[HN Gopher] Opal Camera
___________________________________________________________________
Opal Camera
Author : konha
Score : 48 points
Date : 2021-09-08 21:50 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (opalcamera.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (opalcamera.com)
| smoldesu wrote:
| I had my cursor over the 'buy' button until I saw that their
| client was Mac-only, and it appears to be the only easy way to
| modify any of the settings. Seems a little silly to buy a webcam
| that I can only control with <10% of the computers I encounter on
| a daily basis.
| modeless wrote:
| This is very dishonest in the video comparison section. The Opal
| Camera video is using a software background blur filter (just
| like the one in Zoom or Hangouts) to make it look like it has a
| DSLR style lens with shallow depth of field. But in reality it
| has a tiny, crappy lens, just like every other terrible webcam.
|
| Also they compare vs a $2k camera but _any_ DSLR will put this
| thing to shame and there are much cheaper ones out there. Even a
| point-and-shoot pocket camera would be much better than this
| thing, if it supports a webcam mode (not sure if any do).
|
| Despite the rigged comparison, at full resolution you can still
| easily tell that the video quality is nowhere near the level of
| the DSLR: https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4
| https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4
| dmitrygr wrote:
| All I see is a textual 404 page: https://archive.is/defP6
| aendruk wrote:
| Somehow I expected that to be an archived copy of the working
| page. I feel like I got rickrolled, but it's exactly as
| promised. Here's one with text at least:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20210813192120/https://opalcamer...
|
| Opal is "DSLR technology on a webcam".
| tmabraham wrote:
| The website is down, I am getting a 404 page.
| rasz wrote:
| Its a "mirrorless DSLR"! As a bonus its build around Intel
| Movidius, probably cancelled before they start shipping.
|
| and 404 page not found
| [deleted]
| formerly_proven wrote:
| The blurbs are a little bit incoherent
|
| > DSLR technology on a webcam
|
| > A Mirrorless Miracle
|
| > 7.8mm [diagonal] sensor
|
| 7.8 mm diagonal is basically the ballpark of a phone camera
| sensor (which it almost certainly is). It's not all that obvious
| why you'd spent 300 $ on this instead of using a smartphone as a
| webcam. 300 $ also gets somewhat close to being able to buy a
| used low-end mirrorless camera plus lens and adapter (if
| necessary), which is more flexible and you get a camera for free.
|
| Might be for the "can't be bothered, but have money" market, as
| an all-in-one-solution to get something OK without meddling?
| bayindirh wrote:
| The only thing it has a top notch Sony sensor and a glass lens
| assembly, with f/1.8 _equivalent_ aperture.
|
| It'll have no bokeh or low light sensitivity of an FF or APS-C
| camera. Also, Sony A7 (first generation) comparison is rigged.
| Get an A7-III, A7C for $2000, and install latest webcam
| drivers. Its colors and fidelity will blow Opal out of water,
| even without trying (both have 6K sensors, too).
|
| The only alleged improvement of Opal is microphone array
| however, Apple is already good at this. When Zoom & Google's
| noise cancellation technology is added on top, everything is
| more than satisfactory, for most scenarios. On this front, I'm
| not sure that stereo mics of a true mirrorless system would be
| _that_ behind in focusing sound (if webcam driver can stream
| the location of the prominent face to the driver, a more
| advanced sound filtering can be done with a pair of mics, too).
|
| If you're too inclined, you can just throw in a Yeti in a mix
| and, sound issue will be solved for once and for all.
|
| All in all, it's a good webcam, but they're picking wrong
| competitors. A modern mirrorless is too powerful for them, and
| MacBook's pinhole webcam is too good for its size. They need
| better marketing and targeting IMHO.
| carlob wrote:
| What do you mean f/1.8 equivalent? I thought focal lengths
| were different for different sensor sizes, not apertures.
| bayindirh wrote:
| the F number is calculated by f/D where f is the focal
| length and D is the diameter of entrance pupil.
|
| For a F/1.0, 50mm lens, you need a 50mm front element.
|
| In Opal's terms, this means their f/D ratio is 1.8.
| However, it doesn't mean it can capture equal number of
| photons with a full frame system with a f/1.8 lens, since
| their sensors' surface area is not equivalent.
|
| Another difference will be in DoF. Since the sensor is
| smaller, there'll be a big crop factor, it'll multiply
| everything. Hence the resulting DoF will not be anything
| like a full frame system. In other words, almost everything
| will be in focus.
|
| To add a cherry on top, they're not telling the T number of
| their lens, which defines how much light actually passes
| through it. F number and T number can be vastly different,
| intentionally or unintentionally, due to design parameters
| and features of a lens.
| AirborneUnicorn wrote:
| As I understand it, a larger sensor size will require
| longer focal lengths to match an "equivalent" view angle as
| a smaller sensor. As focal length increases, perceived
| depth of field becomes more shallow. Which is to say, a
| lens at f/4 on a 4x5 camera will will be much more shallow
| than an equivalent angle lens on a smaller film/sensor
| size.
| jonas21 wrote:
| > _All in all, it 's a good webcam, but they're picking wrong
| competitors. A modern mirrorless is too powerful for them,
| and MacBook's pinhole webcam is too good for its size. They
| need better marketing and targeting IMHO._
|
| I disagree. Their target market is the person who says, "I'm
| tired of looking lousy in my Zoom meetings, but I know
| nothing about cameras. What can I do to fix this?"
|
| Then they see the Macbook Webcam video and think, "that's how
| I look now", and they see the Opal and A7 videos and think,
| "that's how I'd like to look."
|
| Then they see the prices, where the Opal is in the
| "accessory" price range, and the A7 costs more than their
| laptop. And they're sold on the Opal.
| bayindirh wrote:
| > Then they see the prices, where the Opal is in the
| "accessory" price range, and the A7 costs more than their
| laptop. And they're sold on the Opal.
|
| The thing is, you can't buy a new A7 (MK-I) today, and if
| you can buy one, it'd be around the same price of a brand
| new Opal.
|
| Or you can buy an Logitech Brio Ultra, and use that one. If
| you buy an even modestly priced Fuji APS-C camera, it'll
| blow Opal out of water.
|
| I'm not telling that Opal is bad hardware. It's modestly
| good hardware, ruined by bad marketing and wrong claims.
| floren wrote:
| I wonder precisely what DSLR technology is in it... if the
| answer is "a high-quality sensor", well, that's the D, what
| about the SLR? :)
| bigiain wrote:
| No off set optical viewfinder, to that's the Single Lens bit
| covered...
|
| (I'm guessing here, the article is 404ing for me...)
| mcbuilder wrote:
| I agree that it is probably for those who want "DLSR", or
| "iPhone 11" if you prefer, quality, but don't want to spend the
| hassle beyond plugging it in and having it just work.
| konrad__ wrote:
| For an alternative you can buy right now: I am using a UC 70
| (mokose 4k in the US / osybz 4k on AliExpress) it's around 170$
| with surprisingly good image quality. It supports UVC, so you
| don't have to install drivers or "Ai enhance" bloatware. The
| included (CS-mount, interchangeable) lens is pretty good as well,
| although the widest field of view is not as wide as other
| webcams. No microphone though...
| Grismar wrote:
| Spectacularly bad SEO and marketing, try searching for it. Vapor?
| konha wrote:
| Alexis Ohanian tweeted about it earlier, seems real.
|
| https://twitter.com/alexisohanian/status/1435709529308626946...
| 0des wrote:
| I like the niche that's being targeted here, and I did sign up.
| 300 is affordable, and who doesn't like trying new things?
| However, after giving my email, I scroll down to the comparison
| between iPhone, this, and Sony, and I'm a bit let down.
|
| I'm not trying to be the one with the hot take here, but the
| depth of field is too shallow, the edges are fuzzy, and the
| colors are blown out. Perhaps the comparison would have been
| better between similar devices in a similar cost bracket, like a
| GoPro or actual higher end webcams.
| troupe wrote:
| I'd consider narrow depth of field a plus when it comes to a
| camera that is supposed to be showing my face.
| daniel_reetz wrote:
| I have to say, the comparisons don't look very favorable. It
| looks like they favor image processing vs lens/sensor combo.
| This is a modern take to be sure; just not one I'm real excited
| about.
| poglet wrote:
| I agree, It looks like the main difference between the Macbook
| webcam and the others was the exposure. If the Opal software
| worked with the Mac camera allowing adjustments of exposure and
| white balance that would be perfect (with the lack of true
| depth of field & 4k)
|
| When I read about webcams most of the comments revolve around
| the microphone quality, I think there should be more focus on
| that, for example noise reduction technology etc. Marketing
| could also be made towards video game streamers who often use
| digital cameras and dedicated mics.
| bayindirh wrote:
| Logitech is making webcams with good microphones for a very
| long time. Their highest end ones (e.g. Brio Ultra HD) also
| have build in noise cancellation IIRC
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| I also came here to say that the comparisons are bad wrt.
| exposure. If you don't believe in your product enough to give
| fair comparisons, then I'm not buying it.
|
| Also, with regards to the "works in low light" point: we
| recently had a problem where the lights went out during a web
| meeting in the evening. I was surprised to see my $75
| Logitech C920 took about two seconds to adjust exposure and
| give a perfectly good image just from the light of my
| monitor.
|
| And with the amount of video compression that is used, I'm
| not sure anyone is able to tell the difference.
| jonas21 wrote:
| I think they're betting this is more than a niche product --
| with so many jobs going remote, lots of people are going to
| want a good webcam for Zoom, etc.
|
| Most people are going to look at the comparison between the
| Opal and A7 and not see much of a difference, but the Opal is
| 7x cheaper.
| bayindirh wrote:
| However, A7 test is not fair. First generation A7 is more
| than 8 years old. Current $2K camera is A7C and A7III, and
| A7III is one of the most color-accurate cameras out there.
| rasz wrote:
| You dont even need A7, A6000 is what a lot of pr0 twitch
| streamers use and its pretty much studio quality.
| bayindirh wrote:
| Of course. A recent Fuji will provide the same quality
| too. I'm bringing up A7-III and A7C, because Opal
| directly uses A7 as a comparative target.
| briandoll wrote:
| Or just use your much better iPhone camera via Camo
| (https://reincubate.com/camo/) w/ great image tuning, etc. since
| you always have your phone with you and isn't yet another thing
| to deal with.
| jjcm wrote:
| I've used Camo and other phone-as-a-webcam softwares before. My
| issue with them is setup is required. If I need to 2fa into
| something during a zoom call, I have to turn off my webcam and
| use my phone, then re set up my phone as a camera, turn on the
| software, and link it to my computer. It's too much friction,
| especially if you only have 1 min before a meeting to prep.
|
| With a dedicated webcam, it's alway set up. There's no software
| to start up, there's no positioning the camera every time.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I'll check it out, when it ships.
|
| Webcams are a pain to produce. Someone here, posted a story
| (maybe a year or so ago), about how they wanted to make a webcam,
| and gave up, because logistics.
| foofoo4u wrote:
| I wonder how this compares to the [Webex Desk
| Camera](https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collaboration-
| endpoin...) which seems to be in a similar price point.
| troupe wrote:
| The WebEx deskcam is nice but doesn't have an option for as
| narrow of field of view as their previous webcams. Also
| Microsoft Teams hates it and will only use the lowest
| resolution which is a pain when you have a 4k camera.
| foofoo4u wrote:
| Quick suggestion to whoever created the website. Please enable an
| ability to make the video comparisons full-screen-able. I can't
| gauge as well how good the quality actually is unless I can scale
| it up.
| perardi wrote:
| Well the website is down, but from the cache, the primary selling
| point is...
|
| _"An f1.8, six-element, glass lens brings in 2.4x more light
| than any other webcam...With a 7.8mm, 4K Sony sensor"_
|
| ...which granted, is better than other webcams. Except for the
| one in my pocket, on my iPhone. Which also has advanced noise-
| filtering technology.
|
| I guess there's a market for a fancy standalone webcam, but it
| cannot be huge. Most people don't care, people who moderately
| care can use their smartphones with a bevy of tethering software,
| and if you _really_ care you are probably a streamer or YouTube
| producer who has a real camera, like perhaps this Sony:
|
| https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-zv-e10-review
| asimpletune wrote:
| > I guess there's a market for a fancy standalone webcam, but
| it cannot be huge. Most people don't care, people who
| moderately care can use their smartphones ...
|
| I think I've seen a number of times on HN people complaining
| that there isn't a better camera solution, given how much
| remote work we've been doing since covid. This is usually
| followed by people saying that what's really important is
| sound, along with their personal setups.
|
| Based on that alone I think this company has a reasonable
| chance at success, especially since stuff like this is often
| expensed. I'd say one risk to the company is when Apple simply
| makes better cameras in their MacBooks, but even then it'll be
| a while before company's replenish their supply of new
| MacBooks.
| modeless wrote:
| Ooh, the ZV-E10 looks nice! I already have some E-mount lenses
| for my NEX-5, but it's too old to work with the webcam software
| Sony released last year, so I was thinking about upgrading.
| inportb wrote:
| So... they're saying their product is approximately on par with
| an 8-year-old camera? Though the A7 video still looks better, as
| expected.
|
| > Macbook Webcam Free https://opalcamera.com/compare-macbook.mp4
|
| > Opal C1 $300 https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4
|
| > Sony A7 $2050 https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4
|
| I don't even know where to buy the A7 now, but the A7II could be
| had for sub-$1k.
| dharma1 wrote:
| It looks like a really well designed product. But you can just
| use your phone as a desktop webcam no? Maybe this is a bit less
| faff
| profquail wrote:
| The Opal webcam ($300) looks fairly similar in specification to
| the new(ish) Dell UltraSharp webcam ($200):
| https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-webcam/apd/3...
|
| What is Opal offering over the Dell webcam for the extra $100?
| OliverJones wrote:
| What's the difference?
|
| This Opal has a good quality lens. f/1.8 is a large aperture.
| That means it can gather a lot of light. Six glass elements
| probably means it has good geometric and color distortion
| characteristics. The specs say it has a fixed focus from 10cm
| to infinity. That's not bad.
|
| Lenses like that for DSLRs retail for $100 or more.
|
| The Dell webcam specs say nothing, but nothing, about the lens.
| That usually means it's a coke-bottle shard. (meaning cheap and
| barely acceptable.)
|
| Opal are also bragging about a beam-forming mic array (that is,
| a software shotgun mic). That's worth money. No mic at all on
| the Dell.
|
| Compare various smartphones. Many smartphone makers brag about
| their lenses.
| Sebguer wrote:
| The knowledge that it won't work on a Windows machine, as far
| as I can tell from their ad copy.
|
| Edit: Though, to be fair, apparently the Dell one doesn't
| support macOS?
| grendelt wrote:
| "Plug & play, right on your Mac."
|
| So... Windows users SOL? It's a USB webcam, no?
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| If you have a smartphone lying around waiting to be useful, you
| can use OBS with OBS.Ninja. Ninja will run in the browser and
| it works very well on any platform. I used it a few times since
| Macbook camera is not great.
| nsajko wrote:
| The paragraph immediately below:
|
| > Access the power of Opal Computer Vision within the Opal app.
| The app allows you fine-grain tuning of your image and access
| to Machine Learning powered features that help you look your
| best.
|
| So the software seems to be Mac-only.
| werber wrote:
| I appreciate the honest side by side comparison. This seems like
| a god send for the light sensitive power can user but for the
| occasional one on one developer like me a waste
| arthurcolle wrote:
| Looks great!
|
| I have the Logitech BRIO which is quite nice for the quality.
| Theres this subculture that seems to have emerged where people
| get these super top notch mics for videoconferences now that
| everyone is remote, which I don't really get but this definitely
| seems great if not a bit overkill!
| ebspelman wrote:
| I feel like that has to do with the Twitch/streamer culture
| too, where lots of people have big, visible mikes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-08 23:00 UTC)