is it _better_ than zoom tho? I my experience, I don't see much of an improvement worth switching.
Background blur doesn't seem available in Firefox on Ubuntu unfortunately :(
Zoom is the verb now.
Zoom it's "Download this, install it, wait for it to come up...", and forget trying to get someone to use the web version.
Disclosure: I work in Google Cloud, but not in Meet.
You can also join by phone, at least in some circumstances.
You can't change the layout in browser though.
The other thing I've noticed is the background blur absolutely annihilates my CPU. To the point where I would rather just turn off my camera if I don't want my background visible.