[HN Gopher] Why webcams aren't good enough
___________________________________________________________________
Why webcams aren't good enough
Author : rcarmo
Score : 170 points
Date : 2021-01-22 07:54 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (reincubate.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (reincubate.com)
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| Just the other day a user in my problem validation platform
| posted 'Make entry level webcam better'[1], the main gripe being
| 10 year old Logitech C270 still being sold at a higher price
| while improvements in smartphone cameras are being made every 6
| months.
|
| Posts like these seems to confirm that there's a real need gap
| for a good quality webcam. Any of you working on solving this? or
| have ideas?
|
| [1]https://needgap.com/problems/185-make-entry-level-webcam-
| bet... (Disclaimer: It's a problem validation platform I
| created).
| tantalor wrote:
| What is a "problem validation platform"?
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| A place where people who face problem needing commercial
| solution, makers who are solving/want to solve such problems
| can participate in constructive discussions to make products
| which people want.
|
| Problems are the first class citizen at needgap[1] as
| problems are something which exists now unlike an startup
| idea which becomes real only when executed and a startup
| could be made out of it.
|
| If you're interested in why I had to create it, I've detailed
| it in 'Startup ideas vs Problems'[2].
|
| [1]https://needgap.com/problems/5-needgap-submit-problems-
| for-s...
|
| [2]https://hitstartup.com/startup-ideas-vs-problems/
| kube-system wrote:
| Why does that validate the idea that people need a better
| quality camera? If anything, I feel like logitech's success
| despite their stagnation validates that most people are
| satisfied with acceptable quality.
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| >Why does that validate the idea that people need a better
| quality camera?
|
| I feel it validates the _problem /needgap_ because this is
| the 4th time in <30 days I'm seeing someone complain about
| the lack of good quality webcam (3 on HN, 1 on needgap) plus
| DSLR makers (e.g.cannon) rushing to enable webcam support for
| their cameras using firmware/software and releasing it while
| still in alpha.
|
| >I feel like logitech's success despite their stagnation
| validates that most people are satisfied with acceptable
| quality.
|
| Market share with stagnated technology has never stopped a
| new product with better technology disrupting the market
| before, otherwise we still probably would have been using
| Nokia brick phones.
| guenthert wrote:
| Hmmh, I couldn't care less about webcams. I'm not that pretty and
| not all that eager to share the interior of my dwelling. I do
| however care about sound quality. With my accent and mumbling I
| need all the help I can get. Others reported that the camera in
| their phone beats most webcams, but what about the
| microphone(-array)? The sound quality of phablets hasn't quite
| won me over. Is there anything better available, short of
| equipment for professional musicians?
| NationalPark wrote:
| I think it's pretty important for professional conversations.
| We communicate an enormous amount of information through our
| facial expressions and body language and seeing the person who
| is speaking is important for understanding their tone
| correctly. Have you ever been in a video call where one person
| isn't on camera? It's really weird and awkward.
| mech422 wrote:
| I'm in exactly the same boat...
|
| I use a SteelSeries Arctis wireless (2.4Ghz!!) headset. Makes a
| huge difference for group calls. Also, 2.4G headsets have a
| HUGE range. I can go from my office, outside for a smoke or
| anywhere in the house. I really like them!
| kurizu4444 wrote:
| before going into lockdown I got the Rode NT usb mini:
| https://www.bestbuy.com/site/rde-microphone-nt-usb-mini/6406...
|
| I HIGHLY recommend getting a 10$ boom-arm from amazon and using
| that to get the microphone closer to your face. I have this
| setup and my coworkers say I sound like a radio host because
| the quality is so good.
|
| All for 115$... single best investment I made in lockdown.
| mikestew wrote:
| I'm an amateur musician with a USB audio interface, several
| hundred dollars worth of microphones (though for office work,
| it's just the Shure SM27 condenser), and wired set of good
| headphones. And it is glorious. Until everyone got used to it,
| I got consistent compliments on the sound quality. You'll sound
| like a radio DJ. Because everything is wired, latency is
| minimal and a lot less of "okay, go head. No, go ahead..."
|
| Now, that's a lot of money and fiddling. Bang-for-the-buck IMO
| is the already-mentioned Blue Yeti, along with a wired set of
| headphones (anything, just wired, and not coming out of the
| speakers to take the load off the DSP feedback cancelling). So,
| prolly $150 total? Point being, if you use just a wired mic and
| headphones of _any_ quality, you 're loads ahead in sound
| quality of those using the built-in mic and speakers on their
| laptop (or worse, their phone).
| nine_k wrote:
| How do you connect all this to the computer? A typical PC has
| a single TRSS analog socket.
|
| Do you use some USB interface that accept a separate
| microphone and a separate headphones jacks? If you do, any
| advice on what to look for and what to avoid?
| mikestew wrote:
| It's the "USB audio interface" part of my list. Take
| multiple inputs, do some processing onboard, send it down a
| single USB cable to the computer. It will take anywhere
| from 1 to 4/8/16 XLR/line/instrument inputs, with headphone
| out and monitoring of inputs. Here's what I use:
|
| https://motu.com/en-us/products/m-series/m2/
|
| It's overkill for online meetings, in that many of its
| features will go unused. It's a well-built box, though,
| with better build quality than the (cheaper) Presonus it
| replaced. If there's just one mic or input, and some
| headphone output, then something like this would be less
| expensive (and less to fiddle with):
|
| https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/UM2usb--
| behringer-u-...
|
| That's the first single input, inexpensive audio interface
| I found on Sweetwater; just an example, not a
| recommendation.
|
| Add to that a cheeeeaaap dynamic mic:
|
| https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/XM8500--behringer-
| xm...
|
| Now, for under $100 (surely you have some wired headphone
| lying around) you'll sound better than 95% of everyone else
| in online meetings. That's why I have no recommendation or
| ones to avoid, because for _online meetings_ all it has to
| do is what it says on the tin to be better than what you
| 've got now, and "good enough" for online meetings. If
| you're into music, then we can talk about which one is
| better over another (and frankly, I'm not the one to ask).
| Grakel wrote:
| Motu M2 works like a charm.
| u678u wrote:
| I always thought a headset is better than external mike as
| you can move around and dont get background noise. Is there a
| reason not to use a headset mic?
|
| Half my team use speakerphones and it drives me nuts.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _I always thought a headset is better than external
| mike..._
|
| It is, because users don't have to worry about mic
| technique or having a studio-quality room.
| mikestew wrote:
| The only concern I generally have with microphones for the
| vast majority of my life is music. Only recently have I
| concerned myself with the sound quality of online meetings.
| :) Meaning I'm not the best to ask, but maybe better than
| anyone else you know. But again, I think anything that's
| wired with microphone that doesn't have to deal with what
| comes out of speakers (feedback) is going to be a big
| improvement, even headsets. And moving around is a factor,
| as I'm leashed to my desk (though with a long enough
| headphone cable extension that I can work the resistance
| bands during long meetings). If I were worried about
| background noise, I could switch to a dynamic microphone.
|
| Anyway, if you've got a headset you're happy with and no
| one complains, I'd just use that if it were me. Again, I've
| got the "good stuff" lying around already, so I just use
| that. I would not recommend anyone else go that road unless
| they have other uses for the gear.
| defanor wrote:
| I was under the impression that dynamic microphones are much
| more suitable for non-studio settings, where echoes and other
| noises happen, as well as for regular speech, not music (and
| that they are actually used on radio stations). And XLR
| dynamic ones can be connected to a computer even with just an
| XLR-to-TRRS cable, not requiring phantom power. Or a proper
| audio interface if one wishes to, not something built into a
| microphone. Do you have any experience with those, and/or
| reasons to prefer condenser microphones for speech?
| mikestew wrote:
| The only reason that I use the condenser is precisely
| because it will pick up my voice without having to shove my
| face into the mic. Yeah, it picks up my dog barking in the
| other room. I only used that as an example of what I've got
| in my office, not as a recommendation. There are a ton of
| different condenser mics with different patterns, etc.,
| too. But remember, I'm overloading music stuff for MS Teams
| meetings. I make no claim that it's optimal, just easy for
| what I've got plugged into the desk.
|
| But yeah, for most folks a dynamic is fine, cheaper, and
| more sturdy. Or a Blue Yeti USB mic. My point wasn't to
| drill into the details and offer a recommendation, though,
| other than "wire your stuff, and you'll be loads ahead".
| What is on the other end of those wires is a separate
| discussion. And I'm probably not the one to lead that
| discussion. (I'm a musician, not an orator.)
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| You need a mic preamp somewhere in the signal chain.
|
| Sadly, many manufacturers have been pushing "USB mics",
| which bundle the preamp and an analog->digital converter
| into the mic body, and they've been very successful at
| marketing/selling these devices.
|
| I say sadly because these devices violate rule #1 of
| digital audio: there should only be 1 sample clock. The
| moment you start using these mics in combination with any
| other digital audio stream (e.g. playback via the builtin
| or some other audio interface), there are now at least 2
| sample clocks, creating the requirement that some software
| layer does resampling to keep things in sync.
|
| Much better to just get a cheap "proper" audio interface,
| skip the USB mic option, and use a "real" (analog) mic.
|
| I leave the condenser/dynamic question for someone else.
| bradfa wrote:
| Got any recommendations on "proper" audio interfaces
| which are reasonably affordable?
| ghostpepper wrote:
| Not the OP but I've been very happy with Scarlett
| Focusrite, both for video calling and hobbyist-level
| guitar recording
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| More or less any USB interface that is less than 8 years
| old will work across all major operating systems. You
| will find lots for sale on EBay.
|
| https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p238005
| 7.m...
|
| More or less anything from Focusrite, Presonus will serve
| you well. They'll get the job done until you care about
| subtle details (which may never be necessary), and might
| still be fine even after that.
|
| If you're using Linux, the only thing to be sure of is
| that the device is described as either (1) "class
| compliant" or (2) "works on iPads" or (3) both. Linux
| users have much to be grateful towards the iPad for, in
| particular the ban on drivers meant that USB audio
| interface makers really had to get their act together to
| ensure that their devices worked with a generic USB audio
| driver (just like the one on Linux).
| my_username_is_ wrote:
| For a similar price point to these webcams, you can get a very
| good microphone. The Blue Yeti ($130) is usually one of the go-
| to recommendations
|
| https://www.bluemic.com/en-us/products/yeti/
| nucleardog wrote:
| I wouldn't get one just for audio calls.
|
| The Yeti is what I have. It's a condenser microphone.
| Condenser microphones generally are more sensitive to quiet
| sounds and pick up range a bit better, but that means they
| also pick up _everything_ else much better. That's great if
| you're in a sound studio, but most of us are not.
|
| You'll make your life easiest if you get clean audio in
| _before_ you start trying to do further processing to clean
| it up.
|
| I already had the Yeti on hand, and it was a couple days of
| tweaking and tuning to get to the point where it will pick up
| my voice from 6-8" away clearly (so it's not directly in
| front of my face on camera) but not also transmitting the
| pitter-patter of every raindrop on the sidewalk outside.
|
| If you're looking for a mic just for audio/video calls, I'd
| look towards a dynamic mic. Something like the Audio-Technica
| AT2005 ($80) is generally pretty well reviewed, is 2/3 the
| price of the Yeti, and still includes a built-in ADC so you
| can just plug it in via USB and call the job done (don't need
| to add a bunch of input boxes/etc).
| noelsusman wrote:
| The Blue Snowball is significantly better than anything in a
| webcam or phone and it's only $50.
| dougmwne wrote:
| I firmly believe that video conferencing is essentially a dead
| end. It is uncanny and unpleasant. Having experienced some of the
| early VR social experiences, I think that is the way forward. We
| will need to fully embody the other person and project them in a
| 3D AR or VR space with positional audio. I think in many ways we
| are incredibly close to this goal and should be seeing the first
| products hit the market within the decade.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I suspect a lot of us are in video conferences that perhaps
| don't require our full attention. It is very hard to be in VR
| and quietly code on the side.
| llampx wrote:
| I also noticed fairly early on, that phone cameras were improving
| by leaps and bounds, while laptop webcams and USB webcams seemed
| to be at a standstill, image-quality wise.
|
| I don't know why that is, but even Apple would seemingly rather
| shave 50 cents off the BOM by speccing a 720p Facetime camera in
| their $3000 Macbook Pros, and trying to make up the difference
| with software, like with the new M1 Macs that have better image
| quality using the same 720p webcam.
|
| For my desktop I've taken to using an action camera, since
| software that supports using Android phones as webcams seemed to
| not be so good when I looked. It plugs in via USB, is cheap, has
| auto-focus and supports a wider angle of view than most webcams.
| Good for group calls. One can always zoom in with software.
| dive wrote:
| That's what I thought recently about the MacBook Camera. I have
| switched to Mac Mini M1 and bought Logitech StreamCam for
| ~PS150. It sucks in every possible way: focus does not work
| properly in any conditions except natural daylight, CPU
| expensive, additional meaningless software for basic features,
| etc. Now, I miss the MacBook camera. Yes, it is 720p, but do I
| need more for my meetings? Nope. It just works. The quality is
| acceptable, no problems with any applications/web-tools, plays
| well with system resources, etc. If we are talking about "Zoom
| me" cameras, I would prefer the MacBook's one. If we are
| talking about YouTube streamers, etc., then it is a bit
| different area, and yes, MacBook's camera will not help with
| this.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| As smartphones essentially replaced point and shoot cameras,
| image quality became a major selling point. In fact, for many
| people, that's the only reason for getting a modern, high-end
| phone.
|
| Laptop cameras are typically used only for the occasional video
| chat, with so much compression on the line that the image looks
| like crap anyways. And before 2020, I'm quite sure most laptops
| didn't see their webcam used even once.
|
| Maybe for the following years, now that people realized that
| their laptop webcam is not just a place to put a sticker on,
| manufacturers will put on something better.
| josephg wrote:
| > even Apple would seemingly rather shave 50 cents off the BOM
| by speccing a 720p Facetime camera in their $3000 Macbook Pros
|
| The reason I've heard is that the macbook display assembly
| simply doesn't have the depth to house a decent camera. The
| camera bump in phones exists for a reason - and phones are
| already way fatter than macbook displays.
|
| I have no idea if thats true though.
| a2tech wrote:
| Thats the same story someone I know that works at Apple told
| me. They would like to put a better camera in there as much
| as we would like one, but its not economical at the moment.
| dingaling wrote:
| The display frame has plenty of space for a phone-type camera
| sensor of any resolution, it's just a flat CMOS. Even a
| really big phone sensor is only 8x6x3mm
|
| A good lens is more difficult to fit in the Z-dimension but
| that doesn't constrain the resolution of the sensor. A small
| bump in the bezel and a corresponding recess in the base
| would allow a better design of lens.
| llampx wrote:
| Yes exactly, there's plenty of space for a decent sensor
| and lens. On top of that we're talking about a wide-angle
| lens, which are generally flatter. Two things add thickness
| and complexity to camera lenses - telephoto and autofocus.
| Phones only recently started getting thick bumps for the
| rear camera when telephoto lenses became more popular. My
| phone has a sizeable bump for the telephoto camera but the
| ultra-wide angle one is outside of that bump.
| djrogers wrote:
| 3mm? Based on my measurement just now, the lid of my 16"
| MBP is just about 4mm thick - so no, after the case and
| front glass there's enough room for even the sensor, let
| alone a lens.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| On the flip side, you can get some decent cameras in the
| "nose up position" these days.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| Higher resolution at exactly the wrong angle? Wonderful!
| smnrchrds wrote:
| Is the image quality any better on iMac? At the very least on
| expensive iMac Pro? If not, the issue is not physical
| limitations of Macbook, it's most likely cost.
| surfearth wrote:
| Yes. The new iMac 27" and iMacPro both use a 1080p webcam
| and also use the T2 chip for image processing. I recently
| upgraded from a 2015 iMac 27" to the 2020 iMac 27" and the
| webcam is better although still not great.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| Apple: Thinnest laptop evar!
|
| Also Apple: We can't give you a better camera because we gave
| you the thinnest laptop evar!
|
| "We think you're gonna love it!"
| junipertea wrote:
| Much thicker laptops have equally bad camera.
| mikestew wrote:
| I've got a late 2019 iMac, and it's got the same piece-of-
| shit camera that the MBPs do. I think (without looking it up)
| recent iMacs bumped the specs. It is one of my few
| disappointments with this machine. OTOH, my workplace doesn't
| use cameras on online meetings. My musical jam group does,
| though. And I paid about $3K for this machine, so it
| shouldn't even be a discussion.
| llampx wrote:
| I also thought about this but then look at the iPad and
| iPhone Facetime cameras. They offer much better image quality
| than Macbook webcams. There are a few ways to offer "rear
| camera" quality on Macbooks, like having a little bump
| sticking out from the back. I don't think that's what people
| are asking for though. They just want a webcam that's as good
| as the webcam in their phone.
|
| Also this doesn't answer the question of why USB webcams are
| so terrible. They have tons of room.
| solarkraft wrote:
| Those devices are significantly thicker that a MacBook
| display.
|
| I could imagine a bump towards the front that would sink
| into the body when closed, but doing it in a way that looks
| and feels good also seems rather hard - but also harder to
| avoid should they want to implement things such as face id.
| llampx wrote:
| I guess we'll never know until we have the front camera
| assemblies from both sitting side by side.
| djrogers wrote:
| Fortunately this is the Internet. You can see those parts
| plenty of places - like ifixit for example. Yes, the
| front facing cameras on iPhones are thicker than what
| would fit in a current MacBook display.
|
| Honestly though, I think the real reason webcams on
| laptops suck is that until recently 95% of people didn't
| use them 99% of the time.
| ksec wrote:
| The iPhone Front Facing Camera Module is already thicker
| than the whole MacBook Pro Screen + Glass + Casing.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| That improvement in image quality requires Apple Cortex
| CPUs due to Apple's implementation strategies for cameras.
| I expect Apple will update the cameras in future laptop
| models as Apple Silicon arrives fully across their product
| lines, likely using the same package from their phones.
| analog31 wrote:
| In my view, phone cameras are used for photography, in addition
| to conferencing. So they need to be better quality for that
| use. Nobody takes pictures of their outdoor adventure, or an
| image of a document, with a laptop camera.
|
| Well, some people do. My kids were in the youth orchestra, and
| they had to issue a rule that parents are not allowed to hold
| an iPad up in the air for the entire duration of the concert.
| tibbon wrote:
| Here's what really bugs me. It's clear Apple has good cameras,
| excellent even. And small.
|
| Yet, the camera in my $2000 Macbook Pro? Remarkably worse than
| even the worse external webcam.
|
| If they can throw an amazing camera in a phone, why can't they
| put a decent one in a laptop?
| floatingatoll wrote:
| The camera in your MBP isn't the Apple Silicon camera that's
| used in their mobile devices. In the near future, when Apple
| drops Intel from their _entire_ laptop product line, it is very
| likely that they 'll bring their Apple Silicon cameras from
| their mobile products to their laptop products. (Yes, there's a
| 'version zero' MBP with the M1, and a teardown showed that it's
| literally a drop-and-swap of the motherboard with no other
| component changes at all. It's literally the "get this out the
| door so that developers can start finding issues so we can fix
| them for the masses" model. Hope y'all waited to upgrade if
| you're not developers for Apple products!)
|
| Everyone assumes that it's only the camera module that needs to
| be updated, but forgets that it's the image processing hardware
| circuits that make DSLRs and iOS devices produce such gorgeous
| images. This, in a nutshell, is why USB webcam makers can't
| compete: they aren't willing to raise their price by $50 to
| incorporate a real image processing chip that's able to handle
| the sensor adequately, and their software is crap because it's
| bargain-basement and hacked-together to avoid the hardware
| spend. Imagine if we could purchase Leica and Nikon and Canon
| webcams, with the ability to use DSLR controls to set them up,
| and then have them just produce gorgeous photos at any time. So
| far, Apple is the _only_ webcam maker that 's taken it far
| enough to earn praise. It's really unfortunate.
| u678u wrote:
| The other part is if you have a quality HD or better camera its
| a huge load to GPU and network which will chew your battery.
| Lower resolution is actually probably preferred if you could
| see the alternative.
| diamondo25 wrote:
| I think because it has no room for the module. Cameras these
| days tend to bulge out of the case of the phone...
| vsskanth wrote:
| Thank you. Never thought of this. It all makes sense now.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Or they could at least make a webcam add-on with a superior
| camera, but as far as I know they don't sell anything like
| that. Hell, make it possible to use an iPhone as a webcam!
| llampx wrote:
| I remember the article linked recently where someone took
| apart an old Apple iSight and put in a Raspberry Pi +
| Camera into the housing. And it had fantastic image
| quality.
| redisman wrote:
| Good optics need physical space that a super flat screen
| doesn't have (in depth). My Macbook screen is like 1/4th of
| the depth of my iPhone
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| Maybe the camera could protrude from the screen and fit
| into a hole on the bottom of the case when folded. Would be
| pretty ugly though.
| samatman wrote:
| More than ugly, it would fill up with lint and gunk and
| prevent closing the laptop, perhaps even damaging the
| screen if the user applied force.
|
| It's a non-starter I'm afraid.
| mfkp wrote:
| If people don't mind a bulge in their phone, I doubt they'd
| mind a camera bulge sticking out the back of their laptop.
| masklinn wrote:
| > I doubt they'd mind a camera bulge sticking out the
| back of their laptop.
|
| A bulge at the back of the laptop would be way more
| problematic e.g. way more likely to catch on bags, or
| otherwise be damaged.
|
| What I doubt most people would mind is the screen side
| being slightly thicker.
| [deleted]
| CodesInChaos wrote:
| Or have a bulge on the front side of the screen and a
| corresponding mound on the keyboard side. While it
| conflicts with the touchpad, it could still be a
| worthwhile tradeoff.
| masklinn wrote:
| Yes I agree with that. They'd have to scale back the
| trackpad a bit but frankly... the latest generations are
| just way too big.
| acdha wrote:
| Johnny Ives was obsessed with thinness - it's the same
| problem which lead to the bad keyboards. Now they've been
| putting people who haven't forgotten about usability in
| charge I would not be surprised if the next case design
| included a non-terrible webcam since it's unlikely that
| anyone is going to stop video conferencing even if we do
| go back to the office.
| totalZero wrote:
| Jony Ive*
|
| Fair point, but Apple isn't the only company selling
| laptops with ho-hum webcams.
| acdha wrote:
| Thanks for the correction - there's an iOS autocomplete
| joke in there somewhere.
|
| I think what we see is basically showing the difference
| between the phone and laptop markets: people buy new
| phones to get better cameras because that's one of the
| most common activities for a phone but the same is not
| true for laptops (or at least wasn't previously), and
| there's a much lower threshold where a mediocre camera
| prevents a sale. That lack of pressure means there isn't
| much of a check on either cost cutting or pursuit of
| thinner/lighter designs.
| spijdar wrote:
| Just an anecdote, but I've always felt the webcams on
| macs I've used the past few years are worse than much
| cheaper Wintel PC webcams.
|
| Could just be cognitive bias though, since everyone
| complains about mac webcams all the time.
| yborg wrote:
| Company outfitted us with Dell Alienware m17 R3 laptops,
| an expensive gaming model that has built-in head
| tracking. The camera is a 720p with terrible image
| quality, worse than any Macbook. So no, I don't think
| Apple is below standard here.
| acdha wrote:
| I think it'd be interesting to compare with equivalent
| price points. Does a $2500 PC have a better camera than a
| MacBook Pro or is it really more like everyone is
| skimping and Mac owners are just more vocal about
| expecting something closer to a mid-2010s iPhone?
| barkingcat wrote:
| Yah this precisely.
|
| Why are phones allowed to have bulges and chins and
| notches, but laptops somehow are too "thin" to do the
| same? For that matter, why hasn't anyone made a laptop
| screen with a centre notch? people accepted that for
| phones and now every large manufacturer of phones use
| notches in their phones.
|
| Laptops are much larger and heavier so it's really doable
| to include a better camera.
|
| The only thing blocking isn't technical.
| saurik wrote:
| I mean, it's one thing to have a part of my phone that is
| 15% thicker than the rest, but it is another thing
| entirely to have a part of my laptop screen that is 400%
| thicker than the rest ;P.
| rozab wrote:
| Nobody buys a laptop for the webcam. That's why.
| Fnoord wrote:
| Exactly, it just has to be good enough. Same with front
| facing camera. What isn't good enough is Dell's XPS
| bottom camera.
| justwalt wrote:
| That sounds like something Apple would never do. Though I
| might have said the same thing about the camera notch on
| the iPhone.
| ourcat wrote:
| I've always been amazed that Apple did the camera bulge.
|
| I'm quite sure that an iPhone not being able to lay flat
| on a table without wobbling would have caused Steve Jobs
| to throw it at whoever designed it.
| anthony_romeo wrote:
| Well, according to this random article I didn't fully
| read and just now searched for to justify the rest of my
| sentence's unfounded speculation
| (https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-case-
| survey-2014-7?op...), the vast majority of phone users
| put cases around their phones, so perhaps the opinion is
| that the bulge is negligible at this point, and the
| pursuit of thinness is in part to accommodate users with
| cases.
| setr wrote:
| The problem is that if you assume case-usage in the
| design, then the whole thing about it being physically
| premium materials, smoothly rounded corners and such
| stops making sense -- you're going to shove it in rubber
| anyways. The only thing that matters then is the screen
| itself, and maybe the hardware buttons (eg volume
| controls)
| httpsterio wrote:
| When something costs lore in dollars than it weights in
| grams, you can bet on me doing my best lot to break it.
| Phones are already pretty prone to breakage and they're
| easily fumbled as well.
|
| I enjoy the materials in my phone and I'd love to use it
| without a case, but when my phone bumped against a
| saltshaker and the glass back panel cracked, I felt
| miffed to pay 160 euros to have that replaced when a 10
| euro case would've prevented any damage.
| masklinn wrote:
| > I've always been amazed that Apple did the camera
| bulge.
|
| At this point I can only assume they simply never managed
| to find a way to significantly improve the module while
| keeping things flush.
| Kliment wrote:
| Then just make the whole thing a bit thicker so it's flat
| (and put in extra battery). The current solution is
| phenomenally ugly and annoying.
| glitcher wrote:
| This is a completely minor and silly gripe, but one of the things
| I don't like about the video conferencing experience on computer
| screens is the lack of direct eye contact. I just can't escape
| the feeling of everyone looking at each other looking at each
| other, instead of looking each other in the eyes and knowing when
| someone is looking at you as opposed to someone else. It's really
| an odd shift from our natural face to face encounters.
| beisner wrote:
| Not minor, making eye contact when communicating is a super
| deep instinct. Even animals make eye contact. It totally takes
| you out of the moment when it isn't there.
| tacon wrote:
| It really isn't a minor point. Lack of eye contact is really
| important. I pulled out a gooseneck webcam mount I had bought
| and never used from years ago. I can position it almost right
| in front of the Zoom window and achieve almost direct eye
| contact, though it is tricky if I need to see detail behind the
| webcam itself. Multiple monitors with extra area reduce that
| problem.
|
| I ran across a video that showed how to create an actual direct
| eye to eye contact effect, using a half-silvered mirror and
| parts from a laptop webcam[0]. I started shopping for a used
| laptop webcam part, and then realized I have never seen laptops
| rated by their webcams, so it is almost a shot in the dark to
| get something good.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AecAXinars
| mr_gibbins wrote:
| I got halfway down before realising this was an advertorial for
| the Camo product. Disappointing.
| timvdalen wrote:
| When I wasn't able to purchase a webcam (for a reasonable amount)
| at the beginning of the lockdown, I started using my Pixel 3 with
| DroidCam[1]. My video quality is consistently the best in all the
| meetings I'm in, so I can really recommend using your phone.
|
| I stream the video over adb myself, to make sure I don't drain
| the battery too much and to keep everything wired.
|
| [1]: https://www.dev47apps.com/
| cjnicholls wrote:
| I can confirm this as my colleagues have mentioned the quality
| difference between my feed (samsung tablet) and their webcams.
| I used a couple different webcam apps orginially but DroidCam
| was the best IMO.
| llampx wrote:
| Couldn't you also just join the meeting from your phone? Or
| once from your phone and once from your PC?
| timvdalen wrote:
| Yes, this is what I used to to, but it has drawbacks.
|
| If you only join from your phone, you can't really see other
| participants (unless you use your front cam, and in that case
| your screen is obviously still very small) and you won't be
| able to screen share.
|
| If you join on both, you will be in the meeting twice (which
| can look weird to other people). In my case, I want to use a
| dedicated microphone, not my phone's microphone that might be
| blocked by the arm that is holding it in place. That results
| in a weird AV delay since the audio is coming from a
| different user in the call (and it means your video is not
| highlighted when you speak).
|
| In short - my current setup hides the implementation details
| and makes it all work transparently without bothering people
| I'm in a call with.
| llampx wrote:
| Nice, I have joined a few meetings from my phone and my
| desktop simultaneously because my desktop didn't have a
| webcam or microphone. It worked in a pinch but I wouldn't
| do it on a regular basis.
| trinix912 wrote:
| What are some good alternatives for macOS?
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| I was disapointed by the quality of my Logitech c920. Because I
| coach people with Zoom I've switched to a Sony ZV1, which is
| quite expensive but has better quality (although their webcam
| software only supports 720p - camlink is in the mail)
|
| My old iMacPro has the best camera of a computer I know.
| azatris wrote:
| But given that you have a 4K RED setup in your bedroom with a
| studio microphone, what technology actually preserves most of the
| quality over the video call? Let's say both participants have
| fibre connections and located in the same city.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| Plain old RTMP stream with h.265 inside probably. The problem
| is that nobody uses this for streaming because h.265 encoding
| is expensive even for hardware encoders in GPU. So to
| satisfice, use h.264 at good bitrate. Over 80 Mbit should be
| fine ;)
| azatris wrote:
| How would that work? Which application supports it? I don't
| know of a native way to do this.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| VLC? OBS?
| azatris wrote:
| Where's the "call a friend" button in VLC?
| aidenn0 wrote:
| You just moved the goalposts. The UX for setting this up
| is terrible, but as approximately zero people have a Red
| camera hooked up to their computer and a dedicated fiber
| connection to multiple people, so presumably the setup is
| a one-time cost.
| sebmellen wrote:
| If you're interested in using a mirrorless or DSLR camera you
| have lying around as a webcam on Linux, I recommend this article:
| https://www.crackedthecode.co/how-to-use-your-dslr-as-a-webc....
|
| If you're using a Mac, this article is the best I've found,
| though the CamTwist Studio setup is a bit slow if you don't have
| a Macbook Pro with 16GB RAM or more:
| https://www.nicksherlock.com/2020/04/using-a-canon-dslr-as-a....
| I plan on writing a more comprehensive article for Mac users in
| the future.
|
| All the steps are free! No paid software or hardware needed.
|
| I've taken to doing this, and while the setup is a bit tedious,
| people are always super impressed with the bokeh and all-around
| nice quality of my "webcam." I haven't told anyone it's really a
| DSLR yet.
|
| With my camera quality, I feel like Bill Gates with his camera
| setup (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyFT8qXcOrM).
| vr46 wrote:
| For the cost of a small desk tripod, PS50, and Canon's latest
| Webcam Utility, I was able to repurpose a 2012 DSLR (1DX) into
| an absolutely fantastic webcam.
| dingaling wrote:
| A 1DX is still an outstanding camera in professional use
| daily, well beyond overkill for a webcam! Still commands
| around 1000GBP on the used market.
|
| Any of the Canon xxD or M series from the same era would be
| sufficient at a fraction of the cost.
| vr46 wrote:
| Deffo overkill, but it was all I had kicking around
| (shucks) and works a treat.
| ofrzeta wrote:
| the article only tangentially touches on depth of field which
| adds very much to a professionally looking webcam video, when
| using a DSLR or other digicam with a decent lens. You have the
| blur in the background so can still see the person in their
| surrounding but not so much that you can see all the cruft lying
| around. Focus is on the face and it's much better than any
| software solution that blows up the computer fan.
| QasimK wrote:
| My first job straight out of university was at Reincubate. I
| thought I'd share my experience because Reincubate is a small
| company - you could count us with your fingers when I joined.
|
| It was a fun place to work with nerf guns and rubber balls to
| throw at each other. You learnt to keep your computer locked the
| "fun" way. We always went for a team lunch on Fridays - something
| that I've missed ever since. I enjoyed coming into work every day
| because of the people.
|
| The favourite highlight of my entire career was there, back in
| 2015. The whole team of engineers (~6ish) worked together to
| figure out how to decrypt iOS 9 beta backups as Apple had changed
| the encryption system. Everyone contributed in some way and I
| delved into using a disassembler, IDA Pro, from zero prior
| experience armed with a textbook. It took a whole week from the
| beta being released, and I believe we were the first (public)
| company to do it.
|
| The values of the company, as described on the website, have
| changed, but what they say now still matches up with my time
| there.
|
| Switching to something more relevant to this article. I was
| looking for a webcam a couple of months ago for quite a while
| before it also hit me that my iPhone camera was actually damn
| good. Since then I've been connecting to Zoom twice (from my
| phone for the video, and my computer for the audio). It's not a
| great experience but I never really looked into the "random" apps
| that could create a virtual camera. Well Reincubate is not random
| to me and it looks like there's a beta version of Camo for
| Windows, so I don't really have an excuse :)
| GiorgioG wrote:
| I bought a Sony mirrorless camera (A6000) for photography
| purposes and decided to buy a Camlink 4k to pipe my camera's live
| output to my computer for video calls - it works great.
| jpalomaki wrote:
| IMHO if you have decent lighting the Logitechs are "good enough"
| for the usual video call purposes.
|
| What real value would much better image quality bring? Most of
| the time you are just small box on other participant's screen. Of
| courae totally different thing if you are producing video
| content.
|
| In order of importance for me 1) Get sound right. Use headset if
| needed. 2) Try to get good light for your face (check on Youtube
| three point light setup videos to get the rough idea, then
| improvise). 3) Try to arrange boring and simple background.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I think the article does a very good job of showing why even
| professional studio lights can't help a bad webcam - especially
| Logitechs.
| post_break wrote:
| The software in windows is terrible for logitech. On mac there
| are third party software that lets you adjust literally
| everything. And doing so I can make the C920 look just as good as
| my iPhone especially in good lightning.
| snegu wrote:
| Can you share the third-party software you are using? I hate my
| C920 right now. I'm already pale, and it makes me look on the
| edge of death in every call.
| sethhochberg wrote:
| Would also love to know, I use a C920 and the white balance
| is terrible even compared to my (worse in most other ways)
| Macbook Pro camera.
|
| I've seen people share config software for these on Windows
| but haven't seen anything that looks decent for Mac use.
| post_break wrote:
| It's literally called webcam settings in the App Store. Has
| a rainbow app icon.
| post_break wrote:
| It's literally called webcam settings in the App Store. Has a
| rainbow app icon.
| liotier wrote:
| I use OBS Studio's output as virtual camera - and among the
| inputs I use cheap old Android tablets with DroidCam OBS over IP
| on Wi-Fi... They cost less than a USB webcam and deliver much
| better image quality.
|
| Also, lighting. A couple of 5500 Kelvin Led lights on a clip
| mount, with good color rendition won't dent the budget but they
| will make even cheap webcams perform much better - color, frame
| rate, aperture. A softbox is wonderful but I don't have space for
| that, so I aim the light at the white wall - good enough
| substitute !
| wazoox wrote:
| I have a C920. My main problem is that the camera runs at 60 fps,
| but here in Europe, lights are 50Hz. therefore, flickering is
| unbearably as soon as you're not using natural light. I can't
| find any solution to this...
| empiricus wrote:
| Some Led lights might work.
| julienfr112 wrote:
| I've got no problem with this camera from europe. I remember
| tinkering with the same camera model while setting up a camera
| booth for rescruting interview. There was an option in the
| python video library to set the camera to a frequency that
| prevent flickering.
| julienfr112 wrote:
| are you using linux ? guvcview expose a lot of option from
| your camera.
| PM_ME_YOUR_CAT wrote:
| Wasn't there a discussion about image processing because of a
| lack of dedicated and optimized on-camera software? Usually
| phones are tuned to deliver an "as close as possible to the
| result" viewfinder image, while webcams in general do very little
| or no processing on their side. I might be completely wrong here
| though, however I do agree with the article. It's 2021. If
| Thunderbolt can provide enough bandwidth to support a full-on
| GPU, then we can dedicate resources to do correct image
| processing either on our CPUs or boycott Webcam makers to
| actually invest some time to finetune and optimize Webcams. As
| the article states, it's better to buy a used iPhone 6 and buy
| EpocCam by Elgato to use the phone as a cam. At least it's
| actually good as compared to the C920 which has been price gauged
| to oblivion throughout the world
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| How big is the market for "good webcams"? If 99% of the people
| just need a "good enough" (to recognise your face) webcam, that
| they turn off after the initial "hello!" (so noone notices they
| have no pants on if they have to stand up), does that really make
| it worth it to develop new tech for the 1%?
|
| ...compared to phone cameras, where people actually want (and are
| willing to pay more) for a good camera, especially for one that
| works better in shitty lighting conditions.
| biggc wrote:
| With the rising popularity of streaming, a lot of people are
| getting a mirrorless camera and capture card. This is
| ridiculous overkill, and I imagine that a "premium" webcam
| could provide the desired features* at a much lower price point
| and smaller package
|
| * Good auto-focus, depth of field, "natural" color, high
| resolution.
| llampx wrote:
| On the flip side, with my phone I'm usually calling friends and
| family in my pajamas. With my laptop I'm calling serious people
| for serious business, sometimes as a group. It makes more sense
| for the laptop to have a better camera.
|
| I think until recently enterprise IT hasn't cared about laptop
| camera quality because the understanding was that proper video
| conferencing would be done from a conference room with a $2k
| camera setup. The pandemic has flipped that on its head.
| mimo84 wrote:
| After struggling with different webcams, including the MacBook
| Pro camera, I opted for this setup: - Canon RP - 50mm Canon lens
| - Tripod located between my two monitors
|
| All it fully tax deductible, amazing quality and even more
| flexibility when I have a meeting, for example ability to show my
| desk.
| abinaya_rl wrote:
| Curious to know, with all these high quality web cams, do we have
| the support for high quality bandwidth internet connectivity.
| supergeek133 wrote:
| Also add to this that most popular Twitch streamers use a very
| expensive digital SLR as webcams these days to avoid many of the
| problems discussed here.
|
| I never gave much thought to the fact that all the old phones I
| have sitting around have a better camera than my logitech webcam.
| Interesting. I have multiple Galaxy S8s/S7s around.
| cbhl wrote:
| NewTek NDI has both Android and iOS apps, and plugins exist to
| use it with the OBS Virtual Cam.
|
| They don't have the greatest open source record though (ffmpeg
| removed integration after they were found to be violating
| license terms).
| supergeek133 wrote:
| Thanks for the tip!
| m463 wrote:
| They're comparing apples and logitechs.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if the iphone cameras have had a billion
| dollars of development invested in them. But a large portion of
| this is on the software/firmware side which logitech doesn't
| benefit from.
|
| That said, we all reap the benefits of this because phone camera
| hardware has been driven down in cost considerably since phones
| first got cameras. There just needs to be more open software to
| help out, maybe like machine learning exposure, focus, color and
| more. Then even low-margin webcam companies will have good
| performance.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| Apple still ships bad webcams on their laptops.
|
| There seems to be a big class divide between phone cameras and
| webcams.
| lhnz wrote:
| Shouldn't the rise of remote work change this?
| llampx wrote:
| It hasn't done so so far.
| lhnz wrote:
| Yes, that's what's strange to me.
|
| Either laptop manufacturers are missing a trick that
| would help them compete, or people don't really care
| about picture quality in remote video calls.
| llampx wrote:
| I think its more that laptop manufacturers don't care
| because no other OEM has made a selling point of it. Its
| a virtuous circle - some people care about a specific
| feature, some OEM makes it a selling point, more people
| start talking about it, OEM B calls an emergency meeting
| and asks for the feature to be in their new laptop line,
| they spend advertising $$ promoting it, more people get
| to know about it and ask for it, more OEMs start
| including it.
| bluGill wrote:
| Most people don't care about web cams at work. Most of my
| meetings I'm looking at a power point, or some other
| screen and so the person speaking isn't an issue.
|
| A few people enable their camera all the time, but not
| everyone. In the few meetings I've been in where everyone
| is asked to turn on their camera so we can see each other
| (in some sort of team terms) at least one person says
| they are in a family situation where they cannot.
|
| Cameras are a must when calling grandma. In an office
| situation they are at best a nice to have.
| m463 wrote:
| Isn't the iphone camera a primary phone feature - used
| primarily for still photos, and secondarily for video?
|
| I've seen apple billboards about ONLY the iphone camera, so
| apple is investing money in it.
|
| Meanwhile for a laptop, people don't care (as much) if it
| takes 10 megapixel images and can see in the dark. Personally
| I would like a laptop without a camera (or with a hardware
| switch)
|
| (and I've never seen a macbook billboard)
| bluescrn wrote:
| Even Apple was recently mocked for putting a 720p webcam in
| their latest 2020 MBP/MBA (while their phones sport clusters of
| cameras each in silly-megapixel territory)
| toast0 wrote:
| Ugh. 720p is plenty of pixels for the use case, if the sensor
| is good quality. If the sensor is not good quality, more
| pixels won't help. Sensor size is a better first
| approximation of quality than pixel count.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I wouldn 't be surprised if the iphone cameras have had a
| billion dollars of development invested in them_
|
| Which is neither here, nor there. There are tons of dirt cheap
| (often cheaper) compact cameras on the market with better
| quality that most webcams, and have been for years. Including
| equally small as webcam options.
|
| There are also tons of dirt cheap Android phones with far
| better camera quality in an even more constrained space (for
| the camera module) than a webcam.
|
| There are also embedded laptop cameras with better quality than
| most $100 and plus webcams.
|
| As a sibling comment said: "I use OBS Studio's output as
| virtual camera - and among the inputs I use cheap old Android
| tablets with DroidCam OBS over IP on Wi-Fi... They cost less
| than a USB webcam and deliver much better image quality."
|
| There's absolutely no reason webcam makers couldn't build a
| better product using components found in 5+ year old phones...
|
| Even if it was expensive, the problem is there's not even an
| expensive $300 or $500 webcam with quality compared to a years
| old Android or iPhone smartphone of equal price, or a compact
| camera.
|
| Heck, webcams sold as $1000 and $2000 "enterprise" webcams, in
| bulky enclosures to sit on a desk or large TV, have some more
| conveniences (to fit the enterpise moniker), but same (crap)
| image quality.
| m463 wrote:
| The article is directly comparing apple iphones against
| logitech webcams.
|
| iphones benefit from: a processor that costs more than the
| entire webcam. A firmware and software stack with a billion
| dollars behind it.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _iphones benefit from: a processor that costs more than
| the entire webcam. A firmware and software stack with a
| billion dollars behind it._
|
| Still the camera is great alone, even without
| "computational photography".
|
| And similar IQ quality can be had in competing Android
| phones for years -- some costing the same or less than a
| premium $200 or $300 webcam.
|
| Anyway you slice it or dice it, this is not a "good cameras
| are expensive" issue.
| imbnwa wrote:
| I suspect manufacturers wager they can skimp on quality cause
| customers will chalk it up to "the internet" or "my connection"
| clairity wrote:
| front-facing cameras (i.e., webcams) are unnecessary on a laptop,
| tablet, or phone. manufacturers should remove them in favor of
| better supporting dedicated equipment, since they'll never be
| 'good enough' when video quality actually matters.
|
| video calls have been part of the futurism canon for at least 100
| years, but they still have little utility beyond a simple phone
| call (or even text messages in many cases). they just waste
| bandwidth and add anxiety and frustration (nevermind encouraging
| narcissism).
| jascii wrote:
| "video calls have been part of the futurism canon for at least
| 100 years, but they still have little utility beyond a simple
| phone call" While you could argue practical utility, the mere
| fact that millions are clinging to video conferencing for a
| sense of connectedness seems to suggest that it has at least an
| emotional utility. Not everybody is an introvert.
| clairity wrote:
| you can get connectedness by talking on the phone or visiting
| in person (yes, it's entirely reasonable to do so these days
| with a little distance). have been doing this my entire life
| along with billions of other people and can confirm it works
| (especially for 'extraverts', although i don't buy into that
| dichotomy).
| ska wrote:
| > but they still have little utility beyond a simple phone call
|
| We've collectively been running a huge experiment for the last
| year that has pretty conclusively proven this hypothesis false.
| clairity wrote:
| an unsupported assertion is not conclusive proof. we've seen
| that people have been trying to substitute in-person meetings
| with video calls, but that doesn't prove any additional
| utility beyond a conference call.
|
| even in educational or therapy/coaching situations, a
| recorded instructional video accompanied by a phone checkin
| likely has better outcomes than video chats.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| > even in educational or therapy/coaching situations, a
| recorded instructional video accompanied by a phone checkin
| likely has better outcomes than video chats.
|
| This just screams "citation needed." Video chat is hugely
| useful whenever there is any kind of discussion, debate, or
| negotiation. With video chat you can read facial
| expressions, cut down on overlapping speech and
| interruptions, etc.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| >cut down on overlapping speech and interruptions
|
| Never seen video chat be a good substitute for poor
| etiquette. People still decide to interrupt one another.
| FWIW, this problem also occurs in-person on a daily basis
| with most people.
|
| >With video chat you can read facial expressions
|
| This is a double-edged sword. Some facial expressions are
| better off not read. Facial expressions are routinely
| misinterpreted. Worse, it creates an incentive to turn
| facial expressions into facial expression etiquette,
| which is both annoying to the person, and removes any
| reason to even use facial expressions.
|
| I can accept video chat in small groups (sub-5) for a
| short time in professional settings. Anything other than
| that feels suffocating and limiting. There definitely
| _is_ an obsession with video chat which has yet to be
| proven, by a majority who are trying to (poorly) mimic
| the workfloor.
| clairity wrote:
| > "Video chat is hugely useful whenever there is any kind
| of discussion, debate, or negotiation. With video chat
| you can read facial expressions, cut down on overlapping
| speech and interruptions, etc."
|
| this just screams "citation needed."
|
| a planar, poorly lit, relatively low resolution video
| image doesn't provide enough detail to read expressions
| nearly as well as you can in person. it's actually much
| easier to misread expressions over video than just
| listening to voices, because we can focus much more on
| voice and it requires much less bandwidth to provide
| roughly equivalent clarity as speaking in person. long
| distance discussions, debates, and negotiations have
| happened just fine for decades without video.
|
| as for interruptions, millions of years of social
| conditioning seems to suffice at allowing us to negotiate
| overlap adequately. besides, simple technology like a
| wish-to-speak signal can be employed if need be (though
| they're unnecessary).
| stretchcat wrote:
| Narcissistic managers demanding everybody on their team use
| webcams during meetings hardly refutes clairity post.
| Sunspark wrote:
| Wanting to see one's colleagues is not narcissism. There's
| a valid accessibility reason as being able to see the other
| person helps people with hearing challenges and also, it's
| pretty rude to refuse to let yourself be seen.
|
| I never understood people who "didn't want to be seen" on
| camera during meetings (especially meetings with hearing
| accessibility issues) because those same people were
| willing to work in the physical workplace. The way I see
| it, if you refuse to be seen in a virtual meeting, you
| should _also_ refuse to be seen in person as well.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| >The way I see it, if you refuse to be seen in a virtual
| meeting, you should _also_ refuse to be seen in person as
| well
|
| Unfortunately, I don't have a golden goose. Virtual
| meetings, by virtue of being new, gave me an opportunity
| to push back onto the need of seeing one another. Not
| being in the office would be met with manager talks.
|
| >also, it's pretty rude to refuse to let yourself be
| seen.
|
| Are we really doing this? There are so many things that
| are rude. Not everything has to be met with a resounding
| "yes" because on a whim, people decide to mimic the work
| floor to the T without thinking further. I enjoy my
| visual privacy. To me, it is even more rude to force
| someone out of their visual privacy for a prolonged time
| multiple times a day, let alone having to stare at one's
| own face because the app refuses to build in a way to
| remove your own video feed without closing it entirely.
| stretchcat wrote:
| Being seen is consequence of working in a physical space,
| not the objective. Not unless you're a stripper. Phone
| meetings worked just fine for decades, video chat is pure
| narcissism.
|
| If there were somebody deaf on my team then I suppose I
| would reconsider it, but there isn't, so spare me the
| moralizing.
| booi wrote:
| this is a joke right?
| scotcha1 wrote:
| i personally use my front facing webcam on my computer 10-20x
| per day (for video calls, or short quick video walkthroughs).
| my kids also are using their cheap school laptops front facing
| webcams 3-4x per day with remote school, and my wife and i
| frequently use facetime on our iphones to chat throughout the
| day. i'm not interested in add'l dedicated equipment, i'm
| interested in the easiest solution to perform the job i need
| done
| clairity wrote:
| for a walkthrough, why would i want to look at you the entire
| time, rather than whatever it is you're walking me through
| (for which a rear camera is much better positioned, with
| voice instructions)?
|
| nothing else you mentioned requires video.
| klausjensen wrote:
| Great article, a lot of effort went into this.
| nbzso wrote:
| Is it possible to tag promotional blog posts? This must be
| titled: Why using our software is better than buying a web cam.
| joking wrote:
| I would be satisfied if someone explains to me why such
| software is a subscription instead of a one time buy.
| llampx wrote:
| VC's like recurring revenue..?
| icebraining wrote:
| Tagging promotional posts gives you a false sense of security.
| It's best to rely on your own judgment.
| coldtea wrote:
| If it would be possible, of all promotional posts, this would
| be the one that least needed such a tag.
|
| It mentions the product just one time, in passing at the end,
| and is several pages of well written, well researched, general
| observations, plus a writeup of the results of actual testing
| of several cameras.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| You can also use logi capture with the non high end logitech
| cameras (which is mentioned in article) by editing the
| LogiCapture.exe.config file.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/LogitechG/comments/fox6wy/logitech_.
| ..
| nbzso wrote:
| Thanks for your answer. I read your response as: If well
| written and well researched, self promotion material is
| presented on HN, there is no need for the reading audience to
| be aware of this. Ok.
| longtom wrote:
| It's assholes selling crap to idiots.
| bdz wrote:
| Elgato EpocCam https://www.elgato.com/en/epoccam
|
| Best $8 I've spent on a phone app. Works with pretty much
| everything (including OBS too)
| krrrh wrote:
| I spend a lot of time on video calls every day, and wanted to
| take advantage of my iPhone camera. I had tried Epoccam and it
| was buggy, and broke between releases of Zoom or didn't work in
| Slack calls. Screwing around with OBS was time consuming and
| pinned my fans.
|
| Reincubate Camo has been a pleasure to use over the last 3
| months, and has never let me down. Having good image quality on
| video calls is on par with wearing a clean shirt or showering
| before in person meetings. You can get by without it, but you
| make a much better impression if you step your game up a little
| bit.
|
| One big plus of Camo is that it will also patch software like
| Slack so that it works with virtual cameras at all.
| gingerlime wrote:
| Yeah, Camo is probably the best out there at the moment.
|
| But... (there's always a but)
|
| 1. they had a bug with Mojave which made it disconnect,
| especially with Zoom calls with many people (I imagine CPU
| issue?)
|
| 2. There's no way to control / switch off the camera from the
| app. The phone is still on with the app open and camera is
| working
|
| 3. I've got a nice holder, and used a dedicated older phone,
| but still it was a hassle, because you want to use the back
| facing camera -- to avoid seeing yourself. And then starting
| the app is effectively "behind" the camera. It's awkward.
|
| 4. They charge a yearly subscription fee. I can understand why,
| but in the long run I'm not sure it works out in their
| customer's favour financially.
|
| I eventually gave up and got a Logitech Brio. So far I'm pretty
| happy.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Huh. OBS has worked well for me, incl on a 2012 mbp.
| ravenstine wrote:
| OBS is awesome software, but it drains the battery on my 2015
| Macbook like nothing else.
| my_username_is_ wrote:
| Are there any similar options for Android phones?
| netsharc wrote:
| DroidCam works for my requirements: http://www.dev47apps.com
| .. it installs a virtual webcam and microphone on Windows,
| and transmits the video and audio from the phone
| camera/microphone.
| phreack wrote:
| Closest I can think of is Droidcam, which works great on
| Windows at least - on a wired connection.
| inickt wrote:
| Camo for Android looks to be in beta too!
|
| https://twitter.com/reincubate/status/1349768570591457281?s=.
| ..
| ivan_ah wrote:
| I use https://iriun.com on an old Android phone to get an
| "overhead projector" setup (to show hand written notes).
|
| (using USB connection not wifi; there is a bit of lag but
| works OK)
| andredz wrote:
| I can also recommend Camo; it has worked mostly all right.
| vosper wrote:
| I had the same experience with Epoccam, it was far too
| unreliable to actually use for meetings. Thanks for the pointer
| to Camo.
|
| In the end I ponied up for Logitech C920, I think it's worth
| the money rather than fussing with a phone, apps, etc..
| crakhamster01 wrote:
| I went down this rabbit hole a few months back when I was looking
| to buy a webcam for a new gaming PC that I had built. Also
| reached the same conclusion as the author (i.e. all webcams are
| shit).
|
| I ended up using a mirrorless camera that I bought in 2015 and
| hooked it up to my PC via mini-HDMI + this USB capture device
| (https://www.amazon.com/Elgato-Cam-Link-Broadcast-
| Camcorder/d...).
|
| The video quality is incredible and set up is fairly simple. It
| also works with the Macbook Pro I use for my job, which is great
| since the webcam on that is also garbage.
| thayne wrote:
| > webcams are designed as small devices that need to fit onto
| existing monitors or laptop lids
|
| Ok, but I would be fine with a bigger webcam. Why aren't there
| affordable large webcams available? Say, the size of a mirrorless
| camera, but without the big pricetag.
| antomeie wrote:
| Hopefully I'm not stepping on anyones toes here, but as a hobby
| project I have been building an app that lets you use your iPhone
| as a webcam for your Mac. It will be completely free for anyone
| to use!
|
| I am currently running a beta and if you would like to help me
| test it then you can apply here:
|
| https://webcamplus.app/beta
|
| For reference, I have had a thread up on MacRumors Forum for a
| few weeks:
|
| https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/iphone-as-a-webcam-for-...
| tchocky wrote:
| I started to use my Canon EOS 80D DSLR as a webcam. Canon finally
| release drivers in November. The image quality amazing. It's also
| a bit overkill though to use a (back then) 1400EUR camera to act
| as a webcam (also hard to compare with default webcams at that
| price point), but as long as I'm not using it otherwise, I think
| it's ok :)
| sebmellen wrote:
| Agreed! DSLRs are great for this kind of stuff. I posted two
| links to guides on how to do this for Mac and Linux here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25870161, if someone has a
| guide for Windows I'd love to see it.
| klausjensen wrote:
| + for a guide for Windows
| gherkinnn wrote:
| I don't need my colleagues to keep count of the pimples on my
| face.
|
| Webcams are welcome to stagnate.
| onion2k wrote:
| Literally all webcam 'problems' come down to expecting your
| webcam to perform well in conditions that even a $5000 dSLR
| wouldn't do a particularly good job in. Buy a light and all of
| the issues from the article will magically disappear.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| I get the sense that you haven't read the article.
|
| This article controls for lighting, showing the results of
| different types of cameras in different lighting conditions,
| and showing that even with good lighting, all of the webcams
| are still poor, and most are terrible. And they're all
| distinctly worse than any Apple phones from the last few years
| (and even the front-facing camera from an Apple phone from five
| years ago is better than half of them).
| stretchcat wrote:
| I viewed all of the examples in the article and they all look
| adaquate. The worst of them is fit for purpose, unless maybe
| you want to stare up somebody's nose and count their boogers.
|
| Personally, I've been thinking about how to sandblast the
| lens on my webcam to permanently fog it. Who would even care?
| I think nobody.
| Sunspark wrote:
| Just buy some sandpaper and rub it over the lens. You can
| get sandpaper in different grit fineness.
| nunez wrote:
| This is the truth. Even the Logitech C270, which is a basic,
| fixed-depth $20 camera, performs really well once you get a
| ring light. (I landed up getting a BRIO, which is a really nice
| webcam with the ability to swap out cables, which is handy for
| travelling.)
| makomk wrote:
| No, it really isn't just about lighting. Not only do even cheap
| smartphone cameras perform better than the best webcams in
| typical indoor lighting conditions, but for example the "good"
| webcam everyone uses - the Logitech C920 - has a dodgy
| autoexposure algorithm that overexposes shots if people do use
| enough lighting, and the manual controls are apparently really
| buggy. Professional streamers mostly just seem to have gotten
| used to working around this. (Then there's the colour accuracy
| and autofocus issues, which everyone just puts up with.)
| jstanley wrote:
| So why is it that the iPhone example looks much better than
| every webcam in exactly the same lighting conditions?
| asiando wrote:
| Because the iPhone is a pretty expensive mass-produced camera
| with millions of dollars in development costs that a webcam
| would never have.
|
| Even a highly-optimized "let's steal a smartphone camera"
| webcam would never cost under $100, so it would sell
| extremely little.
| onion2k wrote:
| iPhone cameras aren't particularly great. They're good, but
| the thing that makes iPhone pictures really good is the
| iPhone's computational photography software. If webcams
| started including powerful CPUs, GPUs, AI chips, and OSs that
| can turn average pictures in to amazing pictures then webcams
| would be good. They'd also be quite a lot more expensive.
| stonogo wrote:
| Except the webcam in my Macbook has a powerful CPU, GPU, AI
| chip, and an OS from _the same company_ and its webcam
| still sucks.
| _flux wrote:
| Surely you could put all that software on the expensive PC?
| llampx wrote:
| A webcam upgrading from a 50 cent ISP (Image Signal
| Processor) to a $2.00 one and a $3 lens instead of a $2 one
| (numbers based on conjecture from the average selling price
| of a low-end USB webcam) doesn't mean you need to build in
| a battery, a cellular antenna, a Wi-Fi radio, a desktop-
| grade CPU and GPU, give it a sturdy all-glass design and
| add speakers to it.
| [deleted]
| tda wrote:
| Still doesn't explain why a $300phone has a better camera than
| a $250 logitech BRIO. I recently bought a BRIO and in non
| optimal lighting the performance is just as mediocre as a $30
| C230 so I returned it immediately.
|
| In the en I convinced my wife to just use the DSLR (she was
| hesitant at first because of the extra hassle). A modern DSL
| had good IQ even ad candlelight, you really almost can't mess
| it up. Only way to destroy the image is to use different color
| lights (warm lightbulb on left side and natural light from a
| window on the right side will look weird on every camera I know
| of)
| i_am_proteus wrote:
| A DSLR with a lens costs thousands of dollars. A cheap
| continuous light with a cheap softbox costs about $150, and
| gets the job done.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| More like 500, around 1000 if you need a high quality lens
| tda wrote:
| Of course, the point was more that regardless of price the
| following holds in poor light: webcam < phone < point and
| shoot cam < dslr. Why are there no webcams with actual
| optical zoom lenses and decent sensor sizes? Why doesn't
| Canon or Nikon have a go, or Sony? The market (at least
| now) is a lot bigger than that for camera's. Even in the
| longer run, I bet a lot of people are willing to spend a
| bit extra to have the best looking image in the meeting.
| Everybody my wife videoconferences with immediately notices
| here camera is way better than theirs
|
| And also, not everyone wants to sit in front of a bright
| light
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > Why doesn't Canon or Nikon have a go, or Sony?
|
| Nikon offer a free webcam utility [0] that allows recent
| DSLRs (and mirrorless) to be used as a webcam when
| plugged into a PC. I tried it with my D850. The advantage
| is, predictably, awesome optics. The downsides were a)
| finding a place on my desk for the camera and some sort
| of mount b) the camera battery gets eaten really quickly.
|
| Interestingly, the webcam utility isn't available for the
| smallest Nikon cameras - the Coolpix range - so I guess
| there won't be a dedicated Nikon webcam.
|
| [0] https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/54
| 8/Webca...
| [deleted]
| whatyearisit wrote:
| A subscription to remove a forced watermark? No thank you.
|
| I wish this to be "Sherlock"d by Apple, hopefully on the next OS
| release.
| corysama wrote:
| Different article from a month ago "Why can't you buy a good web
| cam?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504771
|
| Lots of points. Big one being that the market is bifurcated into:
|
| 1. People who just want the minimum as cheap as possible.
|
| 2. People willing to pay enough to buy a mirrorless photo camera
| and plug it in as a web cam when they need it.
| masklinn wrote:
| > 1. People who just want the minimum as cheap as possible.
|
| The webcams tested in TFA go up to $200 though, that's well
| into low-end smartphone.
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| I'd be willing to pay for a good webcam, but I'm not willing to
| plug something as bulky and heavy as a mirrorless camera to my
| monitor, let alone to my laptop. I don't think that's a weird
| stance to have.
| cbozeman wrote:
| > People willing to pay enough to buy a mirrorless photo camera
| and plug it in as a web cam when they need it.
|
| Yeap. I feel like this is the way to go.
| bluGill wrote:
| 0. People who don't want a web cam on their computer at all.
|
| I know a lot of people who have put tape over their webcam. In
| fact that is the policy of several departments where I work.
| Some people use their web cams, but a large number of people I
| work with never use theirs.
|
| By using a cheap web cam manufactures can cover 1 without
| having to make a model without a webcam for those who don't
| want it - this would be more expensive than shipping a piece of
| tape to cover it just because they would need to design a
| second case and have a new part number.
| llampx wrote:
| I daresay that Group #2 comes out of necessity, since none of
| the webcams, even expensive ones, offer excellent image
| quality.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I see this pattern everywhere - the market bifurcating into a)
| race-to-the-bottom garbage products that are barely crossing
| the legal threshold of fit for purpose, and are essentially a
| huge waste of natural resources, and b) quality goods sold to
| specialists or companies, usually severely overpriced (to cover
| low volume of sales, and/or just because the market will bear
| it).
|
| Does it have a name in economics? Are there good ways of
| preventing this from happening?
| Animats wrote:
| Sears.
|
| Sears' niche was in the middle. Everything was good, but not
| great, quality. Products were durable, came with good
| warranties, and "We Service What We Sell". Sears sold to the
| middle class, with middle prices. They went bankrupt with
| that model.
| variaga wrote:
| Sears didn't just "go bankrupt" - it was killed by CEO
| Eddie Lampert.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/how-eddie-lampert-set-
| sears-...
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| s/killed/looted/
| variaga wrote:
| First one, then the other
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| It was even better - they used to have 3 of everything.
|
| Want a hammer? They've got exactly 3:
|
| 1) One that's good enough to get the job done (Cheap, solid
| for a one-off project.)
|
| 2) One that's great (The one you probably want: More
| expensive, but tradeoffs are balanced for most people.)
|
| 3) One that's basically best in class, with a lifetime
| warranty (Expensive, basically professionals, you could
| hand it down to your grandkids)
|
| I still think there's a craving for this sort of thing, but
| online. Extensively curated products divided into 3 tiers.
| nine_k wrote:
| Maybe it's because the middle class itself is vanishing.
| gumby wrote:
| Sears didn't start that way. Their appliances and tools
| were top of the line, for instance.
|
| Their own decline was a whoo-corporate example of the
| described phenomenon, accelerated if not triggered by the
| execrable Eddie Lampert.
| monadic3 wrote:
| Overproduction. Marxists write endlessly about the problem
| beginning with Marx himself.
| u678u wrote:
| I'm coming around to the "b) quality goods sold to
| specialists or companies, usually severely overpriced", is
| actually fairly priced. It just seems expensive compared to
| the junk that is incredibly cheap. I used to be worried about
| getting ripped off I never bought good quality but now I
| appreciate it.
| chapium wrote:
| Its expensive because there is a market for the mid-range
| model, but to achieve midrange, one must top out at the
| high end.
| ksec wrote:
| Polarization is used to describe something similar for Job
| Market. But I am not aware of an exact term for Product. Bad
| money drives out good could also be used to describe it, or
| basically Good Enough is the enemy of better and best.
|
| The problem is most people have very little understand of
| quality. And that is why Marketing matters.
|
| In WebCam, most dont cares much about the quality because you
| rarely use it. It wasn't until pandemic people were forced to
| use it more often did they realise how crap it was.
|
| Marketing is about educating customers why your product is
| better, how you should spend more on it. And Apple is an
| example, they are exceptionally good at it.
|
| > usually severely overpriced
|
| Most of the time I find that to be false. Not because of the
| market will bear it, but those market also requires constant
| innovation so profits are being funnel back into R&D.
| Generally speaking most "market will bear it" type of product
| disappear within 5 years when a competitor found they could
| make something better and cheaper.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Mirror less cameras aren't really overpriced. You can get a
| good entry level canon (M50) and a quality kit lens for 600$
|
| Or you can get a Sony A6100 and crappier kit lens for 700$
|
| These cameras have significant strong (e.g. aps-c sensor
| size) capabilities not found in anything except mirrorless
| and DSLR cameras. Seems not to be overpriced to me.
|
| Overpriced is like what nvidia does to the quattro cards...
| tomc1985 wrote:
| I wouldn't diss kit lenses... I built my reputation as a
| local photographer on a Nikon D3100-and-kit-lens Costco
| special. I could print shots at 13x19 and they'd come out
| crisp as hell
|
| Hell, that DX 18-55 kit lens had, in some ways, better
| optics than the FX 24-120 that cost more than the entire
| D3100 kit
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| The Sony kit lens is far worse than those other lenses
| though. How do they get a zoom with OIS for 99$? Skimping
| on the optics...
| tomc1985 wrote:
| That's a shame. What's wrong with optics on that? I can't
| imagine the 18-55 kit lens costs much more.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| This is called market segmentation, and is for some reason
| considered a good thing. Actually it's the means to extract
| maximum cash out of customers who want anything more than the
| bare minimum.
| novok wrote:
| No, what he is describing is the lack of a middle market
| segment, not the fact there are market segments.
|
| My guess is the world's middle class is slowly dieing, so
| all you have are the poor and the rich.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Except The cameras from today's article go up to $200 MSRP.
| janandonly wrote:
| Although this blog is written by someone with a financial
| incentive, it seems well thought out.
|
| The comparison is reasonable in that it compares "the best"
| webcam (a Logitec c930, according to
| https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/the-best-webcams/)
| with an iPhone using their software.
|
| I don't care if this is an "advertorial" or not, I'm going to
| test this software because my webcam sucks as well.
| sebmellen wrote:
| If you have a mirrorless or DSLR camera lying around, try this
| first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25870161. It might
| end up saving you money!
| rossjudson wrote:
| I use a Nikon D610 through a camlink 4k, and then a movo
| um700 for audio. The camlink 4k firmware has a bug (it
| reports modes it does not support), so I have a small
| workaround in place on Linux for that.
|
| Overall quality of everything is very high. Does it save
| money? I guess I already had the camera.
|
| Is it a good idea to broadcast myself at that level of
| quality? Probably not ;)
| mnw21cam wrote:
| I bought a HDMI->USB video capture card, and tried to use it
| with my DSLR camera. It works fine in Teams, but not in Zoom.
| And that's because Teams selects a reasonable capture
| resolution that matches the 16:9 aspect ratio image produced
| by my camera's HDMI output at 1080p. Zoom selects the lowest
| possible resolution, which is 640x480, which makes me look
| squished. There is no setting in the Zoom interface that lets
| me change this.
| jrickert wrote:
| If you haven't, try going into your video settings on Zoom
| and selecting "Enable HD". This solution has fixed the
| aspect ratio problem you're describing for my company's
| customers in almost every case.
| mnw21cam wrote:
| No, "Enable HD" does absolutely nothing.
| sebmellen wrote:
| If you're on a Mac you may be able to pipe it through
| CamTwist. I can add more info if you're interested but
| would take some work to dig up.
| mnw21cam wrote:
| No, Linux. I think I have found out how to use gphoto2
| and a direct usb link instead of the capture card, which
| may fix it, but that'll have to run on my main computer,
| not my slow laptop.
|
| I'd love to be able to tell the v4l driver for the usb
| capture card to just not offer the 640*480 resolution.
| That would fix it in a better way. Anyone have any ideas
| how to do that?
| pkvgames wrote:
| situs pkv games ada disini http://198.54.112.34/
| kleiba wrote:
| Good enough _for what_?
|
| Most of the sample pics look absolutely fine to me for every day
| use, i.e., online meetings.
| michaelt wrote:
| Of course existing webcams meet expectations for online
| meetings - nobody expects meeting participants to use something
| that doesn't exist.
|
| But if you've avoided the $15 Amazon's Choice webcams and
| purchased the absolute peak of what the webcam industry can
| produce, wouldn't you expect something better than the
| mediocrity shown?
|
| What if you're someone who cares about their appearance, and
| the pallid, unhealthy look of the C920 would have you reaching
| for your makeup bag if you saw it in the mirror?
|
| What if the pandemic has forced your dating life into zoom
| calls, for a first date you want to absolutely look your best,
| and you don't like how the Kiyo makes your forehead look shiny
| and really adds contrast to your receding hairline?
|
| What if you're slightly into photography and presenting such a
| shitty image as the best you can do goes against your pride
| when you can see so much wrong with it?
| bluGill wrote:
| Most of your what-ifs are happening on a phone with a better
| camera - at least for most people.
|
| For the exceptions you are correct, but I believe they are
| overall exceptions.
| greenimpala wrote:
| Agree, It's all wonderful comparing quality until you jump on a
| call and the stream gets throttled to 480p.
| llampx wrote:
| One step at a time. First let's get the webcam quality
| looking good locally, then we can solve the network problem.
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| And a few decades ago most people would say that SDTV looked
| absolutely fine for everything but some high-visuals movies
| that they would rather see in the cinema. Now, even a newscast
| looks crap in SDTV.
|
| I think if webcams look absolutely fine to you for online
| meetings it's probably because you have become used to the
| crappiness. People don't typically show notebooks or pieces of
| paper in online meetings, because the cameras are crap, and
| they know they will create an awkward moment trying to focus on
| the notes and probably failing. For the same reason, people
| often won't use a whiteboard in an online meeting, etc. These
| would be totally normal things to do if we had decent webcams.
| kleiba wrote:
| Well, I still have an analog (tube) TV, so I guess I'm not
| with you on that one...
| bronco21016 wrote:
| I agree. I rarely find I'm bothered by the quality of another
| person's camera in video chat situations.
|
| However, it's significantly bothersome when people refuse to
| use earbuds or a headset so audio isn't constantly clipping
| during conversation, or they have a massive light source behind
| them like a window and their face is just a shadow the whole
| time, or their camera is staring god knows where the whole
| time.
|
| There's a lot of low hanging fruit to up the quality of a video
| chat before you need to get too worried about the quality of
| the camera.
|
| Obviously this is for everyday video chat. If you're live-
| streaming or doing some kind of professional video
| presentation, then yes it's frustrating that the market is $100
| or $1,500+.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-22 23:01 UTC)