[HN Gopher] Why can't you buy a good webcam?
___________________________________________________________________
Why can't you buy a good webcam?
Author : murkt
Score : 617 points
Date : 2020-12-22 10:16 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (vsevolod.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (vsevolod.net)
| hatsunearu wrote:
| Or you know, get a used sony a6000, a capture card, and a
| microphone.
| caturopath wrote:
| Similarly, why can't you buy a good speakerphone?
|
| It seems like all of the professional quality stuff is not
| amenable to just plugging in at home. I have a Jabra speakermic
| thing that's passable, but not as good as something in a real
| conference room.
|
| I, unfortunately, cannot wear something on or in my ears all day,
| or a high-quality audio setup would be easy.
| pembrook wrote:
| The reason you can't buy a good webcam is the same reason you
| can't buy a high quality monitor outside of LG's unreliable apple
| collab.
|
| The lazy conglomerates who sell these peripherals often don't
| actually produce the parts in them. They simply rebrand commodity
| cameras and IPS panels in a crap plastic housing and slap their
| logo on it.
|
| Then they give the product a hilariously user-hostile product
| name, like "PQS GRT46782-WT" as an extra f-you to the user.
|
| They don't care about you because they have no ongoing
| relationship with you, and their executives mistakenly see their
| own products as commodities.
|
| Combine this with the fact that most home users don't care about
| good quality or even know what it is, and you have the current
| situation.
|
| A friend once described the peripheral market as "Assholes
| selling crap to idiots."
| huhtenberg wrote:
| Take a look at Eizo (pun intended).
| bhaile wrote:
| Didn't know about this company but looking at their history
| here[1], they used to sell under the brand name Nanao in the
| US. Nanao made great monitors with consistent high reviews.
|
| [1] https://www.eizo.com/company/information/history/
| fluidcruft wrote:
| Recent Siemens MRI scanners come with Eizo displays. I had
| not heard of them previously, but they do seem pretty nice.
| antonyh wrote:
| I'd choose an Eizo over LG, definitely.
| numpad0 wrote:
| * eizo/eizou means "footage" or "image" in Japanese
| gaudat wrote:
| I think LG makes their own panels but Eizo doesn't? I think
| it's probably better buying a digital signage display from
| LG, Samsung or the likes.
| philjohn wrote:
| There are a small handful of panel manufacturers, that's
| true.
|
| Companies like Eizo typically have agreements where they
| will take the cream-of-the-crop panels though.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| I used to have a two-monitor setup with a Dell (? not sure)
| and an Eizo, both using the exact same panel. I started
| with one monitor and then got the Eizo. The difference in
| picture quality and eye comfort was absolutely jaw-
| dropping. Dell looked and felt like a complete junk in
| comparison.
|
| Make what you will of this, but it's not just a panel _per
| se_ , it's also how it's integrated and used in the whole
| product.
| gaudat wrote:
| Tip: try to find out what panel the monitor you are buying has.
| Then look the panel up in a database like panelook.com. This
| way you can get the specifications without any marketing
| bullshit.
|
| It also works the other way round. Find a panel that is good
| enough for your eyes, then see if there's a mass marketed
| display with that panel. If you are adventurous, you can grab
| "DIY" or "assembled" monitors with the panels on Chinese
| e-Commerce sites.
| pkulak wrote:
| Does anything else have that LG 5K panel? :D
| arvindamirtaa wrote:
| Wow I'll never shop for monitors the same again.
| api wrote:
| Yep, that's what I did. The panel is the actual product. The
| housing is just stuff around the panel.
| wruza wrote:
| For monitors it is more than that. For a pretty expensive
| 144hz/1440p/gsync category that I researched a couple of
| years ago there were three options: acer, asus and viewsonic
| (and unavailable aoc). It turned out that asus, despite being
| a "better, much more money" brand, did a worse job of
| mounting the panel, so it had statistically worse backlight
| bleeding at one edge.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| What's wrong with Asus installing alarms in their monitors?
| I learned the hard way being woken up in the middle of the
| night by a loud siren I couldnt locate the source as I
| wouldn't have expected it will come from a frikin monitor!
| There is no way to turn that off apart from physically
| powering it off and it happens totally random.
| wruza wrote:
| Oh, that's amazing. I got curious and found this comment
| on youtube, sharing in case it may help or diagnose:
|
| _Battle Angel Sorry, not sure why I didn 't share
| previously. So, I believe this is caused by using a non-
| HDMI cable with the audio out turned on. Either turn the
| audio in the display off completely in the settings, or
| use a new HDMI cable. The alarm is a result of the
| display trying to send an audio signal through a
| Displayport cable. Are those of you getting this alarm
| using Displayport cables? They do not pair audio with
| video, as HDMI does. I hope this fixes your problem._
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1i2dB8mGuKM
| intricatedetail wrote:
| This is so great! I've been looking for a solution to no
| avail but I have not seen that one. Yes I use DP cable.
| I'll try that. Thank you so much!
| [deleted]
| pembrook wrote:
| This sounds compelling. I'd love to get my hands on the LG
| Ultrafine 5k panel in a cheaper case and just bring my own
| thunderbolt dock.
|
| What sites are you finding these "assembled" monitors?
| tilolebo wrote:
| Isn't it so that monitors or laptops under the same model
| sometimes use different panels?
| gaudat wrote:
| Yes. Consider most people only care about the resolution,
| sometimes manufacturers substitute a lower cost panel that
| is inferior in say, gamut or response time.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Isn't there a chance that the assembled Chinese monitors
| actually use second grade panels that the big makers wouldn't
| accept?
|
| I remember getting a 27-inch 1440p display from a Chinese
| manufacturer for really cheap back in high school. It
| should've been the exact same panel as was in Apple's iMacs.
| However, the were some quality issues with it long term and
| it's definitely suffering from burn-in that I don't think the
| iMacs suffer from.
| pembrook wrote:
| Actually iMacs and their display counterparts in the LG
| ultrafine series are known to suffer from burn-in.
|
| Google iMac or LG ultrafine "image retention" or
| "ghosting." I have no idea what percent of displays are
| affected, but there's enough threads about it on Reddit and
| macrumors to make me think it's pretty common.
| remlov wrote:
| FWIW Planar makes 27" monitors that use the same 5K and 2K
| panels used in the iMacs, down to the bonded glass surface.
| The Planar IX2790 and PXL2790MW respectively. I have the
| PXL2790MW and if you look closely you can see the glass
| peephole for the nonexistent iSight Camera. Not sure if
| it's B grade panels that Apple rejected but it's flawless,
| maybe I just got lucky.
| randallsquared wrote:
| I have a couple of these from 2014-15, and they are very,
| very nice (and as a plus, they matched the dpi of some
| macbook models at the time, at least). One surprise: they
| were very heavy compared to other, similarly-specced
| monitors.
| remlov wrote:
| The only issue I had was coil whine coming from a choke
| on the power supply inverter board. I resolved this by
| cracking open the monitor and encasing the choke in two
| part epoxy.
| whatever1 wrote:
| It is hit or miss. I own two, the one is flawless (apart
| from the retention which is the norm apparently in LG
| displays). The other I have exchanged it 2 times and
| still have issues with many many dead pixels. So in my
| case 3/4 were bad apples.
| [deleted]
| gaudat wrote:
| Yes, so often I ask if the seller can provide a "perfect"
| display, that is, without any artifacts on the display.
| This adds 100-200 CNY to the price.
|
| There's a Chinese panel manufacturer called BOE that makes
| products competitive with some of the lower-end Samsung /
| LG panels.
|
| I got one 15.6" 2160p external display with a BOE panel
| that offers 100% sRGB coverage. I can see a huge difference
| compared to my Dell Latitude laptop display.
|
| Now if anyone can find a source of 55" 4K OLED panels, that
| would be the one ultimate display. Combine it with a VBO
| driver board and it becomes better than any smart TVs.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _I can see a huge difference compared to my Dell
| Latitude laptop display._
|
| And outside of a few occupations that might actually
| require pixel-perfect colour, what does this matter? Is
| this like the audiophile world, where people argue about
| seemingly subjective things that no else cares about?
|
| The customer interprets colours differently than you, the
| customer sees colours differently than you, and the
| customer is using a monitor that almost assuredly
| displays the colours differently than yours. And the
| world continues to turn.
| krzyk wrote:
| > And outside of a few occupations that might actually
| require pixel-perfect colour, what does this matter? Is
| this like the audiophile world, where people argue about
| seemingly subjective things that no else cares about?
|
| I'm a color blind person and even I can see a color
| difference between cheap displays that I have at work and
| an old EIZO one that I bought years ago at home.
|
| I can more accurately diffrentiate between different
| colors/shades on my EIZO panel.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| I enjoy having a high quality display for all kinds of
| reasons. Better comfort while programming, accurate
| colour representation while looking at photos, having a
| good sense of what things might look like for others
| (accurate colour means you might be the middle ground of
| your users experiences, inaccurate colour means you can't
| be sure at all), and otherwise, if I'm going to spend a
| lot on something I'll own for half a decade I would
| prefer to get something accurate. The price difference
| isn't sufficient enough to justify saving a little bit to
| have a poor colour experience.
| _carbyau_ wrote:
| Agree with your general stance. My current monitors are
| from 2007 and have endured many hours of use and a
| capacitor replacement.
|
| I am considering my next purchase on the basis of at
| least 5 years of service and that is a long time to be
| looking at something "not quite right".
| wongarsu wrote:
| > accurate colour means you might be the middle ground of
| your users experiences, inaccurate colour means you can't
| be sure at all
|
| Having a setup with multiple cheap monitors is imho
| really underrated for design and development. Moving
| something between screens and seeing clear contrast
| disappear, or see pleasing color choices turn ugly can be
| eye opening.
| thewebcount wrote:
| Agreed! Back when I was in music school, they brought in
| Tony Bonjiovi[0], a well-known record producer at the
| time. He talked about how the ultimate test of any
| recording was to copy it to a cassette, take it out to
| the engineer's Camaro with 1 broken speaker and see how
| it sounded there. If it sounded good there, it would
| sound great anywhere else.
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Bongiovi
| leetcrew wrote:
| monitor image quality is quite a bit more objective than
| what audiophiles look for in high end audio equipment.
| sRGB defines a specific physical color that ought to be
| displayed for each RGB sequence. if you can get a very
| accurate display for <$1000 just by doing a bit of
| research, why wouldn't you?
| the_pwner224 wrote:
| These differences are very clearly noticeable. I upgraded
| many years ago from a 72% sRGB to a 99% sRGB Dell IPS and
| everything looked much better. I just got the LG 27GN950
| which is 95% DCI P3... I was mainly getting it for the
| 4k/144 with the P3 as a nice bonus (I already had 4k/60
| on the Dell). Looking at the Dell, I was thinking that P3
| might be nice to have but it wouldn't really matter much
| aside from photo editing - the colors on the Dell already
| looked great.
|
| I just unboxed the new monitor 2 days ago. The richer
| color was immediately noticeable, and when I looked at
| some random photos I took with my phone recently I was
| blown away by just how _red_ and _green_ and _yellow
| /blue_ things were. Like a completely new realm of color.
|
| It's one of those things that you can't appreciate until
| you experience it (same going from the original 72% to
| 99% sRGB).
|
| The Dell was $450 for 4k, 2.5 years ago. The new LG was
| $800, but you can find 60fps P3 4k monitors for around
| $500 these days iirc. If you're on Hacker News you
| probably use your computer a lot. Unless you're running
| low on cash, upgrading to a great monitor is worth it.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Seconded. I have 2 LG 27GN950-B's on my desk, and love
| the 27" 4K HDR @ 144Hz experience (at least on Catalina.
| Big Sur has completely broken DSC and will only do HDR @
| 60, non-HDR @ 95).
|
| I love them for my photo editing.
| simias wrote:
| I don't think the audiophile comparison makes really
| sense here (and I like to mock audiophiles more than
| most) simply because display technology still has a long
| way to go before it reaches the level of audio when it
| comes to "bang for your buck".
|
| CD quality audio is less than 1 megabit per second per
| channel, uncompressed. HDR (10 bits per component)
| 4K60fps 4:2:2 video is around 10Gbit per second of data.
|
| Of course data bandwidth is only a small part of the
| problem of correctly reproducing an analog signal, but it
| gives you the orders of magnitude we're dealing with.
|
| I currently use a cheap ASUS 4K display. It's more good
| enough for coding, but I wouldn't trust it for any sort
| of graphical work. The viewing angle is pretty bad, so
| depending on what part of the screen I'm looking at I see
| colors differently, and some gradients become more or
| less visible depending on which part of the screen
| they're on. Contrast is pretty bad, making even some
| videogame display poorly: depending on the location and
| time of day contrast seems always too high or too low.
|
| You can buy a good sub $100 pair of earphones and a sub
| $50 DAAC and they'll be good enough to do 99% of any
| audiophile work you could ever want to do reliably. If
| you want to do serious graphics work without having to
| constantly adjust for your display you'll have to go for
| something a lot more expensive than an entry-level
| monitor.
| bserge wrote:
| That was the case with noname Korean/Chinese monitors a
| decade ago that used high quality IPS panels found in Apple
| and other professional displays - they used rejected
| panels, which had various issues (mostly dead pixels
| afaik).
|
| https://techreport.com/review/23291/those-27-inch-ips-
| displa...
|
| But overall, they were a great purchase
| quality/performance/cost wise.
| jdeibele wrote:
| Bought mine on Amazon for $400 six years ago. It stopped
| showing a picture but I get a white flicker at the base
| of the screen every few seconds.
|
| I could (and probably should) investigate fixing it but
| it was easier to buy a 2160p Philips for $240. Only issue
| with the Philips is it doesn't have a VESA mount and it
| would be difficult to make some sort of jury-rigging
| work.
|
| I run them attached to a Mac Mini and use the DisplayPort
| on the monitor. At one point I believe HDMI (or maybe
| just the Mac) wouldn't do 1440p. I'm copying stuff from
| an Intel Mac mini to an M1 and I'm able to toggle back
| and forth using HDMI for the Intel just fine.
| aembleton wrote:
| I'm reading this on an IPS panel I bought a decade ago
| from South Korea. Works great, but with a bit of light
| bleed in the top left hand corner. I paid extra to have
| one without dead pixels.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Yeah, a cheap 1440p as a student was certainly a great
| thing when they were still rather expensive, even though
| the base was wobbly as all hell and it later developed
| some issues.
| soylentcola wrote:
| Yep! Still using the "Auria" monitor that I purchased at
| Microcenter back around 2012. Cost maybe $300-350 for a
| 2560x1440 IPS monitor at a time when you were easily
| looking at $500-800+ for a similar panel from a name
| brand.
|
| Now, if you were a professional, that quality control and
| warranty (not to mention better ergonomics, etc.) were
| easily worth the added cost, but for just "some dude who
| liked playing video games and doing some photo/video
| editing", it was a great bang for the buck.
|
| I still use this as my main monitor and haven't noticed
| any dead pixels (if there are any, they're so hard to see
| that they may as well not be there). It's not the best
| monitor out there and you can probably get a better
| 2560x1440 display for less now, but at the time it was a
| big improvement over the cheap 1920x1080 display that
| quickly got demoted to secondary (and has now been loaned
| indefinitely to a teacher friend who needed a second
| monitor to plug into her laptop for online classes).
| feteru wrote:
| Heyo another Auria user here! I actually recently
| upgraded to a Dell 4k screen, but that Auria served me
| great for several years and is my secondary setup screen.
| Got it used for $150, amazing value there!
| Macuyiko wrote:
| That brings back memories :). I ended up buying one of
| these and apart from some weird quirks (only wanted to
| work over DVI and not with an HDMI-DVI dongle), the image
| quality was great and so cheap (for the time).
| bserge wrote:
| Yeah, if you look into it, you'll find most monitors using
| the same panels from LG, AUO, Samsung or ChiMei, with some
| outliers.
|
| When it comes to assembled monitors, the highest failure rate
| is in the power supply. The components used and the
| cooling/ventilation play a big part in that.
| augustk wrote:
| Another thing I find really annoying is when I browse a website
| and first have to choose a product line when I don't even know
| what the difference between the product lines are.
| soylentcola wrote:
| Right? Like "is this for home use, office use, or gaming?"
|
| I guess I understand where they're coming from, when most
| potential customers would likely glaze over and click away if
| presented with a long list of specs and product numbers.
|
| Still, it's always nice when they at least have a "show all
| products" link that takes me to exactly that. I want a full
| list that can be narrowed down with filters.
| rzwitserloot wrote:
| > The lazy conglomerates who sell these peripherals often don't
| actually produce the parts in them
|
| > Combine this with the fact that most home users don't care
| about good quality or even know what it is, and you have the
| current situation.
|
| It sounds apt. But... There is an absolutely thriving market
| for keyboards and mice.
|
| For both, conglomerates like logitech and microsoft are selling
| both what you describe as 'crap', as well as higher end stuff
| that tries to care about quality. Possibly not in the way you
| think is most important, but certainly a Logitech MX Master3
| keyboard retailing at >$100 is not a cheap piece of crap. The
| letters aren't inked on, for example, thus ensuring they don't
| rub off particularly easily. Not a feature that is advertised
| or is likely to show up in a review. The kind of quality move
| that doesn't make sense if the market is just 'assholes selling
| crap to idiots'.
|
| Keyboards are even more interesting; a lively indie market for
| custom-built usually mechanical keyboards, supported by parts
| manufacturers where price isn't particularly important.
|
| I agree, though - the webcam market is quite a mess. So, what's
| the explanation for that? Why do keyboards and mice not fall
| under your 'assholes selling crap to idiots' rule?
| pembrook wrote:
| Keyboards are MUCH easier to produce than LCD displays or
| cameras.
|
| The problem is that there's only so many companies that truly
| design and manufacture photographic sensors, lenses and LCD
| panels. And all the downstream "brands" that assemble this
| technology into cheap plastic cases to sell to consumers can
| only do so much to differentiate. Add neon lights for gamers.
| Make it look dull for business users. Etc. They also sell TVs
| and have thousands of other SKUs, so they really don't care
| about any individual product.
|
| Apple is both incentivized (due to their ongoing customer
| relationships) and able to break out of this mold because
| they:
|
| a) Produce a tighter number of SKUs
|
| and
|
| b) Do enough volume to control and change what the original
| equipment manufacturers are producing
| LoSboccacc wrote:
| Eh, do really consumer want them? Like not pros that do
| streaming for a living etc, but the people doing conferencing
| or the occasional capture?
|
| They will hit local, isps or teleconferencing bandwidth cap
| well before sending all the bits a webcam captures, with
| subsequent recompression to crap quality.
|
| Why would they bother then?
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _The lazy conglomerates who sell these peripherals often
| don't actually produce the parts in them._
|
| You think that complete vertical integration will _improve_
| product quality?
| leadingthenet wrote:
| Apple
| blablabla123 wrote:
| That seems a bit drastic but I agree with the sentiment and
| would also include laptops. Maybe I'm wrong since I didn't
| check all hardware but Apple still seem to be the only ones
| that have rigid quality controls, make sure parallel parts are
| parallel, mechanical parts stand a reasonable amount of
| movements. (At least as long they are not testing a new
| "innovation" like butterfly keyboards... ;)) That said, I buy
| stuff used if I cannot buy the high quality version. It falls
| apart anyway, this way there's no reason to be upset and it's
| better for the environment.
| roel_v wrote:
| If you want to go bargain basement yes. If not, get an XPS or
| a Thinkpad (of the 'pro' series) and you'll have great
| hardware. Of course there will always be someone who finds
| something to complain about, but overall, these are fantastic
| machines.
|
| Thing is, people complaim about there not being high quality
| gear, but when someone then makes it, they balk at the price.
| Yes people, a great laptop will cost you $3000.
| pintxo wrote:
| I have had success with focusing on the Lenovo/Thinkpad T
| range. The X range seems also to be ok.
| rektide wrote:
| Went looking for a monitor recently & was so sad to see that
| there are less than a dozen monitors with full-array dimming, &
| most of those have 16 zones or less.
|
| I ended up going with a budget option, no local-dimming. It's
| frustrating how behind, how stagnant, computer displays are. I
| don't want to sit in front of a 48 inch OLED tv, too big, not
| high enough dpi, but I feel like I'm throwing money at bad
| products trying to buy a computer monitor. At least there are
| some fair budget options (Pixio PX275h 95Hz 4k, $250, doing
| ok).
| timidiceball wrote:
| My organization has been slowly rolling out the use of Cisco
| Desk Pros which are hardware endpoints that connect to Webex
| but are in a practical sense essentially monitors with very
| nice camera modules and microphone arrays built into the bezel.
| Laptops connected to the monitor with USB C can use the
| camera/mic. These cost like $4000 though.
|
| I find the video flattering (camera angle/focal length?)
| mxfh wrote:
| You certainly can buy good high end webcams. But their market
| profile here is clearly still B2B and Telepresence, no
| Prosumer or Individual Professionals yet.
|
| Cisco had some impressive cameras in their older Telepresence
| products:
| https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/collaboration-
| endpoint...
|
| But the Cisco TelePresence Precision 60 Camera CTS-P60-K9 ist
| Ethernet Only and needs prohibitivily expensive hardware to
| work with.
|
| https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/collaborat.
| ..
|
| Next up is probably the Logitech PTZ Pro 2 or Rally
|
| https://www.logitech.com/en-roeu/product/rally-ultra-hd-
| ptz-...
| tmountain wrote:
| It seems like some company there (besides Apple), should seize
| the opportunity to differentiate themselves on quality, and
| deliver supply-chain controlled "boutique" hardware, which I'm
| certain many would shell out for.
| philjohn wrote:
| There are already companies who do this, such as Eizo.
|
| They cost multiple thousands (or tens of thousands for
| reference monitors with built-in calibration and Dolby Vision
| certification).
| dhosek wrote:
| I'm thinking the op was imagining something in the middle
| ground. Maybe +10-40% for a guarantee of quality. The case
| I can think of is Anker for cables although in that case
| they also don't charge a premium either.
| philjohn wrote:
| Honestly, in that price range, Dell is probably "good
| enough"
|
| Grab something like the i1Display Studio to calibrate and
| it'll be golden for anyone who doesn't need a hardware
| LUT or built-in calibration.
| arendtio wrote:
| Why do you think the LG monitors outside of the Apple
| collaboration are not good?
|
| Recently, I bought two 27GN950, which is a 27" 4k@144Hz gaming
| monitor with good colors. So far the worst part is the fan and
| in the long run the absence of HDMI 2.1 might be disappointing,
| but overall I have the impression of a good product.
|
| Yes, it doesn't have the same PPI as smartphones, but I am not
| sure if we are going to see that happen ever.
| MrApathy wrote:
| I think it's in part related to fractional scaling, which
| hasn't been sorted everywhere. Text at 4k on a 27 inch is too
| small to run at 100%, too much of a waste to run run at 200%
| (equivalent to 1920x1080). So you're running 150% or 175% and
| that can be an issue if you're running something that doesn't
| like fractional scaling.
|
| 27 inch is perfect for 1440p 100% or 200% (i.e., 5k), but it
| seems like no one other than Apple has that figured out.
| izacus wrote:
| Since Windows these days handles such scaling just fine,
| this doesn't seem to be a big deal for consumers.
| arendtio wrote:
| Yes, fractional scaling is an issue, but I don't think it
| is as much of an issue as it was a few years ago. In fact,
| I think the only application that doesn't scale for me is
| steam currently. Everything else seems to be handled by
| setting the correct DPI in the xorg.conf and the scaling
| factor of KDE (150%).
|
| But as this is clearly a software issue, I wouldn't blame
| the hardware for it ;-)
| m463 wrote:
| Hmm... There might be some truth in that.
|
| I've noticed over decades that high quality stuff comes out
| of the checks-and-balances of experts specifying and
| purchasing stuff.
|
| Examples I remember are sun monitors based on sony trinitron
| tubes, sun/sgi hard drives that were always checked - and
| sometimes returned by he container - so were actually
| enterprise grade, not consumer grade. Lots and lots of OEM
| stuff like that.
| a2tech wrote:
| The monitor has a fan? That would be a huge negative to me
| arendtio wrote:
| Yes, I wonder too why is is necessary, especially because
| my PC is completely fan-less :-/
|
| However, over the day is is barely audible and it only
| comes to my mind when I am sitting in front of the PC late
| at night (+ without headphones).
| Wouter33 wrote:
| I think the fan is for the G-Sync module!
| post_break wrote:
| Like Apples monitor that also has a fan?
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| But Apple's fans are made from recicled SR-71 blackbirds
| to ensure ultimate noise suppression and each fan blade
| is assembled by a Swiss watchmaker to ensure quality.
|
| Just kidding, it comes from the same Chinese factory as
| every other fan but Apple's fans(pun intended) like to
| believe in magic to justify the price tag.
| muro wrote:
| Dell sells good monitors.
| Aldipower wrote:
| I fell into this trap. Now I own a very bad Dell monitor. :(
| Veen wrote:
| Me too but with Samsung. I bought a cheapish 34-inch curved
| monitor that had great reviews, but it has almost as much
| light coming through gaps in the rear housing as the
| screen. Text looks like crap on its "not quite retina"
| resolution, especially when it's next to a retina macbook
| pro, although videos look very nice. I really do wish Apple
| would make a monitor more reasonably priced than the Pro
| Display XDR.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Dell sells _some_ good monitors.
|
| Unfortunately, you must select carefully any monitor that
| you purchase, and the cheapest models are unlikely to be
| good choices.
|
| I am using 2 good Dell 4k monitors. One is 1-year old
| (U2720Q), but the other (UP2414Q) is more than 5-year old
| and it works as well as in the first day.
| jerf wrote:
| I don't buy a lot of computers, so this can change at any
| time without me noticing, but: I think there's basically
| two Dells. There's the Dell that sells the cheapest
| equipment you can buy. This Dell sucks as much as anyone
| else. Don't expect miracles. Then there's the Dell that
| sells upscale gear. This is usually pretty good, or at
| least has the ability to be pretty good. I have
| appreciated the ready access to service manuals and such,
| too.
|
| I say this because it's unwise to hear that Dell has
| pretty good gear, then go to their site and buy the cheap
| stuff. It isn't necessarily any worse cheap stuff than
| anybody else, but it's not what people mean when they say
| Dell can have pretty good gear.
| gambiting wrote:
| Yeah, no. I have a 25" UltraSharp from them and it has a
| "fun" bug where it advertises to the system that it refreshes
| at 59.95hz but in fact refreshes at exactly 60hz, which leads
| to the monitor(!!!) Freezing for a frame every 20 seconds or
| so, it's absolutely infuriating in games and movies, and I
| only found out how to fix it by modifying windows drivers and
| forcing it to refresh at solid 60hz despite what the monitor
| advertises. But of course you can't do that with something
| like a PS4 connected to it. Would never buy another dell,
| thanks.
| [deleted]
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Sadly the implementation of USB-C on models like the U3419W
| isn't to standard and causes known issues when used with
| Apple laptops.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| I'm guessing this is why the cursor seems to visibly ghost
| when hooked up to my MBP.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| I've not seen that, the bug I'm referring to is to do
| with putting the mac to sleep when it's connected to the
| screen.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| Oh, I think I've had that: it's a total crapshoot as to
| whether it wakes? I thought it was a USB power problem
| for the longest time.
| bartvk wrote:
| You can check the refresh rate as follows. Open System
| Preferences, then click on Displays. There's a radio
| button, titled "Scaled". Option-click that radio button,
| and you'll see a pull-down menu, titled "Refresh Rate".
| It should be 60 Hz or higher.
| arafsheikh wrote:
| Sounds like for some reason the monitor is running at
| 30Hz. You can confirm that using an app like EasyRes.
| bartvk wrote:
| System Preferences can also show this, check my other
| comment in this thread.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| I was surprised to find out the Ultrasharp series includes
| monitors with 6-bit IPS panels. Rather noticeable, even in
| desktop use. Previous to that I often told people to "just
| buy an Ultrasharp of a size you like".
| garaetjjte wrote:
| Dell has very nice adjustable stands, but panels are mixed
| bag. eg. P2416D (1440p) is fine, but P2415Q (4K) has quite
| bad ghosting. So annoying I had to disable browser smooth
| scrolling.
| chupasaurus wrote:
| Owner of P2415Q, can't say that ghosting on mine is
| extraordinary.
|
| You have to choose between ghosting or proper colours,
| higher refresh rate IPS panels are better in this metric
| but still suck compared to TNs.
| pembrook wrote:
| Dell used to have good offerings, but all they seem to push
| now is the same 27" not-quite-4K 3,840 x 2,160 panels
| everybody else does. Now even the 22" inch LG ultrafine that
| used to be 4069 x 2304 is bigger at 24" and a worse 3,840 x
| 2,160. The only good option for mac is the 27 ultrafine 5k.
|
| 27 4k a bad size & resolution for the current computer
| market. Windows scaling looks like crap, and MacOS has to do
| more resource intensive 1.5 scaling (as opposed to native or
| pixel doubling mode) to look okay on these.
|
| M1 might make this a mute point going forward, but the fact
| is at 27 inches, 5k is the only monitor that will look as
| good as the screen on your laptop while actually giving you
| more real estate.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| > not-quite-4K 3,840 x 2,160
|
| But...that is 4K. It's what 4K is defined as, exactly 2x
| 1080p resolution in each dimension.
|
| > Windows scaling looks like crap
|
| I don't understand. 2x each dimension (so 1 pixel in the
| old resolution is 4 in the new) is, like, the easiest
| possible scenario when it comes to scaling in software.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _But...that is 4K. It 's what 4K is defined as, exactly
| 2x 1080p resolution in each dimension._
|
| That's irrelevant though, except if we're talking about
| consuming movies fullscreen.
|
| For a monitor I don't want 4K, I want insivible pixels at
| viewing distances, so hi-dpi.
|
| I would also prefer no scaling for assets that are bitmap
| in nature. This ideally means pixel doubling (less
| cpu/gpu demanding and less fuzzy than fractional
| scaling).
|
| This, for 27" and more, means higher resolution that 4K.
| I don't want to restrict myself to pixel-doubled
| 1920x1080 on my 27" or 32" monitor.
|
| You do get nice DPI, but needlessly large buttons and
| other assets (compared to something closer to 5K).
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I have an LG 28" 4K and while definitely isn't as nice as
| my iMac 27" 5K, it works well enough for coding (I'm
| primarily concerned about text rendering without visible
| pixels).
| gambiting wrote:
| I just completely don't understand your point. There's no
| misleading advertising here - the resolution is exactly
| as promised ,at the size promised....what's the problem?
| If the resolution isn't high enough for you....then buy
| one where it is? There are 5K monitors out there, maybe
| even 8K? Or just get a 4K one but in a smaller size?
|
| I'm so confused by your comment.
| pembrook wrote:
| > There are 5K monitors out there, maybe even 8K? Or just
| get a 4K one but in a smaller size?
|
| The whole point of this thread is people complaining
| that, outside of LG's fragile Apple collab, there aren't
| any 5k options widely available.
|
| Go on amazon and search for 5k 27. There's the Apple
| collab LG UltraFine, and then nothing.
|
| Ditto for 22" 4k, which would provide the same DPI as
| your laptop screen for that given size.
| gambiting wrote:
| Wasn't the problem that 5K displays(or maybe it's just
| this specific one?) are notoriously difficult to make it
| work on windows? Last time I looked into getting one I
| found out that it just wouldn't work without getting a
| thunderbolt card for my AMD based system, or a DP 1.4
| compatible gpu.
|
| On the other hand, HDMI 2.1 can now support 8K@60hz, so
| maybe this is not an issue anymore.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I just completely don 't understand your point.
| There's no misleading advertising here - the resolution
| is exactly as promised ,at the size promised....what's
| the problem?_
|
| That would be relevant is my problem was false promises
| or misleading advertising.
|
| But my problem is not
|
| (a) "Monitors say they are 4K and they are not"
|
| but:
|
| (b) "Most monitors out there are BS-4K, but for the best
| quality/viewing comfort at their 27" and above diagonal
| they should rather be 5K, but most manufactures like Dell
| aren't bothered to produce at such a resolution and the
| few that do have prices to the skies".
|
| > _There are 5K monitors out there, maybe even 8K? Or
| just get a 4K one but in a smaller size?_
|
| Perhaps you've skiped through the thread?
|
| My comment responds to (and agrees with) the sub-thread
| started by a parent commenter writing:
|
| "Dell used to have good offerings, but all they seem to
| push now is the same 27" not-quite-4K 3,840 x 2,160
| panels everybody else does.".
| pavlus wrote:
| For me it's hard to believe that 4k on 27" is not enough,
| I use 1440p 27" 144Hz display as daily driver and barely
| see any pixels(usually with badly hinted fonts, and still
| not pixels, but uneven forms of letters), because I sit
| around one meter apart from it, and sitting closer makes
| me turn my head around too much, except when watching
| movies.
| gambiting wrote:
| Yeah, same - 27" 1440p as a daily monitor for work and I
| have no issues with it. I have had a 27" 4K monitor for a
| while but it was just too small at 100% scaling, and at
| 150% scaling some things looked naff. Prefer the 1440p at
| that resolution.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I have had a 27 " 4K monitor for a while but it was
| just too small at 100% scaling, and at 150% scaling some
| things looked naff. Prefer the 1440p at that resolution._
|
| That's what we say too. 27" 4K monitor is too small at
| 100% scaling, while too small at 50% scaling (pixel-
| doubling hi-dpi mode).
|
| That's why the idea is to have a 5K at 50% scaling (so
| everything is pixel-doubled on each axis, and a pixel
| becomes 4 pixels, doubling the detail you see).
| coldtea wrote:
| > _For me it 's hard to believe that 4k on 27" is not
| enough, I use 1440p 27" 144Hz display as daily driver and
| barely see any pixels_
|
| It's not just about "not seeing any pixels", and "barely
| see any pixels" is not the same as enjoying hi-res
| typography and fine detail.
|
| 27-inch 1440p monitor is about 108 ppi. That's hardly
| better from what we used in the 90s and 00s, dpi-wise.
| Sure, if you haven't used to hi-dpi it looks ok. But try
| using a 5K/27-inch monitor for a while and then go back
| to 1440p/27-inch to see the difference you miss.
|
| Now, 4K hi-dpi (pixel doubled) on 27" is 1920x1080.
|
| This makes pixels just fine and detail is great, but
| everything too large and cuts off screen space, as it's
| 33% less area than 1440p (which, I presume, you don't use
| pixel-doubled)
|
| The solution is either 5K/27" (which gives you back the
| 1440p kind of screen space and UI control size PLUS hi-
| dpi), or using a non-doubled, fractional resolution, to
| overcome, (which is not optimal, looks fuzzier, and
| wastes cpu).
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > That's irrelevant
|
| Not to the upthread specific claim that the resolution
| was "not quite 4K", which is what the comment you are
| responding to addressed.
|
| On the bigger issue, I don't really see the complaint. I
| have pretty good vision (corrected--to 20/15 or so--
| uncorrected is crap but I'm not coding without
| glasses/contacts) and honestly my 34" ultrawide at
| 3440x1440 is excellent for coding, and pretty much any
| other use. Now, would I prefer whatever resolution a 5K
| 16:9 would be when extended to 21:9? Or better a 4320p at
| the same aspect ratio? Sure, more pixels are always
| better. But does the sub-4K display look like crap or
| force bad sizes for controls? No.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Sure, more pixels are always better. But does the
| sub-4K display look like crap or force bad sizes for
| controls? No._
|
| Well, it's about looking better. "Doesn't look like crap"
| is a pretty low bar, no?
| another_kel wrote:
| 4k on 27inch requires you to do 175%. 200% is too big.
| alexvoda wrote:
| To explain further:
|
| 200% (2 times each direction) scaling on 4K is the
| equivalent of 1080p. A 1080p 27 inch monitor has huuuge
| pixels for the normal viewing distance of a desktop
| monitor. 1080p is common on 23-24 inch displays.
| Therefore you are forced to use fractional scaling which
| is less then perfect.
| mdre wrote:
| That's UHD. 4K is defined as 4096px wide. But I guess the
| mass adoption of the term 4K in consumer electronics
| changed the definition.
| atdrummond wrote:
| While DCI 4K is a standard with 4,096 pixels of width,
| you're correct that the HD standard (and therefore what
| is relevant to the discussion here) has always been UHD
| 4K and 3840 pixels wide.
|
| DCI is relevant for movie industry professionals only, as
| these are the dimensions used for projection devices and
| (potentially) their content.
| another_kel wrote:
| >Windows scaling looks like crap
|
| Huh? I'm using LG's 27 inch 4k and scaling looks good. It
| can bug and force you to relaunch app but that's not
| something you encounter often.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| I'm using a Dell P2715Q (also 27 inch 4k); it looks fine.
| But... scaling? The point of having a gigantic 27 inch
| monitor is that you don't need to scale it. The only
| problem I do have with the monitor is that it makes me
| disable scaling on my 15" laptop screen, since there are
| annoying interactions when you have one screen with
| scaling active and one without.
| herbstein wrote:
| > The point of having a gigantic 27 inch monitor is that
| you don't need to scale it
|
| The point of using a High-DPI display is that you can use
| scaling without losing the screen real-estate. With 5K @
| 27" you can get what looks like 1440p in physical UI
| element size, but with an increase in clarity,
| readability, and quality.
| fsh wrote:
| In my experience, the High-DPI support of Windows 10 is
| excellent. I am using a 27" 3840x2160 screen set to 150%
| next to an old 24" 1920x1200 screen at 100%. Pretty much
| all modern applications seamlessly adapt to the pixel
| density of the screen they are currently running on without
| any interpolation.
| mdre wrote:
| I spent 6 months learning about monitors before buying one for
| graphic design and the tldr version is: you buy from NEC or
| EIZO. The panel is one thing, but what sets them apart from the
| other ones are the electronics inside that drive the panel. And
| QC, the commodity brands tend to be very hit or miss.
| avian wrote:
| > Then they give the product a hilariously user-hostile product
| name, like "PQS GRT46782-WT" as an extra f-you to the user.
|
| That is also a strategy to prevent product comparisons and
| unbiased reviews. They quickly cycle through product names and
| sell a certain product no. only in a limited geographical area.
|
| Doesn't matter if a consumer org/magazine/someone on
| reddit/your friend/etc. does a review. The product will be out
| of market by the time you read it, or will not be sold in your
| country. The similar looking product you find on the shelf
| might be the same, or it might have something completely
| different inside.
| heipei wrote:
| That's exactly what I have been telling folks about Apple vs.
| other laptops. Apple only has a handful of laptop models for
| sale and they don't even change that much across generations.
| Furthermore they seem to exhibit hardly any manufacturing
| variations within each generation. That means that if there
| is a problem (and yes, there were a few big ones), everyone
| is affected the same, everyone is screaming about it, the
| majority of customers are not corporate customers, and
| eventually a class action lawsuit is set up and Apple will
| often (grudgingly) offer to fix/replace broken units for
| free, like what happened with Staingate or the Butterfly
| switches.
|
| Now compare that to buying a model from Dell or Lenovo, where
| the current product lineup is already 2-3x the size, the
| models are sometimes discontinued, sometimes changed
| significantly between refreshes, often refreshed annually,
| oftentimes configurable in a meaningful way (1080p non-glossy
| vs. 1080p privacy screen vs. 4k glossy vs. 4k touch screen),
| sometimes just available in certain geographical locations
| and they exhibit more intra-generation manufacturing
| differences. The chances of finding other folks with your
| exact same permutation (and same day of the week it was
| manufactured) of these options are much smaller, so you stand
| less of a chance of getting something recognized as a
| fundamental manufacturing issue which should be covered for
| free by the vendor. Plus, even if you can get
| repair/replacement for free, you still fear that your
| specific model has a flaw, so you might only get lucky after
| having it replaced 2-3 times.
|
| I've seen it happen with Dell and Lenovo where folks sent
| back brand-new units repeatedly because the first one had
| overheating issues with the SSD, the second one had really
| noisy capacitors and the third one had a display cable that
| wasn't seated correctly. At least with Apple I know that if
| I'm getting screwed, I'm in the same boat with everyone else
| ;)
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Apple had a lot of problems with overheating. The i9
| version of MacBook especially, it throttles under slight
| load.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| And you have said literally nothing against the deeper
| point the parent is making.
| neogodless wrote:
| That last paragraph is indicative of terribly quality and
| quality control.
|
| Fortunately that hasn't been my experience with the recent
| Dell, Asus, Lenovo and HP laptops I've purchased. Each have
| been without any issues at all.
|
| But my point here is that... it sounds like you're arguing
| against consumer choice. You can have your Model T in any
| color as long as it is black. And this _is_ Apple 's model.
| You can have your product in any configuration as long as
| it's the one configuration Apple offers. Apple tried this,
| actually, for a long time. The iPhone started out with
| extremely limited configurations and only more recently
| branched out beyond 2. In a way, I agree with the
| confusion, because I know now I can't just say "Macbook"
| because there is at least one Macbook without suffix, at
| least one Air, and the Macbook Pro has a myriad of
| configurations - different sizes, with or without touch
| bar, etc.
|
| Why did Apple start offering more options? Because that's
| what consumers want. Dell exists exactly because they were
| the first big PC manufacturer to accept configuration
| orders, and then (relatively) quickly manufacturer and
| deliver those custom configurations to users. Consumers
| want this. As Apple's share of the market grows, they will
| have to meet the consumers where they are - or their market
| share will be limited by the limitations they place upon
| themselves.
|
| Now, I agree that, for example, the variety of models
| between different geographic locations is - if nothing else
| - annoying. Especially when nicer options aren't offered in
| your location! But I don't agree with the offered example
| of getting bad replacements. Maybe buying one laptop a year
| isn't enough to experience these issues.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Consumer choice only means anything if the consumers can
| choose something they know about.
|
| If the choice is between "you can know about it" xor "you
| can buy it", there's no real choice.
| underseacables wrote:
| You think that's bad, just wait till Apple starts selling
| cars.
| eptcyka wrote:
| Apple has it's fair share of issues, and it's often a pain
| to diagnose them remotely without the user looking up the
| specific model code which isn't all to easy to identify.
| They often don't change any visual appearance and certainly
| don't distinguish between different models in their
| marketing. It's easy for me to look up what common issues
| Lenovo's had with a specific T series model, but if I'm
| buying a used MacBook, it's hard to know what I should be
| searching for until the seller has told me the exact model
| number. And even still, there's variance between machines
| of the same model because sometimes different panels and
| SSDs are used for the same model number.
| iso1210 wrote:
| > without the user looking up the specific model code
| which isn't all to easy to identify
|
| My 7 year old macbook has "A1465" written in perfectly
| legible text on the bottom. "About this mac" has the
| serial number two clicks away, which is convertable
| online to exact specifications.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| It also makes it possible for big electronic stores to give
| price guarantees as the webshop undercutting them has
| monitors with a different product number.
| grenoire wrote:
| The geo-locking of model numbers is one of the vilest
| practices I've seen. I don't see it going away for any
| reason, it'll only be possible to combat by intl.
| legislation... but how do you even legislate that?
| einpoklum wrote:
| Legislation can mandate the conspicuous publication of a
| clear indication of the difference between models.
|
| Now, companies can of course lie about this, in theory, but
| that's a bit like car manufacturers lying w.r.t. emission
| tests - possible, but you tend to get caught (cf. the
| recent Volkswagen case) so it's probably not worth it.
| k_sze wrote:
| Here's my lazy take: the best governing body to start
| petitioning about this is probably the EU. If I remember
| correctly, they already have some of the most consumer-
| friendly laws on the planet, e.g. w.r.t. planned
| obsolescence.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| Meh. It's easy for a reviewer to research online to see
| comparable models.
| legulere wrote:
| Eben Apple sells different iPhone versions on different
| countries. It's mostly frequency bands but Chinese iPhones
| have a second sim slot instead of an eSim as far as I
| remember.
| PeterisP wrote:
| I don't see it going away as there are valid reasons for
| doing so for small but important market differences.
|
| If you're making some device (for example, washing machine)
| which has a power cord and a knob for some mode selection
| with writing on it, then for the exact same internals you
| need different models where the power cords are different
| (USA, UK, Germany and Japan each require different plugs)
| and the writing on the device is printed in different
| language and with customizations such as Celsius vs
| Fahrenheit. You can't sell the exact same laptop model in
| every market because the keyboard layouts are different.
| Etc.
| Retric wrote:
| Just append the region identifier to the model number.
| Internally they clearly need to track the products
| separately, and you don't want people getting the wrong
| product accidentally.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > then for the exact same internals you need different
| models where the power cords are different
|
| The IEC 60320 connectors were specified for exactly that
| reason. Honestly, I don't get why these were not made
| mandatory for _all_ kinds of appliances. There are even
| locking variants available if vibration is of concern.
| Matt3o12_ wrote:
| > The IEC 60320 connectors were specified for exactly
| that reason. Honestly, I don't get why these were not
| made mandatory for all kinds of appliances. There are
| even locking variants available if vibration is of
| concern.
|
| I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence but you
| can't use most appliances made for Europe in America and
| vice versa. Most electronic appliances depend on the
| input voltage and supplying 240V can easily cause a fire.
| That is true for almost all electronic appliances (water
| heater, fan, washing machine, etc) but not true most
| "computer related devices" such as a monitor, PSU,
| charger. Since those devices already operate on a much
| lower DC Voltage, they often have transformers (not sure
| if that's the right word), that can scale down the
| current from either 120 or 240. [0]
|
| That being said, a mandatory IEC connector (and it's
| variances) would help a lot to cut down unnecessary
| e-waste. Instead of throwing away a device because the
| cable is damaged, you can easily order a replacement that
| is around $2 and high quality, instead of relying third
| party cords that might have bad wiring from a non
| reputable brand. The reason they are not mandatory,
| though, is that most companies like to have their own
| connectors so that you either overpay for it or just buy
| a new device.
|
| [0]: You should still always read the specs on the input
| current for the device though. It is dangerous to rely on
| the fact that similar devices can operate at 120V/240V
| because yours might not. You can usually see the specs on
| the website/packaging or usually near the input plug.
| wongarsu wrote:
| My cheap hair drier has a switch to select the input
| voltage (you need to turn the dial with a screwdriver).
| For many devices it shouldn't be too hard to make it
| possible to use them both with 110V and 230V, even more
| so for already complex and expensive machines like a
| washing machine.
|
| The biggest problem might be the amount of power a device
| can draw. Half the voltage gives you half the power,
| which is the reason why e.g. kettles are much less useful
| in the US.
| stan_rogers wrote:
| For resistive loads (like the heating element in a
| kettle), half the voltage gives you a _quarter_ of the
| power. (Electric kettles work just fine on 110 /120; they
| just haven't been a thing in the US. They've been
| ubiquitous in Canada, although they've been pushed aside
| somewhat by drip coffee makers. You just need a lower-
| resistance heating element than would be practical with
| 220/240.)
| wongarsu wrote:
| Electric kettles in the US typically are 1000W-1500W,
| while in Europe any kettle is 2000W-2800W. This is simply
| because houses are typically wired with outlets for
| 10A-16A everywhere, regardless of grid voltage.
|
| That ofc makes electric kettles much less useful in
| countries with 110V grid. It also keeps stovetop kettles
| relevant in these counties, since stoves don't suffer
| power limitations.
| eznzt wrote:
| This just seems so crazy, to think of 120V. I haven't
| seen a house here with 120V in my entire lifetime. It
| sounds like a relic from the past, like the kind of thing
| people used back when they rode horses.
| lloeki wrote:
| It becomes even more unawesome when the same product
| identifier actually has different parts in it.
|
| When looking for a nice display a couple of years ago I
| clearly remember reading about some that were promising yet
| getting confoundingly variable reports, until some tore their
| hardware apart and revealed that the internals were
| different.
| [deleted]
| baxtr wrote:
| Ahh the LG monitor from the Apple collaboration. It's so great.
| So different than other monitors. Stable, reliable, solid. A
| great product. You can literally see how Apple forced their
| product tenets on LG.
|
| Sadly, it's not available anymore. I have one in my office but
| needed another one for home. Ended up buying an LG with the
| funny name of something 27UKi6716263 that looked similar on
| amazon. It's so different... what a shame
|
| EDIT: it'a not available in Germany
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| I don't think Apple have dropped it, it's still listed in the
| UK and here: https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HMUB2LL/A/lg-
| ultrafine-5k...
|
| I've got one and really like it although it doesn't seem to
| support HDCP.
| [deleted]
| ahelwer wrote:
| I thought it was the exact same as the LG 24UD58-B except
| with lightning connectors instead of display port and hdmi?
| That (the non-lightning model) is the monitor I have, it's
| the smallest (24") 4k monitor I could find - I wanted high
| DPI, and I got it.
| pembrook wrote:
| Unfortunately at 3840 x 2160, it's not ideal since in pixel
| doubled mode (retina), you're only getting the equivalent
| of a 1080p display.
|
| The 22" LG Ultrafine used to have a 4069 x 2304 resolution.
| So in pixel doubling mode you actually got more screen real
| estate than newer 24" 4k models (which are only 3840 x
| 2160)!
|
| The problem is better described here:
| https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/2/20678597/lg-
| ultrafine-4k-2...
| ahelwer wrote:
| Hmmm. I actually quite like 2160p as a simple upgrade
| over 1080p; usually I just solve the screen real estate
| problem by buying more monitors. You can get the 24UD58-B
| for about $200 used on eBay, so this is not a large cost.
| eecc wrote:
| Let me chime in: just bought a T14s. Could be a dream machine
| but the shite 1080 panel (Windows recommends a hilariously
| crappy 1.5 scaling. Kidding me?) the pesky trackpad and the
| awfully glitchy Windows 10 (yah, probably the drivers but the
| platform enables this horror) destroy the value of this
| otherwise pretty solid device.
| nobleach wrote:
| What's wrong with the trackpad? I was considering a T15...
| eecc wrote:
| It glitches, together with the keyboard. It's like events
| start piling up as the UI loop locks up (for up to 1 sec.)
| then suddenly they rush through and the pointer wanders
| around and keystrokes fall through at a constant rate.
| Other times they're barely lagging enough to feel it.
|
| Awful, but I remember similar issues on Dell and an HP.
| It's an issue with the device driver or some "value add"
| driver control software. :(
| Const-me wrote:
| > Windows recommends a hilariously crappy 1.5 scaling.
|
| Windows has multiple GPU-accelerated vector graphics GUI
| frameworks. Well-written Windows apps look well with non-
| integer scaling.
|
| > awfully glitchy Windows 10
|
| Here's what you should do with new computers.
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows10
| Make an installation USB drive, boot from that drive, remove
| all partitions from the laptop's SSD, perform clean install.
| You don't need product keys to reinstall Windows as long as
| the SKU matches (i.e. if you have Win10 home edition,
| reinstall the same edition).
|
| Don't just blindly click through the wizard, read messages
| and you'll get better UX (you don't want cortana,
| personalized ads, geolocation, etc).
|
| Connect to internet, run windows update.
|
| Open device manager. If some devices are left in "unknown
| device" state, you might need to manually find their drivers.
| Make sure to only install drivers and not user-mode
| utilities.
| nbzso wrote:
| Early in my career I learned important lesson, there is no
| point buying displays from other brands than NEC or EIZO.
| Preferably upper tier products. The exception from this rule
| was Apple Cinema Display and Some Dell models. EIZO FlexScans
| are reliable and rarely have any issues.
| https://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/index.html
| pembrook wrote:
| Unfortunately EIZO doesn't produce a single display with the
| ideal resolution for MacOS.
|
| 27" 5k or 22" 4k (4069 x 2304, like the first LG ultrafine
| was) are the unicorns I am seeking.
|
| Unfortunately the LG ultrafine suffers from image
| retention/ghosting. So there's ultimately no great displays
| for Mac outside of the wildly expensive Pro Display XDR.
| manderley wrote:
| Why are those "the ideal resolution for mac os", exactly?
| pembrook wrote:
| For reference, the 16" MacBook Pro has a 3072-by-1920
| display.
|
| This means the 27" 4K monitors that are the industry
| standard now for some reason at 3,840 x 2,160 are almost
| twice the size, yet have barely more resolution than the
| MacBook true retina screen.
|
| MacOS can do scaling to adjust for this, but it uses the
| least amount of resources in native or pixel doubled
| mode. Any display that is between the resolutions I
| mentioned (like 27 4K) requires fractional scaling.
|
| This is more resource intensive, and doesn't look as good
| as pure retina.
|
| Here's a better explanation:
| https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/
| nbzso wrote:
| Sorry but this has no sense at all. From 20 years on I
| work only with Apple based desktops/laptops. And I am a
| pixel peeper. Scaling is not a problem even on MacBook
| Pro from 2013. If you want to rationalise a purchase of
| new Apple Display XDR there are more factual reasons for
| this. Don't get me wrong - the new displays are very
| competitive for grading middle market, but most
| professionals are using separate proofing displays for
| testing.
|
| I am talking about good quality display with bearable
| price. Not display for $6,299.00 Example:
| https://www.amazon.de/EV3285-BK-Monitor-DisplayPort-
| Reaktion...
| sgerenser wrote:
| I upgraded from a MacBook Pro with a good quality LG 4K
| 27" display using non integer scaling to a 5k 27" iMac
| with 2x scaling. Both provide the same visible screen
| area and not give you the same size icons and text. But
| the iMac with integer scaling is a better, sharper
| picture. The difference isn't huge but it's noticeable.
| whalesalad wrote:
| This is a really well done hot take. It's true, unfortunately.
| Everyone is in a race to the bottom.
| Joeri wrote:
| I think it's more of a "the market won't pay for quality"
| problem. People won't pay thousands of euros for a good
| monitor, so manufacturers have to slap together the parts
| available in bulk in order to reach price points people will
| pay. The LG 5K is a good example, because it is clearly
| compromised to reach a somewhat reasonable price point. From
| what I can tell the monitor market mostly exists to cater to
| the generic business monitor and pc gamer markets anyway, as
| those are the only parts still selling in volume.
|
| Although I have to admit that I was equally frustrated when I
| wanted a good retina screen with 200-ish dpi to pair up with
| the mac mini I wanted to buy, only to conclude getting the 5K
| iMac instead was the most sensible option.
| pembrook wrote:
| I don't think that's it.
|
| Apple is the most valuable company on earth right now,
| entirely due to their thesis that people _will_ pay for
| quality hardware.
|
| The "creator" market is much more profitable than the gamer
| market where kids only have as much as mom will allow them to
| spend (vs The tech workers, coders, designers, youtubers, etc
| that need high quality displays to make a living).
|
| It's why Apple is able to get insane 50% margins in many
| products. It's crazy to me that the big Asian manufacturers
| don't see the market opportunity in catering to this crowd.
|
| In their minds you're either an office drone using excel or a
| gamer who wants neon lights. Both of which are market
| segments with terrible margins.
| jjar wrote:
| I think "gamer with neon lights" is certainly a segment
| with amazing margins, especially compared to standard
| office equipment. Most "gaming"
| mice/keyboards/chairs/computers/whatever are just decorated
| and brightly coloured versions of other products with
| insane markups. Alienware PC's are a great example here -
| The parts in one of those PC's can cost around half the
| cost of what the company actually sells it for. Other
| peripherals have similar price increases once they're
| branded as a device for gaming rather than office use as
| they know consumers are willing to pay more. I realize that
| there are lots of kids who want "gaming" gear (that their
| parents will pay for) but the PC gaming market is certainly
| geared towards mid 20's/30's who have the scratch to be
| able to afford this stuff. Not that these people are stupid
| or misinformed for doing so, some simply appreciate the
| aesthetic (even if it's something you or me might not
| particularly like).
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| > The "creator" market is much more profitable than the
| gamer market where kids only have as much as mom will allow
| them to spend (vs The tech workers, coders, designers,
| youtubers, etc that need high quality displays to make a
| living).
|
| This is a common misunderstanding of the gaming market due
| to stereotyping. The biggest age category in gaming is
| 18-34 by far. They generally also slant strongly to people
| with both more than average disposable income and higher
| likelihood to spend that same on gaming and related
| electronic toys. This makes gaming a 100 billion dollar
| market atm which is still growing rapidly.
|
| > Both of which are market segments with terrible margins.
|
| Not even close to accurate. Gaming related hardware is
| generally quite high margin. There's a reason ASUS et all
| use their gaming imprints as the place to introduce new
| high end parts. It's also a highly concentrated and
| networked market, making it very efficient to advertise to.
| korse wrote:
| I don't know very many young PC gamers. Is the market for
| good gaming hardware really that small?
| manderley wrote:
| There are tons of expensive monitors available that cater
| to the professional market. The whole premise is not based
| in reality. Apple simply has the highest mindshare among
| average products.
| pembrook wrote:
| There's literally no good monitors with the proper
| resolution for MacOS outside of the fragile LG ultrafine
| line.
|
| It doesn't matter how much money you throw at the
| problem, nobody is making 27" 5k displays right now.
| greedo wrote:
| What's extremely frustrating is that Apple makes an
| excellent 27" 5K monitor in a nice housing for $1800. The
| only problem is that it comes with an iMac...
|
| So clearly, Apple could sell a monitor for about $1600,
| that would be perfectly compatible with Mac Pros, mac
| mini and as a secondary monitor for all the various
| MacBooks.
| jonfw wrote:
| iMac is due for a refresh soon, and I'm hoping that this
| means an M1 iMac that can serve as a Thunderbolt Display
| leadingthenet wrote:
| I genuinely don't understand why they stopped doing
| that...
| prewett wrote:
| Maybe it's related to the reason why you can't use the 5k
| iMac as an external monitor. I can't remember where I
| found the sources, but the problem was that they
| essentially needed to video cards to drive the thing and
| making sure that both sides of the output looked
| identical was tricky and not something that an external
| source would be able to do.
| em500 wrote:
| What does "proper resolution for MacOS" mean in this
| case? There are tons of 27" 4k that work fine in macOS in
| Retina mode and matches the medium tier iMac (their low
| end today is still 21.5" 1080p). Unless you declare
| everything below 5k subpar, I don't see where you're
| coming from.
| Joeri wrote:
| This article from 2016 explains the problem:
| https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/
|
| Basically, the ideal PPI of mac displays is a multiple of
| 110 PPI. So, for retina quality you need a display of
| roughly 220 PPI, which is what you get from 5K at 27
| inch. A 27 inch 4K display is around 160 PPI. If you use
| that in 2x mode, things will appear too large. If you set
| it to scaled mode to make things appear the proper size,
| there are display artifacts (like shimmering when
| scrolling). In fairness, it's not super obvious unless
| you know what to look for. But if you're already spending
| money on a high end screen, why should you have to
| compromise?
| em500 wrote:
| That seems pretty outdated information, given that the
| OOTH default Retina scaling in MacBooks have been non-2x
| fractional since 2016 (1400x900 for the 13-inch's
| 2560x1600, 1680x1050 for the 15-inch 2800x1800).
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| I don't have the exact numbers in front of me at the
| moment, but a 27" 4K monitor will not match the pixel
| pitch of every other Mac -- screen elements appear larger
| when both are set at the same scaled resolution.
| ptoomey3 wrote:
| Yeah, to match the dot pitch apple is designing for, the
| 4K monitor would have to be more like 22 inches instead
| of 27. We know this since the 4K iMac is a 21.5 inch
| screen.
| whichdan wrote:
| I never thought I'd want a 16:10 monitor until I had to
| deal with all of my apps getting resized every time I
| unplug my MBP
| dannyw wrote:
| Samsung Odyssey G7 and Samsung Odyssey G9 would like to have a
| word with you.
| Markoff wrote:
| you most likely have pretty good webcam, it's the thing called
| smartphone on your desk, just hook it up to computer
| alteriority wrote:
| My solution: Download DroidCam, use your phone's camera as a
| webcam. Night and day difference versus awful built-in laptop
| cameras, only takes a few minutes to pair the first time.
|
| Granted, the positioning is a bit annoying. If I did it more
| often, I'd get a tripod.
| FeistySkink wrote:
| I've got DroidCam X and it's very flaky with random freezes and
| disconnects, where I have to relaunch the PC-side app.
| kaielvin wrote:
| There a significant added lag though, with audio and lips out
| of sync.
| joegahona wrote:
| I do this with Camo. Same idea. An old SE 1st-Gen and Velcro on
| the back of one of my monitors solves the positioning issue.
| lmilcin wrote:
| If you are looking here to improve your webcam because you
| started to do remote work, don't.
|
| First try to improve lighting and audio.
|
| Any camera will look bad in bad lighting. It is always better to
| first improve your lighting before you invest in a new camera.
| Use high CRI lightbulbs and ensure even source color temperature
| in your room (ie. all lightbulbs should be emitting same color
| temperature).
|
| Audio is also very important. It is processed by different parts
| of brain and we don't put so much attention to it but the quality
| will influence the other person, subconsciously. Also, audio is
| how the information is being passed.
| davio wrote:
| Another cheap tip:
|
| On your side monitor(s), set a couple of desktops with plain
| white, pink, and beige backgrounds. When you're on video,
| switch to the blank backgrounds to use as a soft fill light.
| murkt wrote:
| It seems I needed to include a couple of shots - one is from my
| laptop webcam, and the other is from my phone. What "bad
| lighting" is changes very much based on the camera capabilities
| (lens, sensor, post-processing).
| lmilcin wrote:
| Obviously if you directly compare good camera vs bad camera
| the good camera is going to win.
|
| But if you compare good camera in bad lighting and bad camera
| with good lighting the bad camera will almost always win
| unless it is really, really shitty.
|
| It is also usually much cheaper to improve lighting. If your
| face is a shadow while the rest of the room is brightly lit
| there is only so much that the camera can do, regardless of
| how much you invest in it.
| masklinn wrote:
| Yes and no.
|
| A better camera will be able to better compensate for bad
| lighting, but that doesn't make the lighting good, and good
| lighting will improve the results of both. That's why pro
| mage capturers (photogs and camera crews) spend a lot of time
| on getting the lighting as good as possible.
| lmilcin wrote:
| To be sure I don't tell it is worthless to buy a better
| camera. I just say you may want to improve your lighting
| first.
|
| Most webcams including the ones in laptop can provide
| decent quality image if there is ample amount of good light
| on the subject.
| llampx wrote:
| There's even a severe difference in different models by the
| same manufacturer. Apple for example, puts much better
| webcams in their iPhones and iPads than in their Macbooks.
| diarrhea wrote:
| I disagree somewhat. Coming from a photography background, we
| should distinguish _quantity_ and _quality_.
|
| Quantity of light you can make up with higher gain (ISO) and
| higher available dynamic range also helps, as you mentioned.
|
| Quality of light is determined entirely outside the camera,
| and better gear does not help much if at all. For
| photography, the quality matters countless times more than
| quantity, usually. I would argue the same is true for
| video/webcam.
|
| This is what people don't get, and so hobbyists end up with
| $5k in gear, taking terrible photos. It's similar to when
| videographers don't put effort into their sound.
|
| This makes it a question of _how_ and _what_ to light, not
| _how much_. The latter would be a matter of adjusting gain
| in-camera, in Post-Processing, or simply turning existing
| lighting up. But the former part is the important, and
| difficult, one.
| murkt wrote:
| I agree that we should distinguish quantity and quality.
|
| If we don't have enough light in a scene, we need to raise
| ISO for a given camera and that can easily make scene look
| bad. For other camera with bigger and less noisier sensor,
| brighter lens there can be enough light and it can look
| very good. I can imagine that there are cases, where
| increasing amount of light will only improve picture for a
| cheap camera.
|
| If the light is plentiful and bad, cheap camera can produce
| abysmal results with parts of the image completely washed
| white in one part, and very dark in other parts. Good
| sensor with high dynamic range will produce much better
| results. Of course, improving the light will improve both
| results.
| goldcd wrote:
| I'd agree. I recently picked up a Logitech Brio (employer
| was paying) and quite happy with it. Main advantage to me
| is that it can produce a decent picture without me having
| to faff around with lighting. Of course if I did sort out
| lighting, it would be better - but (to me) I'd prefer to
| just swap out the camera than assemble more clutter
| around me.
| yarcob wrote:
| Here's a trick how to get beautiful studio-like lighting for
| less than 50EUR:
|
| - buy two large sheets of white styrofoam (1m x 0.5m or bigger)
|
| - buy two cheap bright floodlights (the brighter the better)
|
| - get some mounting materials (eg. wood and screws, or
| cardboard and duct tape)
|
| - Place the two styrofoam plates right and left behind your
| laptop.
|
| - point the floodlights at the styrofoam, carefully positioning
| them so they are not in the picture
|
| Enjoy beautiful bright soft light. Optionally add a 3rd
| floodlight that shines on you from the side/from behind for
| highlights, and optionally another one to illuminate the
| background as needed.
|
| Now you'll look amazing even with the cheapest, crappiest
| webcam.
| bambax wrote:
| Buying "pro" entry-level photographic lightning equipment is
| about the same cost and much simpler to set up.
| marcosscriven wrote:
| Can you recommend a good brand? I tried buying something
| from Amazon UK but contrary to reviews it turned out to be
| awful.
| bambax wrote:
| Good brands are expensive but I have had some luck with
| Neewer, a cheap Chinese brand. Stands are usually flimsy
| but if you can you should buy wall mounting arms for
| either your walls or your ceiling; it also preserves
| floor space.
| rimliu wrote:
| Godox is very good price-performance wise. I am not sure
| under what brand they sell their video lights in US. I
| know that their strobes are sold as Flashpoint.
| lmilcin wrote:
| You don't need "pro" equipment for lighting. That's one
| area when you can get very creative. Most people can take
| lamps they already have and put some bit of white material
| on it, which is what I am doing for a very good effect.
| bambax wrote:
| If you already have something then great; but if you're
| buying it's easier to just get a lightning set and bulbs
| with a specific color temp than do a lot of trial and
| errors with bed sheets and whatnot.
| yarcob wrote:
| To be honest I have no idea what photo and video lights
| cost now.
|
| When I looked into it a couple of years ago a minimum set
| of two strobes, mounts and a reflector would have cost more
| than 300EUR.
| bambax wrote:
| I bought a set 7 years ago for $80; it's cheap not just
| in price: it's basic; but it works.
| lmilcin wrote:
| I am using two Ikea Skurup lamps
| (https://www.ikea.com/pl/pl/p/skurup-lampa-stolowa-kinkiet-
| go...) directly above and in front of my monitors, just
| outside of reach of webcam.
|
| Soft lighting is a result of geometry. You can use very huge
| source far away from you or smaller but very close.
|
| You also need to pay attention to how the light is scattered
| and that the direct light is not shining on your face. I have
| asked my wife to make half a dozen covers for them from a
| white material. They have a spot in the middle that blocks
| direct light from the bulb. I use a number of covers on each
| depending on how much I want to attenuate the lighting.
|
| I also use a very small, cheap 5 watt high CRI, 6400K
| lightbulb in each. I use same kind of bulbs from same
| manufacturer for overhead light and for my desk lamp. I have
| separate desk lamps for 6400K light and 4000K light (which is
| what I like to use when I work).
|
| The total cost is something on the order of 150 PLN or 40 USD
| plus a favor to my wife.
| yarcob wrote:
| 4x 5W LED isn't really a lot of light, especially if you
| are diffusing it. If your webcam can work with that, it's
| not that bad :)
|
| Edit: I just read your comment again and realized that you
| are putting the light really close to your face. I guess
| that's a way to get away with low power lights.
| lmilcin wrote:
| I just measured, the light is about 45cm from my face.
| Additionally, the lamp reflects most of the light in my
| direction.
|
| I am not a model and am not used to have such bright
| light source so close to my face. I had to attenuate it
| because then it is just too uncomfortable but also to
| match light level on my face with that of the background.
| aembleton wrote:
| My whole office only has a single 5W LED lamp! I thought
| that was enough.
| [deleted]
| MisterTea wrote:
| Why not white bed sheets? I'm sure you could pick up a pack
| at a mega mart for a few quid. Easier to store, more
| environmentally friendly and less messy than styrofoam.
| rpastuszak wrote:
| Works fine until it falls of a makeshift stand half way
| through the meeting, but I guess that's an issue with yours
| truly being a bit lazy/not talented at DYI
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Styrofoam is probably easier to mount/angle appropriately
| for the use and may reflect more light - but the material
| doesn't matter a great deal.
|
| If you just want soft light, bounce it off anything you
| have on hand.
| einpoklum wrote:
| --== CRI ==--
|
| As a service to the readers who aren't familiar with the term:
|
| "The Color Rendering Index (CRI) measures the ability of a
| light source to bring out the true colors of an object. Without
| a high CRI light source, objects can appear faded, dull or
| inaccurate. "
| jonpurdy wrote:
| I wrote an article a few months back about this(1) and post
| when it's directly relevant. Main takeaways: audio is more
| important than video; get that correct first.
|
| Easiest thing is using a cheap headset microphone. Advanced
| noice cancellation algorithms with a great microphone placed
| far away can't complete with the physics of having a mic close
| to your month.
|
| Since publishing, I also found Webcam Settings, an app for Mac
| that lets you adjust specific settings on UVC webcams. I use it
| to correct the horrible auto white balance on my C920
| (naturally looks way too blue).
|
| I just wish Apple would make a new version of their iSight
| camera. Something with a similar physical shape with a cropped
| DSLR sensor and a fast lens. Basically, same quality as a
| mirrorless with a fixed f/2 lens but in a single small package.
|
| 1 - https://jonpurdy.com/2020/03/how-to-improve-your-
| zoomskype-t...
| rconti wrote:
| I have a logitech 920, bought about a month before the
| pandemic, and it's great.. except sometimes it completely
| forgets how to focus.
| wx196 wrote:
| Try to install Logitech G Hub, it should help
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| Those are great tips. I'll add a free one: just put your desk
| in front of a window and use that natural light
| rutthenut wrote:
| Sod's law means that the window is often behind the desk,
| making video pics a silhouette, and the light that does come
| from the monitor can give some ghastly hues to your skin
| tone!
| [deleted]
| GordonS wrote:
| I have my desk in front of a window, facing the window. I
| keep the blind about halfway down though, because the glare
| makes be squint at the monitor uncomfortably.
|
| The other option would be to not face the window, but then
| you have bright daylight shining onto your monitors instead.
| Macha wrote:
| Also a bright window behind you plays badly with some
| webcams automatic lighting adjust (including the logitech
| ones recommended here). It should just let the window be
| overexposed/blown out but it prefers to adjust the
| brightness such that that is reasonably lit with the effect
| of making the foreground look like I'm in a dark room.
| lmilcin wrote:
| I kinda agree and disagree at the same time.
|
| It takes a lot of work to beat natural light coming from your
| window. If you have restricted budget and can choose the time
| when you record, this is a very good option that I always
| recommend to people I talk to.
|
| On the other hand, when you do remote work you don't choose
| the time. Also, you will probably have other considerations
| for your desk placement. In the end it is much more important
| that you feel comfortable when working at your desk than to
| have good lighting in your webcam for your coworkers.
|
| So, if you like to sit front to the window then sure, go on.
| But if that would make you uncomfortable then I don't think
| it is worth it.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| Hello from Vermont. How does that help for meetings after,
| say, 3:30 this time of the year?
| lmilcin wrote:
| I am from Warsaw, Poland and believe it or not, Warsaw is
| about 7 degrees north from northernmost part of Vermont.
| Vermont spans 42 to 45 degrees while Warsaw is at 52
| degrees.
|
| Did you know that most of people in Canada live at the
| lattitude of Croatia or south of it?
| mauvehaus wrote:
| I lived in .be for 3 years. I believe it :-)
|
| I think my favorite tidbit is that Rome and Boston are at
| the same latitude.
| [deleted]
| marton78 wrote:
| Also, New York city and Naples, or Washington DC and
| Cairo.
| mushishi wrote:
| +1 for improving audio quality. As a non-native English
| speaker, although I listen to daily podcasts without subs just
| fine, understanding an English speaking--possibly non-native,
| too!--person having a poor audio quality connection is a
| different story.
| lmilcin wrote:
| People who do podcasts also take care in their pronunciation
| and that may be part of the effect.
|
| But yes, in general, I have the same problem. It doesn't
| matter how well I see you if I can't understand what you are
| saying.
| cookieswumchorr wrote:
| exactly, audio is the most important. Nobody needs to see your
| unshaven sleepy quarantine face in 4K. But if they can't hear
| you, or there is a lot of noise, the meeting is ruined
| lmilcin wrote:
| Actually, nobody will ever see your face in 4k because none
| of the platforms that are used for this will ever transmit
| video at that resolution. Most cap at 1080p with a very heavy
| compression.
|
| Also understand that real time compression is different from
| offline compression. To compress well it requires a huge
| amount of CPU. Real time compression results in higher
| bandwidth for the same image quality but more typically less
| quality for the same bandwidth.
| gsich wrote:
| Not just subconsciously. If people have a shitty microphone I
| have more work to do. I need to listen more carefully.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| This is the best advice. A high end mirror less camera will
| help a bit with its higher dynamic range, but simply optimizing
| your lighting will do wonders for any camera setup. All of the
| people showing beautiful mirrorless webcam shots have already
| optimized their lighting, so start there first.
|
| Also, don't be the person with the overly-complicated webcam
| setup who ends up delaying every other meeting while they
| fiddle with cables, tripods, camera batteries, overheating
| cameras, cameras going into standby and so on. Having crisp
| images doesn't matter if your always late or frazzled because
| you had to tend to your perfect webcam setup.
| xwdv wrote:
| It doesn't matter, you can have the best lighting and audio
| ever and still look like a garbled piece of stuttering pixel
| shit on an end user's machine because their connection can't
| handle the streaming. Unless you're a cam girl don't even
| bother with a sophisticated webcam setup.
| WouterZ wrote:
| Test
| bambax wrote:
| > _A lot of what makes a picture great comes from lighting the
| scene in a correct way._
|
| IDK why the author thinks a "good" webcam should be able to do
| 4k, just to show one's face??
|
| But yes, lightning is paramount.
|
| I installed custom lightning in front of my desk and with a cheap
| Logitech webcam I get very good image quality.
|
| Basic photographic lightning kits are cheap; I paid $80 7 years
| ago for 2 x (stand+light+bulb+umbrella) and it's still working
| perfectly.
| murkt wrote:
| > IDK why the author thinks a "good" webcam should be able to
| do 4k, just to show one's face??
|
| I don't think it's very useful. I think it will be very
| problematic to sell a webcam for $250-300 that can't do 4k.
| ttunguz wrote:
| There's a software solution to this: https://reincubate.com/camo/
|
| Use an old phone for your webcam. The quality is terrific, up to
| 4k. You just need a phone stand.
| joemaller1 wrote:
| This is a phenomenal product, I've been using an old iPhone 6s
| and the quality is very good.
|
| The license subscription is more than I'd prefer to pay, but
| considering every passable webcam has been sold out since
| April, it's much cheaper than some disposable USB webcam with
| horrible quality.
| deckar01 wrote:
| I have tried to use use modern phones as dedicated webcams. The
| power consumption of constant video capture, compression, and
| streaming is greater than the phone's ability to charge. Once
| the battery is depleted the phone can't operate directly off of
| the charger and shuts off. And that's only if it didn't already
| shut off due to overheating first.
| roel_v wrote:
| The premise of this article is nonsense. Get a Logitech Brio and
| a Blue Yeti boom mic and you'll be so far ahead of the average
| Zoomer that people will make comments on how good your picture
| looks and sound sounds. If you want to take it up a notch still,
| mix it all through OBS and use a stream deck to control screen
| share transitions. You'll look like a wizard after some practise.
| SomeHacker44 wrote:
| This is what I do (Brio and Blue Yeti USB mic) and I am happy
| with it. My company locks down laptops so I use no non Windows
| software but the approved and centrally managed Teams and Zoom.
| I also have an $80 variable warmth panel light mounted to a
| desk stand about 8" behind, above and slightly to the side of
| the web cam. Useful as the lighting changes throughout the day.
|
| I like the mute button directly on the mic.
| bsenftner wrote:
| Can't believe nobody has mentioned just getting an IP camera for
| $50. 4K video, IR and low light sensitive, typically multiple
| codecs and streams simultaneously. Seriously, why waste time with
| consumer class USB cameras?
| SergeAx wrote:
| When this pandemic fuss was at the beginning in January, I've
| decided to buy a webcam just in case I got sick and have to work
| from home. It was Logitech C310 HD[0] for like $40 including
| delivery. When we became full WFH in april, people in working
| chats started asking me what kind of that super nice camera do I
| have.
|
| Our company is issuing MacBooks for workers. Turned out that
| internal webcam of MacBook is so crappy that even cheap 720p
| Logitech looks "HD" compared to it. Logi also has quite nice mic.
|
| Another thing was that I made my workplace in the erker, facing
| windows, so I got plenty of light in the summer. I noticed that I
| got the best picture in the morning and on the sunset, when light
| is abundant.
|
| So, the takeout is: get yourself not a great but just a decent
| webcam, figure out the lighting. And for god's sake, do not buy
| this clown looking mic to hang in front of you, you don't need it
| at all.
|
| [0] https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/webcams/c310-hd-
| webc...
| Const-me wrote:
| Yep, Logitech makes good ones. Recently upgraded C920 to
| StreamCam, both are awesome. The reason for the upgrade,
| neighbors borrowed my C920 for remote schooling of their kid
| due to the pandemic.
| jablan wrote:
| Now that camera costs ~$100[0].
|
| [0] https://www.amazon.de/Logitech-C310-720Pixel-Schwarz-
| Webcam/...
| SergeAx wrote:
| That's strange. Maybe local high-demand/low-supply peak? It's
| still $42 in Russia: https://market.yandex.ru/product--veb-
| kamera-logitech-hd-web...
| altcognito wrote:
| Im seconding that Logitech has a pretty darn good lineup. I
| have a c910 and it is quite good, even in fairly low light. I
| would complain more that webcams don't generally give you fine
| grain control over exposure, sharpness and resolution. Logitech
| did, until they decided to update their software to be more
| "friendly". The camera is still solid, but it's frustrating to
| see companies do this to themselves.
| s0rce wrote:
| I have a Logitech C310 from 2012 ($32 back then) and its
| horrendously terrible. The white balance is almost always way
| off, people have asked me how I got the sepia tone filter! I've
| also had issues with the microphone drivers distorting the
| sound (windows and linux). Maybe they've improved the hardware.
| I really like the narrow 60deg FOV of the unit compared to my
| higher end C615 (which has much better video quality).
| marvion wrote:
| Bought a Logitech Brio 4k Streaming before Covid, because I
| wanted to try out YouTube and using my DSLR was a pain.
|
| Its 200EUR(pre lockdown) and is just a webcam on steroids.
|
| Now I'm glad I didn't sold it. Almost anyone comments on the
| image quality - especially when I turned on my 4000lm daylight
| Phillip's Tornado
| yholio wrote:
| Seems like what we are all after is a good software mod that
| turns your phone into a good quality, USB-connected camera. I
| have tried some but they create a cumbersome webstreaming service
| that ads delay and compression overhead.
|
| The sound would not be great, granted, but that can be easily
| fixed with a separate microphone connected to the PC or the phone
| itself, a lavalier microphone with Bluetooth etc.
| jonpo wrote:
| you can buy a good webcam. its unfortunate that to get decent
| image quality you need a good cammera. here is a tip you can
| skimp on the hdmi to usb dongle it digital 15 dollars should do
| it.(elgato seems to be a vlogger conspiricy) i found the best
| results from a cheapish dslr (that i already had) with a fixed
| fast macro lens at F3.5. best value is probably a mirrorles with
| a decent lens. when your in front of a big monitor less need for
| ring lights.
| harha wrote:
| I've got the Brio and I'm not impressed by the quality, but then
| again, it works pretty well out of the box for video calls or
| general recordings, so I guess it's ok. Not sure if I could have
| gone much cheaper and still had something that's better than the
| built-in camera of my laptop.
|
| My first choice would have been a real camera (my mirrorless is a
| bit too old for 4k and being usable as a web cam over USB) and a
| real microphone (this was a good investment) and adding an extra
| EUR 200+ to such a setup would be nicer than the Brio, but when I
| travel more I'll be happy to have it.
| joseph_grobbles wrote:
| The real, _real_ reason you can 't buy good webcams is because
| the market isn't a meritocracy. Make the best webcam in existence
| and there just isn't a robust, or honest, review community to let
| it shine.
|
| Instead there are a billion "here's a list of things that we can
| get affiliate dollars for from Amazon, and we'll pretend we
| reviewed them" listings.
|
| This problem has hit a lot of markets. Without a financial
| support for capable, credible, honest reviewers, the backbone of
| an industry falls apart. It becomes all about gimmicks.
|
| So if you want a webcam the real options now are an SLR (many of
| them support that use) or even a video camera. In _those_ markets
| there remains an extreme qualitative review system, so that new
| Nikon, Canon or Sony SLR or video camera _had_ to shine.
| jldugger wrote:
| > Make the best webcam in existence and there just isn't a
| robust, or honest, review community to let it shine. Instead
| there are a billion "here's a list of things that we can get
| affiliate dollars for from Amazon, and we'll pretend we
| reviewed them" listings.
|
| Wirecutter?
| save_ferris wrote:
| Tangent: I really wish that Apple would make it easier to use the
| iPhone camera as a webcam when using a Mac. It would be a killer
| feature since so many people are in the ecosystem and iPhone
| cameras completely outperform webcams these days. I tired EpocCam
| but I wasn't completely satisfied with it. This seems like a
| missed opportunity for Apple, given their seamless integration
| experience mantra.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| There's an app called EpocCam that lets you turn the iPhone
| into a webcam. I was disappointed with the results. The colors
| get washed out easily, especially in strong direct light. It's
| nothing like the image quality you get when taking a video
| (which was what I expected).
| save_ferris wrote:
| Same, I tried it and was disappointed in the results. Nobody
| is better-positioned to wirelessly integrate the iPhone
| camera and a Mac better than Apple is, and it would encourage
| folks to stay in the Apple ecosystem.
| inickt wrote:
| Check out Camo (https://reincubate.com/camo/). I also had
| problems with EpocCam and switched earlier this year with
| an old iPhone 6 and have been really happy. $40/yr isn't
| super cheap but its easier and higher quality than me
| buying a webcam.
| talkingtab wrote:
| every smart phone has a pretty-good-camera. Shouldn't there be an
| easy way to use an iPhone or Android phone as a webcam?
| daneel_w wrote:
| I use a 10 year old iPhone 4S with OBS Studio and a $15 app to
| enable streaming from the phone's camera. It cost me not much in
| used condition, and has excellent image quality.
| mkl wrote:
| You can. I did: a Logitech BRIO 4k. I used it mainly as a
| document camera to deliver lectures from home. I should now
| probably avoid using fingerprint reader unlock systems, as you
| could probably pretty easily get my fingerprints from frames in
| the video (Mythbusters demonstrated even a printout can work).
| That will be a good enough webcam for years to come, though I
| expect my next DSLR upgrade to provide a whole other class of
| option at some point.
|
| Relying on the mics built into a webcam seems pretty silly,
| though.
| rusk wrote:
| Cameras are expensive. The low-end to mid-tier ones that we are
| used to in our devices are subsidised. Just like they cut the
| price of meat and bread to below cost to get you into the
| supermarket.
|
| So it's not a linear price scale because it is distorted at the
| lower end. There is no motivation for our benefactors to
| subsidise cameras beyond a certain quality so once you go beyond
| that you are paying full whack and the economics fall apart.
|
| This principle applies pretty much right across the smart tech
| ecosystem.
|
| The nice thing is though, that the stuff they are using to
| subsidise the expensive stuff is dirt cheap so if you've a little
| bit of smarts you can build your own gear for about a 10th of the
| price, but you will have to sacrifice some of the doo-dahs and
| bells and whistles but if what you're going for is something
| that's purely functional you will be fine. Use the money saved to
| buy an expensive streaming cam set up. Do the subsidising
| yourself.
| ape4 wrote:
| Might help if there was a standard webcam physical attachment
| (same idea as the camera screw for a tripod). Then each monitor
| could have it. So adding a new webcam would not add bunch of
| clutter to your desktop. And would avoid the expense of buying a
| webcam holder.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| If you want really good sound quality, you should be using
| separate audio gear. No on-camera mic is going to perform well
| due to various cost and physics based limitations. Look to what
| podcasters use, and buy that for the audio half. You can put a
| better mic into a webcam, but it'll always have background noise
| issues compared to a mic that's closer to your mouth.
| bipson wrote:
| _A good webcam, in my opinion, is a device that provides a decent
| sound quality_ (from the article).
|
| Ehm, sure about that metric? Should a webcam not primarily offer
| good video? And why not having good audio by means of an external
| microphone in addition to a decent camera?
|
| If that's the primary metric, the rest of the article is flawed.
|
| IMHO the best setup has a dedicated camera and at least one
| dedicated microphone (Most people streaming use microphones or
| headsets, don't they? Same for radio-show/podcast hosts.).
|
| Doesn't mean that a webcam _can 't_ have a decent microphone, but
| if you are going the custom route...
| rozab wrote:
| Anyone not using headphones is going to have echoing and
| feedback anyway. May as well just use a headset.
| ummonk wrote:
| I assumed everyone would be using a GoPro or something similar as
| their webcam if they needed a good webcam?
| dekhn wrote:
| I've been very happy with this model:
| https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/webcams/c930e-busine...
|
| It has excellent optics, and a piezo zoom. Worth every cent.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Overall, this is a pretty good article, and I always found the
| supply chain difficulties and sourcing as a bit of a black art.
|
| My only criticist is, if anyone is going to do this, please just
| focus om the camera. Forget some neural processing chip or
| microphones - just get the video right. A 4K webcam that does
| nothing but video has value in and of itself, but if you dont
| nail that, all the bells and whistles don't matter.
|
| 'camera with an ugly protruding lens as a thickest part of the
| phone'
|
| Never understood this attitude, give me a decent camera, I don't
| care how much it protrudes unless it stabs people.
| camillomiller wrote:
| The author mentions a Fuji X-T1 and the fact that you can't use
| it as a webcam, but fails to mention that it's quite old (2014)
| and that it's the only X-Tx model not supported by Fuji's new X
| Webcam software, which turns your not-so-old camera into an
| actual high quality webcam.
| analog31 wrote:
| I'm not sure you can't, but you might be looking in the wrong
| market space. There's an entire industry of "machine vision" that
| has very high end video cameras and lenses. And then there's even
| a step beyond that level, to "scientific" imaging components. You
| can choose your interface: USB, firewire, etc. Many of these
| cameras come with API's so you can write your own software for
| them.
| _wldu wrote:
| I recently found that old smart phones make better dash cams than
| the purpose built dash cams sold in stores. I turned a two year
| old Samsung J3 into a dash cam. The phone cost 90 bucks two years
| ago when it was new. The dash cam app was 4.99 and the windshield
| mount was 6 bucks. The video is way better quality and there are
| more options/settings to play with.
| crazypython wrote:
| Maybe the cause is wealth inequality: The person in question
| doesn't have the money needed to implement his plan. Some people
| have the millions or hundreds of millions of dollars needed to do
| something like this, but they spend it on very dumb stuff. If
| more wealth was redistributed, then he could take this risk.
|
| Instead we have clueless VCs investing their money and founders
| spending excessive time convincing VCs and risking their money.
| There's no more skin in the game.
| koiz wrote:
| I bought a DSLR with the plan of using it as a webcam most of the
| time. It's worked out well, but I am sick of the zoom wave, cant
| wait till it dies down.
| tomaszs wrote:
| I had the same exact problem when starting Summon The JSON
| project. The best comment I read was it is the most niche project
| he ever heard of. And in reality it is a rather small market for
| it. Moreover, the price has to be higher than what normally card
| games cost. Because when you don't order millions of decks, it is
| more expensive to manufacture, and moreover basic costs are also
| split into a smaller number of orders. It makes very hard for any
| innovation to go to the market. It really depends on if you will
| find a way to manufacture it in small quantity (what increases
| the cost) and if you will have market for it. Fortunately I have
| found an ambitious manufacturer that prints on demand. But it is
| a card deck. Hopefully there will be more manufacturers of
| electronic part willing to support startups with small order
| numbers. It blocks the market we don't have them enought
| rasz wrote:
| Webcams suck because until recently video calls sucked.
|
| > but his camera can't output a live stream into HDMI
|
| Buy different camera.
|
| Sony a6000/Sigma 1.4 16mm lens plus Camlink looks like this:
| https://twitter.com/feliciaday/status/1268379532823683072
|
| https://www.twitch.tv/videos/834329198?t=00h09m50s
|
| Pretty much every time new person streams/zooms with Felicia they
| ask about the setup to replicate it :)
| murkt wrote:
| >> but his camera can't output a live stream into HDMI
|
| > Buy different camera.
|
| He did :)
| aaron695 wrote:
| > until recently video calls sucked.
|
| As far as I can tell your answer is the only one that makes
| sense of all the comments.
|
| Most grandparents would pay $ to be able to remote well with
| grandkids. Most employees would pay $$ to look professional.
|
| But buying a good webcam wouldn't solve their broadband issues.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| This nails the issue with creating any kind of hardware. I've
| worked for hardware developers for most of my career, and have
| seen these types of challenges play out.
|
| Frankly, hardware problems are _hard_. The laws of physics are
| non-negotiable, and doing what we assume to be simple tasks at
| scale can be crazy difficult. Solving a problem in a lab is _not_
| the same as making it at scale. That's why you keep reading these
| stories about major lab discoveries that never seem to actually
| materialize in product.
|
| Us software developers get used to being able to write some code,
| or license a library, and the problem is solved. Scale isn't
| really an issue for us. If we can do it on our laptop, then we
| can push out our product to millions, almost overnight.
|
| Hardware is quite a different world. We need to tool up
| factories, train assemblers, set up suppliers and transportation
| networks, negotiate dozens of contracts; even for simple
| projects, resolve regulatory issues (which can be quite
| intimidating, depending on the industry and market), establish
| distribution channels and create packaging. Some of these are
| reflected in the software world, but at a much easier-to-manage
| level.
|
| Also, with software, failure usually doesn't cost as much as it
| does with hardware. It's a lot easier to pick ourselves up, dust
| off our lapels, and try again. Iteration is relatively easy.
|
| One of my favorite scenes:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM
| salutonmundo wrote:
| > you also can buy a great XLR microphone for $100, but then
| you'll need an external sound card with phantom power supply.
|
| this is only true if you buy a condenser microphone. a dynamic
| microphone will work reasonably fine with your onboard soundcard
| if you have an xlr-->1/8" trs cable.
| bserge wrote:
| But with a dynamic mic, you will likely need a preamp - the
| inbuilt ones on laptops and most devices aren't enough.
|
| You can get battery powered condenser mics, though, and output
| unbalanced XLR to 3.5mm, works fine.
| amelius wrote:
| Perhaps buy a tripod for a phone instead?
| numpad0 wrote:
| For me the most immediately noticeable difference between a
| webcam and a dSLR setup is FOV.
|
| Every webcam use lenses with dSLR equivalent focal distance of
| 24mm to 12mm, which fits the user's upper torso naturally when
| placed atop a display, but lens that wide technically isn't
| suited for portraits. Portraits are usually taken from a distance
| with lenses with narrower FOV[1], typically 50 to 90mm in 135
| equivalents or 45 to 25 degrees in FOV diagonally.
|
| So to make a "good" webcam, the first step is to give it a
| "longer" lens if I'm going to do it. Trying a cheap clip-on
| "macro zoom" lens on a existing webcam, etc.
|
| 1: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-
| dona...
| s0rce wrote:
| I'm really frustrated with the enormous field of view of most
| webcams. Many are 90+ degrees. My old 2012 Logitech C310 is 60
| degrees. I want to show myself in the view, not my entire
| room/house. I finally found a cheap AUSDOM AW635 which is 60
| degrees on eBay. Image quality is acceptable for $20 and its
| manual focus which took a moment to dial in but is ncie since the
| focus doesn't jump around during a call.
|
| I'd buy a higher end webcam if they had adjustable FOV (without
| software, since the software doesn't work across all
| OS/programs).
| skohan wrote:
| Does anyone remember iSight? For the time the quality was great,
| and it was also really nice looking on top of a monitor. It may
| have been a high-water-mark.
| yboris wrote:
| The quality was great for the time: _640x480-pixel VGA
| resolution_
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISight
| Noxmiles wrote:
| Absolutly! Also, Webcams are almost not developing. e.g. the
| Logitech C270 is 10 years old and is still selling for 30-40EUR,
| I think almost the same price since 2010.
|
| Imagine the phones or cameras in the year 2010. I really think
| the webcam industrie is a cartel (not to say mafia).
| JansjoFromIkea wrote:
| One I've been using recently is a Kinect v2; the image is a
| decent 1080p but with OBS I'm able to give a way better green
| screen effect than the one built into Zoom. Has the added bonuses
| of being a 3D scanner, and semi-functional full body tracker for
| VR. Cost PS70 including the PC cable, which seems to be the going
| rate.
|
| A Pi Zero with the high def camera module is probably a decent
| shout too, although I've not used it.
| soylentcola wrote:
| Hmm...I only have a v1 from the days of playing around with
| interactive projection stuff. For a while it seemed like the v2
| was expensive and/or hard to get with the cable. Also have an
| early Intel RealSense camera around somewhere but I don't know
| how well supported it would be. I know OBS has specific Kinect
| functionality built in so that sounds like it would be
| interesting to mess with.
| JansjoFromIkea wrote:
| 100% just got it to mess around with. Cable for V2 seems to
| be about PS20 nowadays (mine was official but most seem to
| not be, doubt it makes a difference), most stuff online seems
| to talk about it being multiples of that. The step up in
| tracking ability and image quality from Kinect V1 is
| absolutely gigantic. However, you can very easily get a v1
| plus adapter for under PS20 in total and it probably covers
| most of what people would want to play with.
|
| Dunno about built in functionality, I used a plugin. MaxMSP
| has Kinect functionality via a plugin too, which I haven't
| dabbled in but looks pretty fun. There's a node library for
| v2 as well I believe.
| nt2h9uh238h wrote:
| @Apple MacBook Pro
| jtdev wrote:
| People are addicted to cheap garbage from China.
| aksss wrote:
| You can do wonders with a modern sub-$400 camcorder that can do
| manual white balance, aperture priority, and provide clean hdmi
| output. Add a $20 tripod, a capture device, and you've got a
| webcam better than anything sold as such. Camcorders can have
| some inherent latency in their feeds and that's an under-examined
| differentiator in camcorder reviews these days.
|
| As to accessory webcams - there is definitely a market for high
| end webcams. The Logitech 920s or c or whatever was very highly
| rated and one of the first to disappear from shelves last spring
| along with their 4K model. I'm not saying it was objectively
| great equipment, just using it to illustrate that a webcam with
| high ratings will sell for a premium no problem. I don't know
| about the margins for OEMs but I suspect there's some room there
| when a $250 webcam is only marginally better than a $90 version.
|
| I would easily pay $400-$700 for a "usb webcam" if it approached
| my iPhone camera's quality and allowed me the control and
| capability of a cheap camcorder (think what a $250 Vixia comes
| with - manual white balance, optical zoom, adjustable frame rate,
| physical powered lens cover, IR remote control, tripod mountable,
| integrated confidence display - especially if you could leverage
| the USB connection to make the confidence display function as a
| teleprompter too). No question there's a market for such a
| product. It would sell wildly in today's market.
| claudeganon wrote:
| You can use your iPhone as a webcam with apps like Camo. I
| don't like the $40 a year subscription fee, but it does most of
| the things you're asking:
|
| https://www.macworld.com/article/3568492/camo-review.html
| notjtrig wrote:
| A software solution to use your phone's camera and mic as a
| webcam is ManyCam, it's a great desktop and phone app for
| streaming.
| Bad_CRC wrote:
| I finally ended buying a cheap (15EUR) hdmi-usb capture for my
| dslr and the quality is abysmal.
|
| Sure canon released an usb support for it, but all the usb
| cameras I've tried end up using a lot of cpu. With the capture
| card 0 problems.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Do you mean "abysmal"? Your first sentence says that a capture
| device was a bad solution, while the next paragraph seems to
| imply that it was a good solution.
| raspyberr wrote:
| I know the market for it is very small but it's practically
| impossible to find a webcam without a microphone.
| OOPMan wrote:
| You could just use a piece of software like IVCam in conjunction
| with a very good camera you already own...the one on your phone.
|
| Sure, you'll need to rig up some kind of stand (like maybe a
| hands-free mount?) but once you do that you'll have a webcam with
| a pretty decent camera (Since you can use the rear camera)
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I really wish a webcam could be embedded inside the screen (like
| the under-display front cams that are just appearing on mobiles).
| Being able to actually look someone in the eye instead of staring
| down would be great.
|
| I was even thinking of making something like a teleprompter with
| a semi mirror but it becomes too bulky :)
| jordhy wrote:
| Buy a Canon M50 and use it as a web cam. You can use this guide:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eISFCeuiCik
|
| What we need in high technology is a website to manifest our
| needs and let companies know about underserved use cases. Yes,
| it's pathetic that Logitech and Apple don't have compelling
| products in this field but, sadly, it is what it is.
| import wrote:
| I used Logitech C922. The image quality was really bad. Now using
| Sony A6000 + Elgato HD60 S plus. It's an expensive setup but
| works great.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| If you're looking for better lighting, I recommend this lamp (or
| similar design): https://www.amazon.com/PHIVE-Architect-Bright-
| Drafting-Brigh...
|
| I have it placed directly above my web cam. Since it's a line of
| LEDs, it doesn't cast hard shadows.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I don't understand the desire here.
|
| The classic Logitech C920 ($80) is an excellent true 1080p
| webcam. [1] It's been around for years.
|
| Who needs better than 1080p from a _webcam_?
|
| You can manually adjust focus, exposure, color temperature,
| shutter speed, zoom, everything you need.
|
| Once you've got that, everything else is lighting. Most people
| _drastically_ underestimate how much of photo /video quality is
| actually about lighting, as opposed to the camera or lens.
|
| As for audio, if you're investing in the higher quality of an
| external webcam anyways, then you'll never want a microphone _in_
| the webcam. The placement is inherently bad.
|
| You'll want either a lapel mic for normal interviews or meetings,
| or a podcasting mic on a desk tripod for more serious stuff. A
| mounted shotgun mic is a kind of in-between option too if you
| don't want it visible.
|
| [1] https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/webcams/c920-pro-
| hd-...
| ajarmst wrote:
| I suddenly needed several reasonably good quality webcams (had to
| instrument my home lab for teaching electronics remotely, and
| wanted multiple views in some cases. NDI and OBS plus my pre-
| existing pile of old iPhones (a largish extended family's worth)
| have proven an admirable resource, especially since the screen
| lets me tell at a glance what the frame is. Even set up a jig to
| use an iPhone with my optical microscope.
| krkoch wrote:
| Shameless plug: We're making good software defined cameras at
| huddly.com. "Plain" uvc, so it works on your favorite os.
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| A lot of people use iPads or phones for this which have better
| cameras. If you are using a computer or laptop you can just
| install an app and use your phone as a webcam.
| milesvp wrote:
| This article sort of glosses over the actual cost of designing
| the hardware. You should be able to get 500 units made working
| through a factory. Though minimum qty for parts can be as high as
| 5000, usually factories can find most components in smaller qty
| for 2-5x the price, especially since they already have
| relationships with suppliers. At $25-$35 bill of materials for
| something retailing at $250-$300 you're only looking at maybe
| $15k capital costs for the electronics and maybe another $15k for
| the molds (less if you can use one of the cheaper processes).
| $30k is pretty cheap from a capital expense if you're just
| talking about testing a market. The bigger cost is going to be
| all the engineering that goes into a product like this. It would
| be easy to spend $100k in billable hours to bring something as
| complicated as a webcam to market. You've got component selection
| and schematic work, board layout, industrial design work,
| firmware. If you're lucky you can slap together the equivalent of
| an arduino with an attached camera for initial prototypes but
| that'll only get you so far, and can still take weeks of
| development just to have a proof of concept. Hardware development
| is not for the faint of heart.
|
| , and if you don't already have expertise in the webcam world,
| there's a good chance your product isn't going to actually be
| very good.
| m-ee wrote:
| $30k is extremely optimistic for tooling costs for someones
| first hardware project. Maybe if they found a good JDM in China
| to work with.
| cjwebb wrote:
| Are there any good guides anywhere you'd recommend for hardware
| startups - and how to reduce this $30K upfront cost? That is a
| lot of money.
| rasz wrote:
| Search for successful hardware kickstarter postmortems (is it
| still called post mortem if it succeeded?). I think Bunnie
| might have done one for novena.
| milesvp wrote:
| The math I did was pretty basic. BOM*quantity + mold cost.
| Those are sort of the basic knobs you can fiddle with. Not
| all molds are equal. I was just talking with someone last
| week who was going to 3d print one of the housings for a
| component he's designing, since the quantities are low, but
| found a molding technique that's low quality but simple, and
| he said it was maybe an order of magnitude cheaper than
| anything I was familiar with, so learning about molding
| processes can allow you to design products with a cheaper
| upfront cost there. I think he said this mold he was looking
| at was like on the order of hundreds of dollars, instead of
| thousands of dollars that I typically expect.
|
| BOM reduction can be tricky. Lowering your BOM makes more
| sense the larger your production runs, but when selecting
| components I tend to sort by price, then find the cheapest
| component that satisfies my needs. Of course, a more
| expensive component may allow you to skip other related
| circuitry, giving a cheaper overall build, so diving into
| datasheets is important.
|
| Quantity is the other thing you have some control over, but
| lower quantity batches have higher per item costs. Setting up
| a pick and place for a single board takes the same amount of
| time as setting one up for a larger run. If your quantities
| are low enough eventually setup fees are likely to start
| being a bigger percentage. Quantity also effects BOM costs.
| You can easily pay 2x as much for a component at low volumes,
| so you may not actually save as much as you think you will.
|
| I agree with you that 30k isn't cheap. But if you look at
| things historically, we've finally reached a price point for
| hardware, that you don't need to be a big business to even
| think about having consumer quality electronics. Apple
| started with kits 40 years ago and took investor money pretty
| early if I recall my history correctly. Today I expect it to
| be easier to bootstrap a hardware company since there's more
| infrastructure around bootstrapping. I've seen successful
| products that won't do a production run until they have a
| certain amount of preorders. But hardware is just always
| going to be fundamentally more expensive than software
| murkt wrote:
| > Though minimum qty for parts can be as high as 5000
|
| It can be as high as 100 000. No stock anywhere.
|
| > $30k is pretty cheap from a capital expense if you're just
| talking about testing a market.
|
| Yep. That's what I thought before contacting SoC vendors.
|
| > It would be easy to spend $100k in billable hours to bring
| something as complicated as a webcam to market.
|
| I'm not in the USA, engineering hours are much cheaper in my
| country.
| varjag wrote:
| > It can be as high as 100 000. No stock anywhere.
|
| There is always a way to obtain engineering samples/devkits.
| That's how the products in these 100,000 runs get to be.
|
| > That's what I thought before contacting SoC vendors.
|
| You don't buy from SoC vendors directly unless you're an
| enormous operation. Farnell, Mouser, DigiKey, Elfa.
| murkt wrote:
| > There is always a way to obtain engineering
| samples/devkits. That's how the products in these 100,000
| runs get to be.
|
| Of course there is. But what's the point for me to produce
| a prototype if I'll have to produce hundreds of thousands
| of units in production with no way to sell that much?
|
| > You don't buy from SoC vendors directly unless you're an
| enormous operation. Farnell, Mouser, DigiKey, Elfa.
|
| "Your search returned no results."
| milesvp wrote:
| There are certainly parts that are unobtainium, that's
| why you need to have a good relationship with someone who
| has good relationships with parts distributors. A very
| important part of component selection is to make sure
| that you can obtain the parts in the quantity necessary.
| My general rule, is if I can't source it from digikey, I
| probably can't make the product, but I tend to design
| products that do runs in the hundreds, maybe thousands of
| units, so I don't have the same access to components as
| someone who's doing 10s of thousands of production runs.
| That said, you may be surprised what your factory can get
| it's hands on. And if you don't have a factory, then that
| might be an important step earlier than you might think.
| Sadly, I have no experience on how to build a factory
| relationship, and I'd imagine it's especially hard to
| find a factory with low expected volume. Yet another
| thing that makes hardware more expensive than you might
| think...
| andjd wrote:
| I'm not sure that the product the author describes trying to make
| is really any better than the top-of-the-line Logitech units that
| sell for $200. I have seen them in action, and unless you're
| pixel-peeping at 4k, their results are at least on par with a
| mid-range phone. Without investing $$$ in computational
| photography to clean up the images, you're not going to get
| flagship smartphone quality photos out of cellphone-sized
| assemblies, no matter how high quality they are.
|
| A more interesting take on this space would be to try and offer
| the same quality as the mirrorless camera setup in a smaller and
| cheaper package. Upscale to a 1-inch or APS-C chip and a wide
| aperture lens, and you could get the blurred out background
| effect naturally, get an overall higher quality image. Without
| the need for a display and by offloading autofocusing compute to
| the computer, you'd be able to reduce the per-unit cost
| substantially below a standalone camera.
|
| Another interesting product for this space would be a
| teleprompter-style monitor-camera pair that effectively lets you
| place the camera behind the screen. This allows the user to
| naturally maintain eye contact with the camera, which can
| marginally improve connection and trust with the human on the
| other side of the call. For, say, sales teams that may have to
| rely more and more on video calls, compared to in-person
| meetings, this marginal improvement could be worth a lot of
| money.
| knazarov wrote:
| There is actually a good webcam now. It's AverMedia PW513. It has
| a Sony Exmor 4K sensor, and generally favorable reviews.
| omegote wrote:
| Wow it's been many years since I last heard about AverMedia. I
| used to have an AverMedia AverTV capture card back in WinXP
| times, and it worked really well with composite video input
| from my Handycam lol.
| shaicoleman wrote:
| Hardware looks good, but the software/firmware might not be
| great.
|
| In this review, there are issues with the colours and the auto
| exposure.
|
| https://youtu.be/wO-H3tChhQ4?t=210
|
| Also it is unknown how well it works on Linux.
| rasz wrote:
| Review with actual footage made with this webcam
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5MfenW7EqA
|
| Wow, it sure does look like quality webcam, the only thing
| someone might miss is custom lens with fancy bokeh.
|
| Edit: Watched to the end, it does fake 1080@60 by upscaling 720
| :( So still a good choice if 1 you dont need 60Hz 2 dont mind
| being scammed by a Taiwanese company.
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| Also so-called "gamer" hardware. Like GPUs for scientific
| computing and high quality, actively cooled WiFi routers, it's
| a weird and kind of tedious world to navigate but quality
| hardware is there if you know where to look.
|
| https://www.razer.com/streaming-cameras/razer-kiyo/RZ19-0232...
| rasz wrote:
| >1080 resolution at 30fps
|
| lens the size of needle tip and example images looking like
| ass
| Foivos wrote:
| I can not understand why I can not use an iPhone, as a webcam for
| a MacBook without third party tools (eg. epocCam), that require
| installation of drivers.
|
| To me this is an obvious thing to do since Apple is so proud of
| its ecosystem. Especially in the time of corona when all the dslr
| / mirrorless camera manufacturers are releasing software to do
| just that.
| 02020202 wrote:
| oh yeah, the webcams suck big time. even the expensive ones. just
| get a dslr over hdmi. it's 100x better and used dslr is cheap
| these days. you can even get panasonic gh4/5 which is a real
| video camera.
| partiallogic wrote:
| Can you recommend any dslr models or what to look out for when
| buying used with the intention of only using it as a webcam?
| 02020202 wrote:
| DSLR will be larger than mirorrless. go for MFT
| mount(panasonic/olympus), they have smaller lenses. like the
| panasonic gh series. if you get older dslr make sure the hdmi
| is 1080p, not 720p. since you won't do any recording there is
| nothing else to worry about. you will be piping the image
| straight into computer via video capture card. if you would
| want to use it for video elsewhere, make sure you get "video
| camera" and not "photo camera" because due to import taxes
| they have limited recording time for 5-15 minutes. the gh
| series is a sure bet and cheapest option. gh4 is old but will
| do the job. used gh5 can be got for cheap and if you want to
| up it a bit get the gh5s.
| piranha wrote:
| Canon M200, Panasonic G7, Sony a5100 (oldest but can be
| bought for cheap and has good autofocus).
| murkt wrote:
| You actually want a mirrorless camera, not a DSLR one. If you
| intend to only use it as a webcam, probably just buy
| Panasonic G7 or Canon M200 for $500.
| Too wrote:
| What about a Gopro? They are quite sensitive to good light
| conditions but otherwise lens and resolution is very good, not
| DSLR grade but lots better than webcam/phone. Fisheye can be
| disabled. Audio is also decent, maybe not studio-grade indoors
| but when moving in the wind outdoors it's a lot better than
| phones or other non-professional gear. Lots of avilable mounting-
| gadgets and tripods available. Price is just above 300EUR for
| last years 8-black model or sub 200EUR for used or older models.
| Then you can use it for other fun stuff as well.
| supernova87a wrote:
| My simple tip is to buy a $15-20 wired lapel/lavalier mic from
| Amazon and use it instead of whatever crappy audio your laptop or
| monitor or webcam offers. It pics up your voice so much clearer
| and makes a world of difference. You can still use the speaker
| outputs or whatever you prefer, but the mic takes it to a better
| level of quality for people listening to you speak.
| napolux wrote:
| I use https://www.elgato.com/epoccam on my iPhone and for a few
| dollar is far superior than every webcam I've tried in my life.
| slantyyz wrote:
| I recently switched from Droidcam to Filmiic Pro (~$20), and
| it's pretty good.
|
| Filmic Pro supports clean HDMI out from the rear facing cameras
| on iPhones and some Android phones. You do need a capture card,
| but if you have a Camlink or the no-name $20 USB capture card
| that EposVox did a positive review on, you're good to go.
|
| On Android (I have a P20 Pro), I use a USB-C HDMI dongle meant
| for a Nintendo Switch, but it works with my phone plus it lets
| me charge the phone while using it.
|
| Filmic also has a "remote" app (~$3, iirc) so if you have an
| extra mobile device, you can control the camera app remotely
| (since the phone you're using as a camera has its screen is
| pointing away from you).
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| That's a cool app! Thanks for mentioning it.
|
| I did not realize that Corsair owns Elgato.
| bzb6 wrote:
| Good way to burn your battery.
| xalava wrote:
| Similarly, and multiplatforms, I recommend DroidCam
| (https://www.dev47apps.com/). The interface could use some
| polish but it works well on android/ios phones to Mac/Windows
| and Linux.
| Eduard wrote:
| What's your lag with Droidcam?
|
| My experience was a delay of half a second, making it
| unusable for live conferencing.
| slantyyz wrote:
| I've used it wired via USB to Windows, and it was usable
| for live conferencing.
| Kipters wrote:
| I use DroidCamX too, I don't have any noticeable delay but
| I have a fairly solid wireless setup (Unifi AP in the same
| room) and most of the time I just use the USB cable anyway
| so I can also keep the phone charging
| joosters wrote:
| Similarly, I've used the 'NeuralCam Live' app that also turns
| an iphone into a webcam. It's free to use, with extra paid
| options too. The biggest downside is the lack of microphone
| support, which seems an odd omission.
|
| I think the article is missing the obvious solution: if you
| can't buy a standalone webcam with as good image/sound quality
| as a phone, then use/make software that lets you use the phone
| hardware, there's no need to try to build your own camera.
| ghaff wrote:
| Their key light is also a good way to improve lighting.
| darkteflon wrote:
| Worth noting that this won't work with FaceTime.
| Mediary wrote:
| Honestly, the Logitech c920 is still the 'good enough' option.
| It's cheap and produces a decent image.
|
| However, the raw video can sometimes be a bit unflattering.
|
| I would recommend using OBS as an intermediary between the webcam
| and other applications like Zoom or Skype. OBS has a virtual
| camera feature so that the output looks like just another webcam.
|
| The reason you would do this is because OBS has powerful video
| filters you can overlay on top of the video feed, so that you can
| apply color correction and alter the brightness before sending it
| out. Even small changes can have a large impact on the quality of
| the video image quality.
|
| I found this much more preferable to messing around with
| Logitech's unwieldy software.
| soylentcola wrote:
| This is what I do for both work-related (and as of this year,
| recreational) video conferences. At the start of the pandemic,
| I only had an older webcam which maxed out at 1280x720, didn't
| have much in the way of onboard hardware processing capability,
| and looked generally cruddy. Set up OBS initially so I could
| use the basic color correction and then moved on to playing
| around with chromakey backgrounds (sure beats the software
| chroma in Zoom and Webex).
|
| Once C920 came back in stock (at non-scalper prices) I did pick
| one up and it was a modest improvement. Overall performance is
| just better across the board. Only real annoyance is how I have
| to reconfigure the video options every time I start OBS since
| the cam likes to revert back to auto white
| balance/focus/exposure. Still, it takes less than a minute to
| set it back to where I want it.
|
| For lighting, I have a couple of those clamp-on utility lights
| that are sold at just about any hardware store. Each one has a
| sheet of kitchen parchment paper clipped to the housing to act
| as a basic diffuser. Between whatever desk lamp or sunlight I
| have coming in, the two clamp lights let me set up a reasonable
| 3-point lighting and avoid any weird shadows.
|
| For audio, I have an old Tascam USB audio interface with 1/4"
| and XLR inputs along with headphone monitor out. Hooked up an
| old Shure vocal mic on a stand and I get quality and a pickup
| pattern I just couldn't touch with a headset or desktop
| condenser mic.
|
| A lot of this was only affordable because I had some of the
| stuff (mic, USB interface) laying around already, but that was
| sort of the takeaway. Make use of the best stuff you already
| own, consider what hacky solutions you might use to fill in
| some gaps, and only then spend more money on a better camera,
| lights, etc.
| julianozen wrote:
| Has anyone investigated buying a top tier android phone from like
| 2015 or so and then just making that a permanent webcam? Surely
| that would be relatively cheap and high quality.
| apocalyptic0n3 wrote:
| I've seen that a few times on /r/battlestations recently. Most
| of the posters say the quality can't be beat but it's a pain to
| get set up initially and building a good enough mount for it
| can be difficult as well.
| dirtyid wrote:
| Do we need good webcams anymore?
|
| Take a few selfies with phone -> reasonable deep fake avatar that
| commodity 720p sensors can animate. Bonus massive bandwidth
| savings. I think there was a 2m paper on such research. Isn't
| Apple already redirecting eye gaze to mimic staring at webcam
| when staring at screen.
|
| Also get a tripod and use app that turn phone into webcam,
| feature should be baked into OS.
| goldcd wrote:
| www.kurokesu.com is quite interesting.
|
| Sells sensors or kits to convert existing Logitech cameras, and
| filters/lenses you can add to them.
|
| It's niche - but sits between an off the shelf webcam, and
| lashing a 'proper' camera to a USB socket.
| xaduha wrote:
| PS3 Eye was a good webcam and there are plenty of them out there.
| Too bad nobody wrote good drivers for them.
| ComodoHacker wrote:
| >Even if I think that 4k is not needed, I'm pretty sure it's
| really a requirement to have in an upmarket webcam, as it will be
| really hard to sell a pricey webcam that can only do 1080p.
|
| 4K is absolutely not needed. You won't be streaming 4K from your
| home or average office space anyway. Our pipes are just not that
| fat yet in upstream direction.
| murkt wrote:
| Would you buy a webcam with 1080p only (I promise it's good
| though!) for $250-$300?
| ComodoHacker wrote:
| With all features described, yes, I would.
|
| And please, can I add another one for $50? I can easily
| connect it to my decent-hardware-but-shitty-camera midrange
| smartphone and use instead of built-in camera.
| denysvitali wrote:
| Take a modern phone, use an app and connect the phone as a
| webcam.
|
| This way you save money, time and a blog post (:
| scrollaway wrote:
| If only you'd read the blog post, you would have saved yourself
| money, time, and a comment on HN.
|
| He talks about phone-connected webcams using an app.
| D2187645 wrote:
| What article?
| spand wrote:
| It is covered in the article
| DangerousPie wrote:
| I'm pretty happy with my Logitech C920 HD - never had any issues
| with picture or sound quality.
| sinfulprogeny wrote:
| > you also can buy a great XLR microphone for $100, but then
| you'll need an external sound card with phantom power supply
|
| XLR does not imply need for phantom power. Some XLR microphones
| do, some don't. There are XLR equipped audio cards for as little
| as $80.
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| I'm surprised that Apple in 2020 still ships magnificent
| M1-powered Macbooks with crappy webcams.
| bullen wrote:
| If you have the guts to switch to Raspberry (or follow this
| guide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fcbP7lEdzY) the Raspberry
| HD camera is really good!
| ratsimihah wrote:
| Got a Sony hybrid camera that's basically plug and play after you
| install some software. It does 4k and event though most video
| conf tools only allow 720p, the image comes out stunning.
| codethief wrote:
| > The simplest thing is to sit in a room so the window is in
| front of you and the Sun isn't shining into a lens from behind
| your shoulder.
|
| Unfortunately, this is a rather bad idea from workplace security
| point of view. You really don't wanna be looking at a screen
| that's in front of a window (i.e. parallel to the window), unless
| you like excessive eye strain.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Bought a Logitech C922 - what a image quality disaster. So much
| worse than my iMac Pro.
|
| I now use a Sony ZV1 as a webcam.
| 12ian34 wrote:
| This doesn't seem particularly insightful. The author managed to
| get in a couple of completely irrelevant adverts for his startup
| and his brother's twitch channel.
|
| Save yourself some time - the titular question is answered (with
| the obvious, unsurprising answer) in the penultimate sentence:
| "you can't buy a good webcam because existing players seemingly
| don't think it's a good opportunity, and for newcomers the market
| is hard to enter."
| CivBase wrote:
| > Why can't you buy a good webcam?
|
| Why can't you buy a good frozen dinner? Because frozen dinners
| are designed to be simple and affordable meals, just like how
| webcams are designed to be simple and affordable image capture
| devices.
|
| If you're willing to spend more for a good alternative to a
| webcam, buy a captured card and a camera with support for live
| video output. You could even use the primary camera on a
| smartphone.
| chromaton wrote:
| This is a crowd funded deluxe webcam from earlier this year:
| https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/obsbot-tiny-ai-powered-pt...
| neartheplain wrote:
| I encountered this problem in college when I worked on some
| custom motion-capture systems. My priority then was not sound,
| light, or necessarily video quality, but speed. Every prosumer
| webcam I tested from Best Buy or Amazon had horrible motion blur.
|
| My solution was to buy a bunch of used Playstation Eye cameras,
| developed by Sony for Kinect-like games on the PS3. Sony had
| designed it from the ground up for low-latency motion-capture,
| and it performed remarkably well in this application. The PS3 Eye
| is still popular today with DIY mocap systems [0].
|
| [0] http://ipisoft.com/support/
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| The real reason is buried in the article:
|
| You can't buy a good webcam because the number of people willing
| to pay a lot of money for a high end webcam is very small.
|
| At the lower end, people are satisfied with their built in laptop
| parts or a cheap webcam that sits on top of their monitor.
|
| At the high end, people go down the rabbit hole of buying a do-
| everything mirrorless camera that they can use for so much more
| than just a webcam.
|
| A high end webcam would have to be cheap enough that the first
| group doesn't mind spending a bit more, but not so expensive that
| the enthusiast target audience just decides to buy a full-
| featured mirror less camera instead.
|
| Granted, there is a lot of room for improvement in that budgetary
| middle ground, but how many people actually care? Common webcams
| actually perform decently when given proper lighting conditions.
| We're not streaming high-bitrate 1080p H.265 on our 5-person Zoom
| calls. After compression and denoising the extra sharpness and
| low noise of a high end camera doesn't add much benefit.
|
| Enthusiasts are a difficult group to market to because they have
| extremely high expectations. They'd also rather spend weeks
| scouring the Internet for the perfect deal on a used mirrorless
| camera than to spend a dollar more than necessary to buy a high-
| end webcam.
| marta_morena_9 wrote:
| This doesn't make any sense. Mirrorless cameras cost a couple
| thousand dollars (I have one) and the last thing I am going to
| wear down/abuse this equipment with, is to jump into daily
| meeting lol. At the low end, there are decent webcams, like
| Logitech HD 1080p, but it costs over 100$ and honestly, it's a
| couple of years behind the current. There don't seem to be
| webcams of around 100 to 200$ that are state of the art. If you
| look at mobile phones, you see the difference. Those mobile
| cameras are like 1/5 or 1/10th of the size a webcam could be,
| so there is LOTs of room for improvement, even in this price
| segment.
|
| I am pretty sure we could easily get 4k recording with decent,
| artificial depth-of-field (LIDAR & all) under decent lighting
| conditions (which is why this can be done cheap) at a price
| point of 100 to 200$. Just nobody seems to be doing it.
|
| And yeah we definitely do stream 1080p over meetings and most
| people are always like "Oh wow, what kind of webcam are you
| using". That's for my years old logitech... The bitrates are
| pretty low, even for 4k. You can definitely have a couple of
| those over almost any current internet connection without
| issues.
|
| My main gripe is depth-of-field. Add some LIDAR and I am happy.
| Apple webcam anyone?
| muyuu wrote:
| there are PS400~PS600 mirrorless cameras that would be
| overkill for most people... to notice any difference you'd
| need pro-level lighting, and a fantastic internet connection
| - and then you can justify the high-end 4-digit $$$ camera
|
| I can see the argument that the market for mid-range webcams
| must be pretty small, as the ~$100 range is ok for most
| people
| kiseleon wrote:
| I could buy a refurb or used Olympus E-M5 mark ii on ebay
| for $250, then pick up a lens and be in business.
| josho wrote:
| What meeting software are you using that streams 1080p?
| perardi wrote:
| I actually did run my Fuji camera as a webcam for a Q&A at
| work. 35mm f/1.4 with a ring light left me looking downright
| pretty if I do say so myself.
|
| https://imgur.com/7CxnRLK
| bartvk wrote:
| That's quite a difference, indeed.
| perardi wrote:
| The real limitation: Fuji's software for Mac is not
| amazing. It works, but it's not entirely reliable.
| DisView wrote:
| I use my Fuji x-t3 with a viltrox 23mm f1.4 regularly as a
| webcam at work. During the first week in all the meetings
| there was always someone asking about how did I get that
| 'cinematic' look.
| jseliger wrote:
| _Mirrorless cameras cost a couple thousand dollars_
|
| No, they don't: https://www.adorama.com/ifjxt200sk.html
|
| And that's a new, relatively expensive model.
| GeorgeTirebiter wrote:
| "On Backorder Order now, your card will not be charged
| until it is ready to ship."
|
| Generally, this means "a long time". I've been waiting 6
| months for a recommended underwater camera, still nada.
| goldcd wrote:
| Logitech Brio is probably the most "state of the art" webcam
| you can find (and it's a few years old). Decent quality 4k
| (or 1080 at buttery FPS) with all manner of gubbins to
| correct lighting - amount, flicker, hue etc Oh, and does have
| depth sensing - with separate lens that'll scan your face and
| log you into windows (or out when you walk off).
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| > with separate lens that'll scan your face and log you
| into windows
|
| And hence the problem. Now you have a camera is dependent
| on custom drivers deeply entwined with your OS that are a
| security risk. It also isn't likely to have usable drivers
| five years down the line.
| seppin wrote:
| Also, as someone that recently upgraded their wifi router and
| runs a ping script to make sure my connection is always good,
| upgraded my mic for better sound quality, etc only to have zoom
| video calls with people on an iPhone with shit reception,
| fixing your end only does so much.
| dota_fanatic wrote:
| > _We're not streaming high-bitrate 1080p H.265 on our 5-person
| Zoom calls. After compression and denoising the extra sharpness
| and low noise of a high end camera doesn't add much benefit._
|
| This was my experience exactly after testing different setups.
| I still use my Lumix GX8 for photography and home videos, but
| it wasn't even close to worth the trouble of maintaining the
| setup compared to a ~$100 Logitech option that I leave on top
| the monitor with good lighting and plug in via usb hub as
| needed.
| piranha wrote:
| This is plainly wrong. I use Sony a5100 (cheapest camera you
| can hook up as webcam) and in zoom meetings the difference
| between my image and others (even though some tried to use
| their phones) is just night and day.
|
| Disclaimer: I am that brother referred in the article. :)
| centimeter wrote:
| I have to imagine that everyone who says this only tried a
| cheap lens with a teeny aperture. The narrow depth of field
| of a good camera+lens combo looks _vastly_ different from a
| consumer webcam, and survives compression (easily, in fact,
| since the low frequency data in the background gets quantized
| less brutally than the high-frequency data of your face). In
| fact, I think that's the primary visual cue for the "pro"
| look. Your GX8 is MFT, so you 'd need a pretty wide lens (at
| least f/2, ideally f/1.4) to appreciate this.
| postalrat wrote:
| A camera off a $50 budget phone will probably beat every $100
| webcam on the market. So why can't I get that same camera
| module, minus the phone parts but plus a usb interface, for
| $100.
| dhosek wrote:
| When John Gruber did his "zoom" video edition of his podcast
| the Talk Show (back around WWDC), the video wasn't actually
| zoom. They used zoom for live interaction, but everybody had
| an iPhone mounted above their laptop screens for the actual
| recorded video and audio which was composited in post-
| production.
| redisman wrote:
| It's funny that Zoom disappears in the final product. The
| audio feed is recorded and re-synced on each source machine
| with a different software and sounds like the same with the
| video feed.
| jetpackjoe wrote:
| I still can't believe that Apple doesn't make this super
| easy.
| kevincox wrote:
| If they made this a feature they would be admitting that
| their laptop webcams aren't very good.
| izacus wrote:
| Most likely because most of the difference is in the Qualcomm
| DSP attached to your phones SoC, not the actual camera
| module. The mobile phone images contain a lot of
| postprocessing which the webcams don't do.
| postalrat wrote:
| Include the DSP then. You have twice the budget of the
| phone to produce the USB camera.
| est31 wrote:
| But you produce in lower quantities so your development
| cost makes up a larger slice of the pie, as well as other
| fixed costs deeper into your supply chain.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| You can https://www.e-consystems.com/13mp-autofocus-usb-
| camera.asp
|
| I bought one of these for using with my lab microscope since
| the alternatives from thorlabs was 10x more expensive for no
| reason. It worked fine for a year then it stopped working.
| Maybe I spillled something on it? Who knows -\\_(tsu)_/-
| dekhn wrote:
| thorlabs cameras, and scientific cameras in general, have
| very different response functions. useful if you want to
| make quantitative measurements, accurately represent a B&W
| scene, etc. I use a BlackFly (FLIR) camera on my scope, but
| have been looking to do something similar to you, since the
| camera API is not V4L2, but rather a custom framegrabber
| SDK.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| I just wanted something to capture transmitted light
| images on a real-longterm setup. Turns out the best
| method is to wheel a simple tissue culture microscope to
| a warm room and put a cell phone on the eyepiece :) made
| some cool movies for sure!
| dekhn wrote:
| Currently I'm playing with this:
| https://github.com/bionanoimaging/UC2-GIT which does a
| lot of that (mainly for educational purposes- I think
| most scientists should focus on getting grant money to
| buy professional equipment).
| ramraj07 wrote:
| That's a candidate for sure, my efforts slightly predate
| the 3d printed microscope revolution slightly, and I had
| to MacGyver my way to prove I can image cell cultures
| long-term without spending 2-300k (since I was doing wild
| goose chase hypotheses) and hence this solution.
|
| Are you playing with it in a garage or in an academic /
| industrial setting?
|
| I'm not yet ready to start but my goal is to try and set
| up an actually productive garage lab - maybe use some
| neighbouring univ core facility on occasion but not to
| set up a lab there. Not a fan of academia in general and
| hope to not contribute money/ideology towards
| perpetuating that ponzi scheme!
| dekhn wrote:
| Garage. The goal is to build a prototype which could then
| be scaled to a warehouse-sized robotic biological
| experimental system. But, I have also worked with such
| things in commercial settings.
|
| I'd say that for most real scientists, it makes more
| sense to raise the funding to buy a professional scope
| because a lot of the dumbness is engineered out so
| scientists can just sit down and be productive.
| justincormack wrote:
| Yeah I have one of these, the picture is nice with good
| lighting (I have a black and white one, with an antique
| 16mm film camera lens). Going to write a OBS plugin for
| it when I have time.
| dekhn wrote:
| I'd be curious about this. I think what would make sense
| is to write a V4L2 driver for it, then any app that uses
| V4L2 could use it (on Linux). Or, is it far easier to
| write an OBS plugin than a driver?
| justincormack wrote:
| Yeah thats another option. I haven't found one, but I do
| have userspace code that works.
| hengheng wrote:
| $250 is deep into mirrorless camera territory though.
| dathinab wrote:
| If you by new $250 isn't close to getting you anything
| decent which also works for streaming as far as I know.
|
| Plus for many cameras you need to capture their video
| output, i.e. USB is not enough (through that currently
| changes). So you need a capture chip _with low latency_
| or else things are bad for "life" usage. This is often
| another 60-130EUR for something decent if brought anew.
|
| Plus they don't have a monitor clip so you need buy an
| additional stand.
|
| Sure you can buy used parts but then you also need to
| compare it with used part prices for webcams which
| normally (i.e. non Covid19) are also lower.
|
| I mean a Sony a5100 with usable objective currently sells
| new for ~US$700 but you can probably get it _new_ for
| that price with capture card and stand if you buy clever
| and we ignore Covid19 for fairness.
|
| (And even used you are still far above 250EUR for any
| recent decently usable mirror less camera with objective
| in my experience.)
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| Or GoPro, which you don't need a USB interface for. Works
| all the way back to hero 4 apparently.
|
| https://gopro.com/en/us/news/how-to-use-gopro-for-webcam
| dbrgn wrote:
| A GoPro performs horribly in bad light though. And it
| costs serveral hundred dollars as well.
|
| If you already own one, then it might be an option. But
| buying a GoPro to get a better webcam doesn't really make
| sense.
| sukilot wrote:
| What's one such phone?
|
| I've never seen a <$300 Moto phone match a $100 Logitech
| webcam.
| [deleted]
| distantsounds wrote:
| Pixel 2 is quite cheap and will be far superior.
| redler wrote:
| It would be a hobbyist endeavor -- and look like one -- but a
| Raspberry Pi plus camera module would hit the mark.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Here: https://youtu.be/8fcbP7lEdzY
| jpsalm wrote:
| You can get an IP camera app and just use gstreamer to pipe
| it to v4l2loopback. Perfectly usable webcam available on
| /dev/video1.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Phones can already be used as a webcam, e.g droidcam app. No
| need for special hardware.
| infomax wrote:
| DroidCam connected via USB on my Android smartphone makes a
| great 1080p webcam. The latency is minimal.
|
| It has great linux support and works great with OBS (and
| its chroma key filter)
| ciarancour wrote:
| Seconded, I wasn't satisfied leaving droidcam streaming
| over wifi 24x7, password or no password, so I have a
| shell alias to unlock phone and open droidcam over ADB
| USB debugging.
| dathinab wrote:
| It depends on you phone.
|
| I tried it with my phone and latencies made it unusable for
| video-conference usages. Given that this is my main usage
| reasonable low latenzies are for me much more important
| then super good image quality. So when I had to buy one
| recently I ended up with a ~70EUR not super good but not
| bad webcam. I thing normally I might have bought something
| like a C920 but prices-return ratio was just madness when I
| bought (sight, Covid19 madness ;=) )
| thayne wrote:
| I think there is a market for consumers who want a better
| webcam though. Especially in a post-covid world with more
| remote workers. I know several people who are unhappy with
| their laptop webcams for web conferences, but discover that
| external webcams aren't much better. And these people don't
| want an expensive mirrorless camera, they just want a webcam
| with comparable quality to a smartphone camera.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| In the middle it is everyone who has a phone that can take
| decent video.
| dheera wrote:
| Pro tip: If you want a good webcam, don't search for a webcam,
| search for USB machine vision cameras and find a good lens to
| go with it. The Sony Exmor or Starvis series of sensors are
| great.
|
| Or use a Pi HQ camera which is an IMX477 (an excellent sensor
| at its price point) and turn it into a USB webcam with a Pi
| Zero:
|
| https://github.com/geerlingguy/pi-webcam#readme
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fcbP7lEdzY
| Swizec wrote:
| You can turn your old phone into a webcam. An iPhone X has
| camera quality that competes with a cheap DSLR in a webcam
| situation.
|
| Main thing real cameras are better at is bokeh, but you won't
| get that in a webcam. And software can passably fake it these
| days.
| notretarded wrote:
| How?
| aendruk wrote:
| "Droid"Cam does a good job of turning my iPhone Xs into a
| USB webcam for Ubuntu.
| redler wrote:
| On iOS there's an app called Camo. There are probably
| others.
| inickt wrote:
| Camo (https://reincubate.com/camo/) has been absolutely
| fantastic. I wanted to use my iPhone Xs when on calls and
| not have to fiddle with with plugging it in every time I
| needed a video, so I ended up using an old iPhone 6 and
| it still destroys every webcam. $40/year isn't the
| cheapest but it works so much better than EpocCam (which
| I had been using before).
| bamurphymac1 wrote:
| I'd second this. Camo is fantastic and with an armature
| mounted above my monitor I can get a much more flattering
| angle with a great picture even on an old 6+ front facing
| camera.
| sambroner wrote:
| I'm just not sure I buy this...
|
| The number of people willing to pay significant money for a
| high end webcam _was_ very small. Now my parents and their
| friends are talking about better lighting and camera angles.
|
| It seems like this industry is unusually ripe for a "better
| webcam" that "just works"
| newsclues wrote:
| A modern iSight would be great, especially if it could
| replace webcam and GoPro
| petra wrote:
| I think the real problem that needs solving is eye-contact.
| That's the camera most people are going to buy, because the
| lack of eye contact is such an acute problem in video chats.
| jldugger wrote:
| Yea, in 2019 this article made sense. If there is ever a year
| to launch a high end webcam, it was 2020. A ton of
| professionals with disposable income and very few ways to
| spend it, sitting in Webex and Zoom calls all day. People are
| dropping tons of cash for ring lights and Lume Cubes.
|
| These are already serving the Youtuber market, the same way
| that podcasters enjoy Blue Yetis. Which makes me wonder, what
| cameras are Youtubers using?
| SirZimzim wrote:
| How fast can the hardware market typically respond to a
| sudden and potentially short term increase in demand like
| this?
| jldugger wrote:
| Depends. Inventing new products probably 1y out. But
| ramping up production on an existing product to a new
| category should have happened already.
| fossuser wrote:
| When I looked into it they're mostly using mirrorless
| cameras like the Panasonic Lumix GH5 or the Sony a7siii
| with something like the elgato camlink 4k to get clean
| output.
| mxfh wrote:
| The Sony A7SIII sensor is just as good as it gets outside
| of cinema rental market. But certainly any post 2010
| APS-C or bigger Sony should do to reliably differentiate
| from consumer webcams, all you need is a bit more light.
| Maybe get a prime lens on top and that's it, if you're
| willing to deal with a HDMI capture setup. The specs of
| some 4k drone gimbals are also impressive, also using
| mostly Sony sensors, those might be the next best thing
| to motorized gimbal setups with optical zoom lens, like
| those used in telepresence sytems:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25511682
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah I think you're right.
|
| I got the LG Meetup for my living room at the start of
| Covid and it's mostly an overpriced disappointment. I
| also had to get the external mic because the built in one
| doesn't have the range advertised (they actually
| advertise two different numbers).
|
| I wanted something I could just plug into my TV PC to use
| for video chat. The Rally setup has the PTZ camera I
| wanted, but requires two external boxes which (as far as
| I can tell) serve no necessary purpose other than bad
| design.
|
| In hindsight the PTZ rally camera with an unrelated third
| party mic would probably have been the best bet. I would
| have thought El Gato would come out with some high
| quality webcam eventually.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > Which makes me wonder, what cameras are Youtubers using?
|
| iPads are taking over. You can get pretty amazing image
| quality with a new iPad Air or Pro. You can even get rigs
| with gimbals, lighting, and external mics for almost any
| budget.
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah I think they'd sell instantly.
|
| I looked all over for one and it doesn't exist. The
| mirrorless camera solution sucks because there's not an
| obvious winner there either (and you usually need a capture
| card/camlink to convert the output from the camera).
|
| The room scale ones like the LG meetup are overpriced and
| generally awful, the PTZ versions from them are even more
| expensive, use proprietary connectors for the mics and
| require a host of unnecessary external boxes.
|
| The Facebook portal TV is a great product for most people,
| but I just want something like that I can plug into a PC.
|
| There's a vacuum in this market. The current options are
| either low quality, overpriced enterprise stuff or dealing
| with the hassle of a mirror less cam setup.
| novok wrote:
| I personally wouldn't want to start in this market, because
| by the time anything could reasonably ship the COVID
| vaccine has been distributed enough and most people won't
| care that much anymore.
| iamatworknow wrote:
| >and you usually need a capture card/camlink to convert the
| output from the camera
|
| Early on in the pandemic the major mirrorless camera
| providers (I believe at least Sony[1], Fujifilm[2],
| Canon[3], and Nikon[4]) all released software that lets you
| use any of their relatively recent cameras as webcams with
| the regular USB transfer/charging cable. A separate capture
| card is no longer a necessity.
|
| [1] https://imagingedge.sony.net/en-us/ie-webcam.html
|
| [2]
| https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/software/x-webcam/
|
| [3] https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/suppo
| rt/se...
|
| [4] https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/548/
| Webca...
| kylecordes wrote:
| As I understand these are all awful in their own way,
| typically with quality problems and extra latency as well
| as the extra complexity of the software.
|
| The obvious solution is a camera mode in which it
| presents itself over USB as a webcam... As far as I know
| no "real" camera at any price does this.
|
| I solve the problem with a Camlink, but it really should
| not be necessary.
| rossjudson wrote:
| I use a camlink 4k/nikon d610 and a Movo UM700. Great
| color and low-light performance, with natural bokeh, far
| superior to software background blur solutions.
|
| Now, I'm not sure it's a great idea to actually present
| myself in such find detail ;). But it was fun to set up.
| fossuser wrote:
| From what I had read at the time (may be better now) that
| software was bad and the low quality output from it
| negated most of the benefits of going with the mirrorless
| setup in the first place.
| iamatworknow wrote:
| That's possible, but as others in the comments have
| mentioned it may be more people with bad
| lighting/positioning who just decided it was the
| camera/USB software that was faulty. Still, maybe it does
| suck. I never tried any of these programs myself because
| all of my cameras are just slightly too old to work with
| them.
| fossuser wrote:
| The people I learned this from were professional YouTube
| people who have high quality lighting - it was the
| software.
| notjtrig wrote:
| The best solution I've found is using a app like ManyCam on
| both your phone and desktop to transmit the A/V stream to
| the computer and emulate a webcam. Has a ton of benefits
| like being able to adjust the picture, filters, switching
| webcams, being able to play videos for people, screen
| sharing.
| chadlavi wrote:
| and unfortunately Amazon and Facebook's spy-on-you-all-the-
| time FaceTime call-style communication products are going to
| dominate, especially with that demographic.
| gcblkjaidfj wrote:
| The analysis is very good on the article until the
| conclusion, which ignores all the data.
|
| It sets facts that there is no product in the market, there
| is A: "I do not care about anything, so I will buy a webcam"
| and B: "i care a little so i will spend $1000 instead of $300
| on a phone with a integrated good camera" and C: "i will
| spend $10k on a DSLR and use as a webcam"
|
| Then it measures the market size for A and ignores B and C,
| which are the actual market they will sell to!
| jacobolus wrote:
| The rear-facing camera on a recent iPhone (or comparable
| high-end Android phone) is already going to exceed the
| quality ceiling for what streaming 2-way video will support
| in resolution and bitrate, given acceptable lighting and
| background.
|
| If the front-facing camera on their laptop or tablet doesn't
| cut it, they should use the rear-facing camera on their
| phone, and put the rest of their effort into lighting and
| setup.
| asdfk-12 wrote:
| A webcam that "just works" seems like a herculean task if the
| goal is to have native compatibility with most devices
| without installing a package - Chromebooks, Apple, *nix, etc.
| but given how decent cameras are standard on mid-tier phones,
| you're spot on
| the_pwner224 wrote:
| Most webcam's I've tried do "just work" with *nix since
| they use USB UVC. And most linux distributions come with or
| can easily install the qt v4l2 package which can show you a
| live feed and let you adjust all the webcam's parameters
| that are exposed over UVC - for my current Logitech that's
| the common stuff like resolution, FPS,
| brightness/contrast/saturation, but also hardware-specific
| things like exposure (or autoexposure), pan/tilt/zoom, and
| focus / autofocus.
|
| I'm pretty sure the situation is the same on ChromeOS and
| Macs. And I've seen that webcams these days also tend to be
| pretty plug-and-play on Windows.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The problems are:
|
| - most work applications don't benefit from the quality
|
| - most people use smartphones and tablets as daily drivers
|
| - photo/video enthusiasts already own cameras that can be put
| into service.
| [deleted]
| gimmeThaBeet wrote:
| Did somebody say iSight 2?
| yboris wrote:
| iSight was such a beautiful-looking product!
|
| It's rather mind-blowing that back then its 640x480-pixel
| VGA resolution was considered good.
| throwaway201103 wrote:
| It's still good enough. 1080p or 4k is totally
| unnecessary for a Zoom meeting.
| rasz wrote:
| It wasnt just good, it was almost broadcast quality :)
| This was still a time of CIF 352x288/QVGA 320x240 webcams
| with interpolated 640x480 modes. "High-End" Logitech
| QuickCam Pro 3000 produced something like this https://se
| cure40.securewebsession.com/mikeshardware.site.apl...
| IshKebab wrote:
| Sure, so who's going to start a webcam company and design a
| cheap good webcam in less than a year for a market that will
| be dead again in less than a year?
| sfink wrote:
| _Might_ be dead again.
|
| With (1) a virus that's going to keep mutating and require
| regular vaccine updates, (2) the current vaccines with two
| separated shots and unpleasant side effects, and (3) people
| ditching their masks even more now that vaccines are in the
| picture, I'm guessing there's enough uncertainty that
| people and companies with the money to buy down risk will
| still be interested for quite some time.
|
| Though it'll still be competing with better lighting setups
| and recommendations for people to just videoconference from
| their cell phones. I wouldn't want to risk my capital on
| it, even though I'm pretty frustrated with my webcams' low
| quality.
| dogsgobork wrote:
| Right now they're talking about better lighting and camera
| angles. Will they still be interested in six months? In a
| year? There's a lot of uncertainty for any prospective
| manufacturer, they could spend a significant amount of money
| and time developing a product only to launch it into a world
| that never wants to do another zoom meeting again.
| atoav wrote:
| I worked as a freelance DOP and worked with cameras + lenses
| that coat more than a decent car.
|
| And while there is certainly room for improvement with
| typical webcams: the problem is in many cases not the camera,
| but the conditions under which it operates. Low light,
| shooting against the light, smeared laptop lenses, weird
| angles (not eye level), weird perspective framing, bad
| combination of light and framerates, mixed light
| temperatures, low CRI lighting, etc. If you take an 40kEUR
| Arri and a 20kEUR Zeiss Prime and do all of the above the
| result will still look more or less crappy.
|
| Making a good looking image that feels natural is work, and
| while the camera is an important cog in the machine, it alone
| won't do wonders. The whole physical space around the motive
| needs to be arranged the right way, light fixtures that can
| cost a ton as well are set up, a whole truckload of grip is
| placed etc.
|
| IMO we will get photorealistic realtime avatars with
| cinematic lighting before we will get cameras that create
| better pictures on their own. Or the crappy webcam pictures
| are filtered in ways that make them look acceptable etc.
|
| Making a good picture involves realising how somebody looks
| and how they want to be seen and get them closer to that
| goal, it is not something where one size fits all.
| Badfood wrote:
| I have worked as DOP in the past and couldn't agree more.
| What people need is a guide on how to manipulate the scene
| in front of the camera using what resources they have, plus
| a list of cheap or free things they can go get to help.
|
| A better camera would be way down the list for me.
|
| Top of the list would be a light panel and some rudimentary
| adjustable grip for it. Lighting changes, so over powering
| ambient light a bit with a strong diffuse light source is
| going to make the cameras life easier
| xioxox wrote:
| There are laptops with truly terrible cameras, in
| particular Dell, even in their most expensive laptops.
| These aren't my pictures, but I've tried different lighting
| but the pictures have the wrong colour, are low resolution
| and are extremely noisy:
| https://www.dell.com/community/XPS/XPS-15-9500-camera-
| webcam...
| dbspin wrote:
| Freelance videographer and cam-op here. Your Arri
| experience is skewing your perspective. Any recent highly
| regarded DSLR will be significantly better in low light,
| intelligently apply both sharpening and noise reduction,
| and do so with auto focus in a package that weighs less
| than your Zeiss Prime. I AC for an Alexa Mini LF shooter,
| and it's interested to see just how far divergent evolution
| has got in this regard. I wouldn't want to shoot a movie on
| a DSLR - but they (and of course cell phone camera & smart
| processing) are significantly better for many applications
| that the best cinema cameras in the world. Speaking to the
| original article - you'll absolutely smash standard laptop,
| or webcam quality, evening in god awful lighting conditions
| on say a GH5 or A7siii .
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| Not OP but sitting the presenter in front of a north
| facing window, positioning the laptop camera at eye level
| and giving them a well adjusted $70 mic provides an
| improvement over any badly positioned camera in mixed
| color temperature silhouetted lighting situation.
| unwind wrote:
| I think "AC" here is a verbification of "assistant
| camera" [1], a role in professional (movie) photography.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_puller#:~:text=
| A%20foc....
| ancientworldnow wrote:
| I'm a colorist and have to clean up footage from
| everything from cellphones (a lot recently with the
| pandemic), gopros, and dslrs to alexas, phantoms, 35mm,
| and even IMAX footage. Trust me when I say that I've seen
| it all.
|
| Short answer is you're wrong, even the latest dslrs are
| miles and miles from those high end solution in nearly
| all scenarios (discounting ultra ISO lightless shooting
| that no one does for anything beyond Vimeo demo reels).
| DSLR footage looks similar to the untrained eye but falls
| apart in even moderately difficult situations even when
| shot with off camera recorders costing thousands to clean
| video videos, which invalidates your point anyway.
|
| The same is true for the mid tier solutions like
| blackmagic pocket or ursa. I can get the footage to cut
| seamlessly with an Alexa, but it's much more work to make
| it look good and has deal breaker technical issues in
| many more pressing scenarios.
| eurekin wrote:
| If you could elaborate on that you'd definitely have a
| interested audience - of at least one
| x87678r wrote:
| I was amazed looking on Amazon you can get ring lights for
| $20 bucks dedicated for phones, webcams etc. Makes a huge
| difference.
|
| For me though its the audio. I hate listening to people on
| speaker so much. Get a headset or at least a good mic, it
| isn't expensive.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| > Making a good picture involves realising how somebody
| looks and how they want to be seen and get them closer to
| that goal, it is not something where one size fits all.
|
| Incidentally the same is true for audio: You can get what
| easily passes as "studio level" audio quality out of a 20$
| microphone and free processing plugins these days - as long
| as someone or something is making the right operational
| choices during recording and processing.
|
| Making good choices in absence of right answers is the hard
| thing about creative work.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| If you're really going for the best, you need a lot.
|
| But having a camera that takes in more light, everything
| else equal, can make a big difference all by itself.
| Firadeoclus wrote:
| > And while there is certainly room for improvement with
| typical webcams: the problem is in many cases not the
| camera, but the conditions under which it operates. Low
| light, shooting against the light, smeared laptop lenses,
| weird angles (not eye level), weird perspective framing,
| bad combination of light and framerates, mixed light
| temperatures, low CRI lighting, etc. If you take an 40kEUR
| Arri and a 20kEUR Zeiss Prime and do all of the above the
| result will still look more or less crappy.
|
| All this is true, yet the difference between a bad laptop
| webcam and a high-end phone front camera is huge.
| rapind wrote:
| People walk around taking pictures and video with their
| phone. No one walks around with their laptop open taking
| pictures or filming the kids on the tobogganing hill.
|
| Now with everyone working remotely I could see a quality
| demand happening but no where near the interest in phone
| cams.
| musingsole wrote:
| A lot of work has been done on phone cameras to replace
| standalone cameras, but isn't half of the development
| investment there on the software side -- in addition to
| the hardware of the camera? (e.g. echoing GP's "crappy
| webcam pictures are filtered in ways that make them look
| acceptable etc" statement)
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Good point. Speaking of phone cameras...
|
| I've had success using my iPhone for video capture via
| OBS. The setup was a bit fiddly, but still only took an
| hour-ish to try this approach by downloading and
| installing OBS, figuring out I needed a virtualcam
| plugin, finding it and fiddling w config, creating a
| dirt-simple "scene", and enabling it for use in Zoom.
| This is on an iPhone X (iOS 14.2), and Catalina (macOS
| 10.15.7).
| simonh wrote:
| The problem is laptop lids are a lot thinner than
| smartphones and just don't have the depth to contain a
| decent optic. Apple have tried to mitigate this a bit in
| the new M1 machines using some computational photography
| to improve the image.
|
| The Surface machines from Microsoft actually stand out in
| this regard. Because the brains of the machine are in the
| same section as the screen and camera, they are a lot
| thicker and can put in pretty decent camera modules.
| okr wrote:
| My laptop lid is as thick as my smartphone. I think there
| is enough space. I think the technology from smart phones
| has not swept over to laptop lids yet.
| simonh wrote:
| If you have a decent thickness laptop lid and still have
| a crappy built in webcam, that's just straight up nickel
| and dimming by the manufacturer.
| brianwawok wrote:
| What if the Smartphone camera cost $20, and the laptop
| camera cost $5 to manufacturer? Smart phones can maybe
| justify the extra $15, laptop makers cannot. If a laptop
| maker can't raise the price $15, it literally eats their
| profits.
| [deleted]
| novok wrote:
| Seriously? With laptops costing $1000+ I think they can
| afford to put in the $15 smartphone part from $300
| smartphones in the higher end ones.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| I believe they make 3-5% margin for a $30-$50 profit on
| the hardware in that example. They literally cannot
| afford that extra $15 unless they raise the price $15 and
| then they have to worry about whether a value conscious
| buyer buys their slightly cheaper alternative.
|
| Keeping in mind this is for a feature that most people
| actually don't care about.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| Or, you know, just sell one as a USB peripheral.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| If they can't justify the price increase and it doesn't
| make then a cpear winner against the competition, the
| manufacturer will cut some corners to stay competitive.
| At scale, an expense increase of $15 per device is quite
| significant.
| thayne wrote:
| But why can't I buy an external webcam, where that isn't
| an issue, with the same quality as a smartphone camera?
| hrktb wrote:
| Wouldn't a smartphone work for you then ?
|
| it might need a mount to be properly positionned, but
| that would be the only IRL hurdle. On the software front
| I don't know how good the current options are, but fixing
| bugs should be doable.
| Groxx wrote:
| It probably would, and there are apps to do exactly this.
| Mounts are cheap enough to be reasonable, though there
| aren't many specialized for this yet.
|
| Personally I don't think they'll even take half of this
| market - it means you can't fiddle with your phone while
| on a call.
| Sodman wrote:
| I tried going this route a few weeks ago. There's a few
| pretty big problems with current phone-based solutions:
|
| - You need to fiddle with your phone (which is probably
| mounted to a monitor?) any time you want to turn on your
| webcam
|
| - There's a perceptible lag on the final video, not ideal
|
| - Phone needs an external power source, charging-over-USB
| usually isn't enough to power a phone with an always-on
| camera
|
| - The phone will get hot, as it's not designed to run
| camera constantly
|
| - For Android, your best option is to stream video over
| USB, which means enabling ADB and developer settings,
| which is inherently insecure. It also makes the charging
| problem above trickier, as phones usually only have the
| one port.
|
| Honestly the best phone-based solution right now is to
| join the meeting twice - once on your personal phone for
| sending video, and once on your computer for
| sending/receiving audio/screenshares.
| lumost wrote:
| The market for dedicated external webcams is a little
| sparse because most people don't want to have more
| peripherals.
|
| There's probably a good opportunity for home office
| external displays to incorporate smartphone cameras,
| studio mikes, and maybe even lighting elements to help
| people look good while working from home.
| antiterra wrote:
| Since COVID the webcam market has exploded. Logitech had
| to significantly ramp up production due to increase in
| demand back in April. It's not just remote work, but also
| aspiring content creators.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| All of those things may be true, but when I zoom using my
| webcam the picture is far worse than when I zoom using my
| pixel4. Same goes for audio.
|
| I really, really wish I could get the calibre of A/V
| hardware in my high end phone as a separate device to plug
| into my computer. I did buy a nice microphone so I'm
| halfway there, but the webcam problem remains.
| alchemism wrote:
| There are numerous Android/IOS apps which make your phone
| either a webcam or network camera.
|
| Some examples are EpoCam, Camo, NDI Camera, etc.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| Yes, this is good advice thank you.
|
| The real problem I'm trying to solve is being able to use
| my phone while running a zoom, though!
| Ancapistani wrote:
| Do you have a retired phone in a drawer somewhere?
|
| I recently started taking Zoom calls in my office on my
| desktop, and didn't have a webcam at all. I found EpocCam
| and used it on my iPhone X, but quickly pulled out my
| wife's retired Galaxy S7 to use for this purpose.
|
| At this point you can get a used S7 on eBay for ~$60.
| That's cheaper than a webcam with similar image quality,
| and you can use the phone for other projects if that's
| your thing.
| kalal wrote:
| What is DOP?
| ghaff wrote:
| I assume Director of Photography.
| cardiffspaceman wrote:
| I have been bemused and disappointed that with all the
| high-end talent in Hollywood, there has been such a long-
| term tolerance for the trope of crappy sound and badly-lit
| faces that we continue to see on remote feeds from the
| "homes of the stars." I have come to believe that directors
| think the audience wants to see the talent are "roughing
| it".
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Actors aren't camera people, or sound or lighting techs.
| People who do that stuff make good money doing it because
| it's actually quite difficult to do well.
| awiesenhofer wrote:
| true, but if a studio "sends out" an actor to promote a
| new million dollar movie they surely can send some decent
| equipment and someone to set it up to that stars home?
| (or at least have a remote session) Seems like a small
| price to pay. But maybe its true what other comments
| mentioned and people want or prefer that amateur look.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Sure, if they want to risk people's health so that an
| actor can look better during an interview, they can
| definitely send a makeup specialist and a lighting/sound
| crew and a camera guy to set everything up in the actor's
| home, and then send them back to take everything down
| after the interview is over.
|
| But since nobody cares that actor's aren't wearing makeup
| at home right now, they could just do the safe thing and
| _not do any of that_ and the actor can do the interview
| the way they normally appear in real life. Indeed, it may
| actually be worse PR to have the actor have a
| professional studio setup in their home, because then
| people may ask why the studio risked the health of so
| many people for something so unnecessary.
|
| TV stations did have crew set up home studios for anchors
| and weatherpeeps, complete with remote links to the
| studios video in-feed, but the difference is that anchors
| and weatherpeeps will be on the air almost every day, for
| hours at a time.
| adolph wrote:
| Cinema verite
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cin%C3%A9ma_v%C3%A9rit%C3%A
| 9
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Making a good looking image that feels natural is work,
| and while the camera is an important cog in the machine, it
| alone won 't do wonders._
|
| A agree with your observations. Is photography 101: you
| need good light and clean gear.
|
| I was one of 16 people on a videoconference yesterday. We
| all have the same MacBook Pros, so all the same cameras.
| Some people looked awesome. Some people looked awful.
| pbronez wrote:
| Interesting point - it's a very similar situation for
| audio. Most people are fine with very low quality
| headphones or speakers. You can get a major improvement
| with desktop powered monitors that cost $50-$200. You can
| spend much more for higher quality speakers, but they'll be
| limited by the acoustic environment. You really have to put
| more effort into wall treatments, seating position, and
| speaker placement before further improvements in the
| electronic signal chain will be noticeable.
| kurthr wrote:
| Well, I'm not quite sure I buy that they will look crappy
| (terrible CRI is an issue, but white balance does work) in
| low light, because they have larger apertures!
|
| "It's the lens stupid"... is often true for bad images.
| More pixels (or even larger film) won't gain you that much,
| but more light will help with focus, contrast, saturation,
| noise etc.
|
| Really, you could also say, "it's the lighting stupid"...
| but better lighting is a bit harder to set up than a larger
| lens. The cost can be moderate to make it really good. On
| the other hand making it just suck less, it usually pretty
| cheap. Thus the ring light you see suggested everywhere.
|
| What amazes me is how good our eye is so that we don't
| notice terrible lighting.
| bob33212 wrote:
| I realized the same situation exists with Mail Boxes. At
| homedepot/amazon you can get a $20 mailbox or a $40 mailbox
| which are both shitty. Or you can get a 300-900 mailbox which
| is very high quality.
|
| I finally found a decent one on wayfair for 60.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| And then there's folks at the mid end, who buy an $80 Razer
| Kiyo purely for the decent video with built-in ring light so
| you're never backlit, with a separate $99 microphone and $150
| audio interface. Buying all the bits separately gets you what
| this author wants, just not in a single tidy package.
| ahelwer wrote:
| I have this exact setup except I just bought the Samson Q2U
| microphone ($100ish with stand) which has USB output (in
| addition to XLR). I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference.
| Already__Taken wrote:
| The price for audio stuff seems truly out-of-this-world
| compared to everything else.
|
| I get microphones have a lot of design/testing that might
| justify it. But all the interfacing gear seems ridiculous.
| digikata wrote:
| If you have niche requirements then expect to pay some
| premium for the gear because the development costs are
| amortized into the unit price. It's that way for AV gear as
| well as many other niches.
|
| If the market won't bear the price then people or companies
| able or willing to bear the development risk will shrink,
| or in this case maybe never develop.
| ako wrote:
| Just upgraded my webcam to a very cheap action cam (60 euros).
| Huge upgrade compared to the laptop camera, but still pretty
| bad with low lighting. Using a good action cam like the
| insta360 might be a good fit for someone looking for a better
| webcam.
| leokennis wrote:
| Right on the money.
|
| I'm not sure I get people's use cases here. Ok, if you're
| creating/streaming video, I get that you need a good webcam.
|
| But for your teams' standups, refinements etc...is video
| quality really an issue?
|
| Usually I'm in a call with 5-10 others. One will be sharing a
| screen or we will be collaborating on a whiteboard. Other
| people's webcam feeds are stamp-sized somewhere in the
| periphery of my vision. Most people want to hide their
| surroundings and will use a lame backdrop or a blur filter.
|
| So we're talking about spending hundreds of dollars to make
| your 100x100 pixel face that no one is looking at anyway a bit
| sharper?
| bsder wrote:
| Erm, I bought an Avaya HC020 (about $250) back at the
| beginning of the pandemic. It's quite nice--my images are
| always better than everyone short of pro streamers. You can
| flip the image, color balance, etc. _all in the webcam_ with
| a remote control (this is why I got it-- "flip the image" was
| causing my laptop fans to screech at max RPM for a different
| webcam)
|
| I've never used it, but if you really need microphone arrays,
| then probably the Avaya CU360 is probably for you. Bonus:
| it's standalone Android so you can install all the streaming
| apps on the device instead of on your computer.
|
| And, why not microphone arrays? Because echo cancelling is a
| nightmare technology that requires real R&D. Somebody
| _always_ gets the setup wrong on conference calls. The new
| macs haven 't been out long enough for me to trust that Apple
| _actually_ solved the problem any better.
| praxulus wrote:
| It matters less for internal meetings (maybe improving audio
| quality could help meetings run more smoothly, but that's
| just a microphone issue).
|
| If any of your employees talk to external clients, I can
| absolutely see value in getting them set up with a better
| webcam and internet connection, and I don't think you'd want
| every sales rep and partner engineer spending a day futzing
| around with an enthusiast-grade setup.
| usrusr wrote:
| > You can't buy a good webcam because the number of people
| willing to pay a lot of money for a high end webcam is very
| small.
|
| And the subset that is not easily fooled by proclaimed premium
| versions of the same cheap junk is even smaller.
| xwdv wrote:
| Wait can you really use a Canon R5 as a webcam? Could be a
| business expense.
| Groxx wrote:
| tbh I'm surprised that GoPro hasn't been exploding into this
| category. Granted, their cameras do a heck of a lot more than
| just webcams (... which is good for longer-term use), but
| they're small, cheaper than a mirrorless, wider angle than a
| normal mirrorless camera lens, and already have a stable market
| and existing users.
| jandrese wrote:
| Webcams have been a race to the bottom product for many years
| now, just like optical drives. All of the quality manufacturers
| were driven out the market ages ago and all that's left now is
| the absolute cheapest garbage sold to people who just need to
| check a box.
|
| You would think there would be a secondary market for all of
| the fancy phone cameras now being made, but sticking one in a
| box with a USB connector hanging out the bottom (or Bluetooth)
| seems like too much of an ask when you can just put an absolute
| garbage 720p sensor in the same box and save a few bucks.
| Reedx wrote:
| I don't know, a $400 Apple Cam(tm) might do the trick.
| siverson914 wrote:
| iCam. :)
| djsumdog wrote:
| If you're a game streamer or other type of streamer and are
| willing to fork over the cash, it's probably easier to buy an
| $800~$1k Sony Handycam and USB-C capture device. The majority
| of game streamers don't really need that though, although they
| might fork it over because they already have HDMI capture cards
| with dual inputs.
|
| But for the most part, most streamers don't care about their
| little picture in the bottom 1/4 to 1/8 of the screen. Good
| lighting in the filming room is much more important than the
| camera anyway.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > We're not streaming high-bitrate 1080p H.265 on our 5-person
| Zoom calls.
|
| Right, even on my higher end webcam, on a connection with
| 200mbps up, Zoom shows my video (set to HD), as 720p15.
| ghaff wrote:
| And I'd add that there _is_ a middle ground of higher end
| webcams that people can buy. Which in my experience as someone
| who would do the camera thing if I had no other option, works
| fine even for recorded video.
| foobarian wrote:
| To make your list even more dire, it seems hard to compete with
| something like the Logitech BRIO at $200.
| buro9 wrote:
| Light is the reason good webcams are not built-in.
|
| With still pictures you can expose for longer and/or use multiple
| low quality sensors to build up enough information for software
| to construct a higher quality image.
|
| With video you cannot expose for longer, and software building a
| picture would need to be near real-time.
|
| So problem #1 is light... you need to get a lot more light into
| the sensor, but the laptop is thin and optics are large (and as
| glass and light, they cannot be made much smaller).
|
| I have a good set up, but the thing I tell people who want to
| replicate it: Buy lights before you buy a camera... your built-in
| cam may be sufficient if you are well lit. Or even cheaper, if
| you have a desk facing a wall... there's no light source, so turn
| it around or face a window.
|
| Failing improved lighting fixing it... you need a good sensor and
| a lens that lets in a lot of light, especially if you are going
| to be in a poorly lit space.
|
| Sony produced the absolutely perfect form factor for this...
| https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/interchangeable-lens-came...
|
| It's basically a sensor in a minimal body that you can mount a
| standard lens on and then place on a tripod (which opens up any
| mount / arm thing).
|
| Why then is it not popular?
|
| It came too early, and wasn't quite ready for always streaming
| video... both the software in this older revision and the
| hardware have issues (cooling the sensor for constant video is
| the problem here as it wasn't anticipated to be used to stream
| for 10+ hours per day and struggles beyond 30 minutes as I
| understand). Additionally it only has a micro-USB connection, no
| HDMI or USB-C... and it really needs a single USB-C that can both
| power and handle the video. Things it doesn't need: battery or
| flash - but I guess keeping them means it plausibly could be a
| stills camera if needed.
|
| If that format included the equivalent of the Elgato CamLink HDMI
| to USB-C device and priced around $300 then I think it would be a
| wild success. The BOM suggests this is possible.
|
| Sony already have a lot of the pro-streaming market along with
| Panasonic, but if Sony made a specialist product for home
| streaming then I would buy it instantly... as it would liberate
| my a7rii from the job.
| hrydgard wrote:
| Logitech Streamcam is pretty good.
| beached_whale wrote:
| I use a USB HDMI capture device and my iPhone over the Apple
| lightning/hdmi adaptor(the knockoff I tried first didn't work
| well). This along with Filmic Pro and the quality is amazing.
| jaimex2 wrote:
| Literally any DSLR will let you do this. It's what 90% of
| Youtubers and streamers use.
| hadlock wrote:
| It's interesting that he calls out Fuji explicitly not allowing
| webcams, as Fuji did add webcam features for both their X-T3 and
| X-T4 models for both windows and mac back in September of 2020:
| https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/support/download/software/x-web...
|
| The reason they did not back port it to the X-T1 and X-T2, my
| guess, is that the T1 and T2 use much older (circa 2014)
| cpu/software, whereas the T3/T4 use the same family of ~2018-2020
| CPU/software/sensor and were already rolling out a new major
| firmware update for the X-T3.
| JosephRedfern wrote:
| A year ago, you could easily buy a good webcam for very little.
| The Logitech C920 is, to my eyes, superior to the MacBook Pro
| webcam, and offered at least semi-decent audio quality. Pre-
| pandemic, it could sometimes be had for PS25 (~$35).
|
| Post pandemic, however, webcam prices seem to have at least
| tripled (if not quadrupled). As I type, the C920 is going for
| PS140. I can understand this as a supply/demand thing, but
| surprised that things haven't started to level out yet.
| makomk wrote:
| The Logitech C920 is a design from 9 years ago, with a sensor
| to match. You're missing out on a lot of sensor improvements
| over the years that give things like better low light
| performance - handy when using a camera for video indoors. It's
| also, unfortunately, close to the best webcam out there. Apple
| really don't seem to have brought the camera improvements from
| their iPhone range to their MacBooks, apparently their built-in
| webcams are as bad as everyone else's.
| JosephRedfern wrote:
| Agreed. Sorry, I misread the original post -- I thought they
| were using current MBP cameras (rather than mics) as a
| benchmark. C920 is miles ahead of MacBook cameras, but as you
| say, nowhere near iPhone level of quality.
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| C920 is still only mediocre IMO. It's ok if you sit completely
| still but it doesn't handle motion at all.
| fock wrote:
| so what, everyone else buys Sony or m4/3 and a capture card.
| It's not that you need motion in the typical videoconference
| that much - and even then: what's handling motion about? I
| don't have a problem with my c900 (or whatever) and the only
| problem with a very old Quickcam STX seems to be no driver ..
| [deleted]
| hourislate wrote:
| This seems like a good opportunity for Wyze. They have some great
| experience with Cameras and have sold quite a few.
| tobiasbischoff wrote:
| Zoom should be the Company that builds this product. Also, the
| Camera you tried to build pretty much exists http://www.marshall-
| usa.com/cameras/CV503-U3/
| tlrobinson wrote:
| There is software that lets you use your DSLR or mirrorless
| digital camera as a webcam (though I haven't been able to get it
| to work with certain video conferencing programs):
|
| Cascable Pro Webcam (works with many brands)
| https://cascable.se/pro-webcam/
|
| Canon EOS Webcam Utility
| https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/se...
|
| Nikon Webcam Utility https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-
| explore/webcam-utility...
| roland35 wrote:
| If you have a Canon DSLR camera, you can download their webcam
| utility to plug it in via USB cable. This is handy because you
| don't need an HDMI capture card! The only problem I have now is I
| need an A/C adapter for my camera, as the battery only lasts
| about 1.5 hours.
|
| I found that using my standard zoom lens is fine, the 50mm
| portrait lens looks better for pictures but that is overkill for
| a Zoom meeting! Any DSLR camera will blow a webcam out of the
| water even in low lighting.
| EsotericAlgo wrote:
| As a note, for older Canon DSLRs that aren't supported you can
| pick up a cheap capture card on ebay for $15 and an AC adapter
| for a similar price. Using Magic Lantern you can get clean HDMI
| out and do any cropping needed in a tool like OBS. Works
| wonders. So much so I'm told my video is too clear at least
| once a week.
| kangaroozach wrote:
| Even Facebook Portal TV sucks. Slow, low res, awe full tracking,
| even worse UX. And it sees the reflections from the TV in my art
| on the wall and tries to track it. So maybe start there.
| jeswin wrote:
| > So there is a market gap between so-so webcams for $100-200 and
| a full-blown setup with a mirrorless camera, an external mic and
| lighting panels that will cost almost a grand or two, if you're
| so inclined.
|
| Nope. You can get a mirrorless camera set up (with mic and
| lights) for around $500 to $600. There are plenty of 1" compacts
| as well in that price range.
| glogla wrote:
| Can you mention a specific models that would work well in this
| use case?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Sony's A6000 works perfectly well, but I recommend you also
| grab a NP-FW50 dummy battery as it will drain the battery
| even when plugged in via USB over time.
|
| If you want better sound, grab the A6600 which can also sport
| the XLR-K2M microphone adapter.
|
| Regarding HDMI capture: the Blackmagic DeckLink card series
| works just fine in a Thunderbolt case (at work I run a 2x
| A6000 system + external HDMI input).
| jeswin wrote:
| > Blackmagic DeckLink
|
| And if you wanna save some cash, any $20-25 hdmi to usb
| capture card will work just fine. It won't give you
| uncompressed video, but you won't need it for this use
| case.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| I've been bitten in my ass lots of times by these things.
| Random crashes, overheating, dodgy connectors that don't
| tolerate even the slightest movement... thanks but no
| thanks, the cheapest DeckLink clocks in at 150$. Downside
| is you'll also need a Thunderbolt PCIe case, but eh. It
| Just Works (tm).
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| I am looking for an improvement in convenience over mirrorless,
| even if it costs the same.
|
| A webcam can be more compact because it does not need half the
| stuff thats in a mirrorless camera
| schwarze_pest wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5MfenW7EqA
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-a04A4Kf1M
| jayonsoftware wrote:
| Considering the iPhone has a good camera, has any one used
| https://www.elgato.com/en/epoccam ?
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| I think the author lost me when they said that a good webcam has
| to have "decent sound quality" and uses the MacBook as an
| example.
|
| I have literally __never __seen anyone suggest using your webcams
| /laptop mic except as a last resort.
| piranha wrote:
| Macbook Pro mic is literally much better than most webcams mics
| right now.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| My point for webcam audio you want to use a headset, USB mic
| or a real sound card and an XLR mic.
|
| Using a laptop / web cam mic is the fourth/fifth best option
| - its a bit like playing Association Football (Soccer) in
| League Two
| terramex wrote:
| Recent MacBook Pros (2020 13" M1 and 2019+ 16" Intel based)
| have incredible microphones for laptop mics [1]. Older 13" Pros
| and Airs have decent mics too but not as good as dedicated USB
| microphone.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=237&v=CmMOJTs7Pu8
| dmitri1981 wrote:
| The trick to great picture quality is to use good lighting and
| drop the ISO on the video as low as possible. I've been using
| Reincubate Camo for my iPhone along with Key Light Air Lights.
| The quality is better than any webcam. Most webcams crank up ISO
| so they can work in the dark and that is what ruins picture
| quality.
| clan wrote:
| This cannot be overstated. While I agree with many of the
| camera recommendations in this thread the most important factor
| is enough light.
|
| Even the worst webcams go from absolutely trash to something
| usable if you add better lighting to you subject.
|
| And when people start thinking over lighting you can move away
| from your window so you do not have that as a powerful
| backlight. Look out the window and the webcam will have much
| better results.
| jcims wrote:
| I just want something with some depth of field.
| dmitri1981 wrote:
| Given my limited understanding of photography that is not
| really possible with small sensor sizes. Phones can achieve
| that using computational photography, but I don't think
| it's possible using optics on webcams.
| murkt wrote:
| Yes, optical depth-of-field is only possible with
| reasonably big sensor sizes and wide-open lens.
|
| Reportedly, Huawei P40 Pro has an IMX700 sensor with the
| 1/1.33" diagonal. I didn't run the numbers for it, but it
| is big enough that with a bright lens it will produce
| bokeh.
| jcims wrote:
| I think you're 100% correct (minus some weird lab-grade
| setup or software-base DoF)
| dan-robertson wrote:
| Regarding microphone arrays, is there a good description
| somewhere online which explains the mathematics of picking out
| the sound from one place using a mic array?
| dan-robertson wrote:
| I didn't find any reference but the algorithm is approximately
| this:
|
| 1. Assume there is one point source of sound which dominates
| everything else
|
| 2. Input two frames of samples, s and t, and compute cross
| correlation: a measure of how similar they are for a given
| delay between samples n(k) := sum(s(i) t(i+k))
| / (s*s)(t*t)
|
| 3. Find the k which maximises n(k)
|
| 4. Do some beamforming to improve the signal to noise ratio.
| This sounds complicated but basically you just shift t by k
| samples and average it with s.
|
| I'm not really sure how this works if k changes over time, but
| I guess something could be done to change it in a more
| continuous way.
|
| I also don't really know how it works with more than two
| microphones or if you know the geometry of the array.
| dharma1 wrote:
| 1) you can use your dSLR as a webcam 2) you can use your mobile
| phone as a webcam
|
| Not sure why you would want to buy a webcam
| unixhero wrote:
| Which webcam can this crowd recommend?
|
| bonus question: Why do you recommend that particular model?
| hbbio wrote:
| The M1 Macbooks have a decent webcam, if you can stand machine
| learning "interference" in your video stream that is.
|
| Beyond that, the best is to use a stand for a recent phone rear
| camera (you can use a separate account and invite the phone to
| your meeting).
| cbanek wrote:
| As for the design constraint that webcams have to be small to fit
| into the lids, I find the lid to be one of those places where I
| get the worst angle (both for lighting, and just in general),
| which is under your chin. I have to sit back a foot or two to
| make it look right.
|
| Instead, what if there was a detachable part that was in the base
| that contained the webcam? Then you could hang it on the top lid
| (like normal place) or maybe set it on a table or higher up at
| any angle. I guess the next issue becomes powering it and getting
| the data there, but maybe just have a USB cable and solve both of
| them. I guess this would end up to be more like a go pro in the
| end though.
|
| I have had some pretty good webcams in the past (the 1080p
| logitechs were pretty good), but they were about $100 then. But I
| think there won't be something that good in a laptop because the
| cost will just never be worth it. I wouldn't pay for it, I'd
| rather spend that money on a camera that won't turn useless in a
| few years.
| konschubert wrote:
| > It's easy to buy some "random" sensor that was around for years
| and most certainly has "meh" quality by today's standards, but we
| need a good one, with good dynamic range, HDR capabilities and
| low-light performance.
|
| So maybe it's a matter of time until these "good" sensors reach
| the open market, can be bought in smaller quantities and become
| commoditised. Then, we may see a good upmarket webcam.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| The sensors have been around for ages, nothing stops you using
| same sensors that are in phone cameras.
|
| But you have to build a chip to control the damn thing over
| usb. I coupd not find any USB3 webcam except logitech brio
| xwowsersx wrote:
| This is precisely why I have been using my Pixel 4 together with
| Iriun. Works great and the picture quality is better than
| everyone else on video calls who are using either Logitech
| webcams or the built-in MBP camera.
| dathinab wrote:
| This is the mid-range webcam you might be looking for:
| https://www.amazon.com/AVerMedia-Streamer-Wide-Angle-Webcam-...
|
| Following some independent YouTube review this seems currently
| the best webcam for streaming you can get.
|
| Through it's focused on the streaming use-case and has some
| design decisions which are quite good for that use-case but make
| it sub-par (for the price) if used for some other use-cases.
|
| EDIT: And like other people mentioned sub-optimal lighting is
| often a major problem, so investing in any more expensive webcame
| doesn't make that much sense if you don't also invest in
| improving the light situation.
| ThePadawan wrote:
| I can't say the same about my experience with (other people's)
| webcams.
|
| From all the video calls I had this year, people either used
|
| * their notebook's built-in webcam that's complete garbage
|
| * any other webcam, and their image is clear as day, or at least
| video quality is limited by lighting or bandwidth.
| mvdwoord wrote:
| Seconded, to a degree. It seems most people's workspaces are
| just very dimly lit. Of course, modern hypersensitive sensors
| from DSLRs are immune to this.
|
| I use a relatively simple and old Logitech (C720 I believe) as
| webcam, and when I am in calls, I point my desk light straight
| at my face from just atop the webcam. This alone increases the
| image quality by an order of magnitude. If I would do more
| videoconferencing (currently only an hour or so per day, mostly
| with my own team) I would probably invest in a better light
| setup and a microphone, before I would think about upgrading my
| camera. Most small cheapish sensors do absolutely fine, given
| enough photons to work with.
| ThePadawan wrote:
| Oh lightning is definitely the largest real-life factor.
|
| I definitely cut my colleagues some slack here since many
| literally had to set up a home office out of nowhere.
|
| Some had to go to the basement (and CFL lights + webcams =
| blergh), others just had to cram themselves into whatever
| corner of the house (thus also badly lit).
| ghaff wrote:
| Yeah, and I certainly don't want to hassle anyone who
| hasn't set up a perfect video studio for calls in their
| house. On the other hand, after 9 months I do sometimes
| feel a bit of frustration for the folks who are still
| perfectly backlit from a window rather than hanging some
| fabric over it.
| mkl wrote:
| I've had compliments about how good my (work) Surface Book 2's
| camera is. Surface Pro 4 seems pretty good too.
| gxqoz wrote:
| Yeah a co-worker with a Surface Book (not sure the exact
| model) has by-far the best video quality I've seen on work
| calls. In general, I actually find built-in laptop cams to
| look much better than the typical external webcam. They're
| still not great, but entry-level external webcams are just
| atrocious.
| bayindirh wrote:
| A high end Logitech with a Zeiss lens and auto focus is superior
| to any webcam you can buy. It'll also last for a long long time.
|
| Of course a bigger sensor and a bigger lens (DSLR, Mirrorless,
| etc.) is something different.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| They are mediocre at best, owners say. I know some people that
| have one they use as secondary cameras (for multi-angle
| setups), but they bought it first, got disappointed and bought
| something else, this is the path.
| bayindirh wrote:
| I own an old Pro 9000 and it's still respectable. Only its
| FPS is a little low but, it was the king of the hill when I
| bought it.
|
| As I've looked now, it seems that they discontinued ones with
| Zeiss lenses. The ones with Zeiss lenses were both low light
| and clarity monsters for their size.
|
| Their highest model is Brio Pro with 3D sensing it seems. I
| need to see its performance. However Logi says it has a real
| glass lens so it shouldn't be a slouch.
|
| Nevertheless, it's not fair to compare a lentil sized sensor
| with a Full 35mm, last gen mirrorless.
| nickjj wrote:
| I don't think it's fair to put high quality sound as a
| requirement for a webcam.
|
| A webcam sitting 2-3 feet from you is not going to sound good,
| especially not with a dinky microphone that has to fit in a
| device that's 3 inches wide.
|
| Even $2,000 cameras have poor sound quality and pretty much
| everyone who does semi-serious recording (Youtube, etc.) will use
| an external microphone.
|
| Honestly, the classic Logitech c920 is pretty good and it's
| $60-90 depending on current demand. You can record at 1080p at 30
| fps and as long as you have a decent light source ($20 worth of
| LED lights) the picture quality is quite good.
| bserge wrote:
| Sound is really important (more important than video tbh).
| Fortunately, good microphones are aplenty, even a cheap Boya
| PVM1000 for like $50 works great (takes batteries, connects
| directly to a 3.5mm jack).
|
| Or you can go for a Zoom Hx, those work via USB, great inbuilt
| mics, too.
| INTPenis wrote:
| I'm not AV geek but isn't it also because HD transfer is too high
| bandwidth for USB? You'd need a HDMI capture card instead of a
| USB controller.
| mattowen_uk wrote:
| I've also investigated this quite deeply. As I'm sure most of us
| know, the main problems with 'webcams', either the built-in ones
| or USB ones that you perch on top of your monitor, are the lens
| size, and the CCD/CMOS image sensor size. Manufacturers spouting
| specs like '4k' are deliberately misleading the public if the
| sensor and/or the lens aren't also upgraded.
|
| The only cost-viable methods to get 'broadcast quality' imagery
| for streaming/recording right now is to buy a second hand DLSR or
| mirrorless camera that has 'clean' HDMI out that works without
| the camera auto-shutting down after X amount of time. There are a
| few sites out there that list the preferable models[1]. I've got
| a couple of old Canon DSLRs (That don't do clean HDMI) and a load
| of lenses, so I've been watching Ebay for a newer model Canon
| DSLR that I can afford. The lowest cost Canon DSLR body I've seen
| with unrestricted clean HDMI or that can take the Magic
| Lantern[2] firmware is about PS150.
|
| However... You also need a HDMI-to-USB dongle. This converts the
| cameras HDMI output into a standard USB Webcam input. I've
| already got an Elgato CamLink[3] (bought for a different reason a
| couple of years ago), but you can get cheap China knockoffs for
| about PS15, I don't know how good they are though. My Camlink
| cost WAY more than that, so I have my doubts about the knockoff
| quality.
|
| Finally, you need good audio capture that importantly is in sync
| with the picture. The HDMI to USB conversion adds a tiny delay to
| the image which can put your audio out of sync if you are using a
| standard USB microphone. Good software like OBS[4] can correct
| for this though.
|
| ---
|
| [1] https://www.elgato.com/en/gaming/cam-link/camera-check
|
| [2] https://magiclantern.fm/
|
| [3] https://www.elgato.com/en/gaming/cam-link-4k
|
| [4] https://obsproject.com/
| fluffy87 wrote:
| I hooked a gopro this way. Their new drivers support using them
| as Webcams on macos and windows.
|
| Beer Webcam I've ever had.
| Ballas wrote:
| > Beer Webcam I've ever had. Sounds like you have had quite a
| couple...
| ct0 wrote:
| these are trying times, ive had a couple web cans myself
| ktpsns wrote:
| Is this related to newer firmware or so? Because I have a
| gopro and the usb stream quality is only very low, compared
| to the HD recording facilities of these devices. If you
| browse the web for this, you will find (again, as in the
| threads here) the recommendation to use a HDMI-to-USB
| converter to capture the high quality HDMI stream a gopro can
| emit.
| bserge wrote:
| Canon has webcam software for their DSLR's, although I couldn't
| get 1080p output out of my 750D. Quality was great, though.
|
| You can also just use your phone's main camera, the quality is
| up there with rather expensive webcams (even for midrange
| phones these days), add some better lighting and you're set.
| aosaigh wrote:
| Great comment. Another few things to add to this if you are
| going for more broadcast quality rather than just Zoom calls:
|
| - The lens you use if crucial. A nice and fast prime portrait
| lens (20-50mm f1.4 or something) will make a huge difference
| with indoor light and give you nice bokeh/blurred background.
|
| - Good quality lighting is essential. El Gato have a good, but
| again expensive, key light you can use as your primary source
| of light, but you might need side-lights and back-lights too.
| Thaxll wrote:
| Well I'm cusrious if you're $2k DSLR gives you a better image
| than a 150$ webcam on zoom, facebook, skype etc... ?
| JansjoFromIkea wrote:
| Any idea if the EOS M is supported for this? Last I checked
| Magic Lantern had no webcam type functionality but that was
| ages ago. If it does that's a pretty great webcam for like
| PS100
|
| RE those chinese knockoff dongles, I got one for PS8 off ebay,
| use it for Pi Zero stuff occasionally and the lag isn't bad at
| all tbh. I'd guess somewhere between 250ms and 500ms but it
| maybe gets worse at larger resolutions.
| adam-a wrote:
| I have an EOS M and it works ok. I had to install a different
| version of Magic Lantern to get it to not auto shut off, and
| generally a lot of poking around in the menus. You can get
| battery replacement AC adapters quite cheaply and my cheap
| HDMI->USB works fairly well. Lag is not a problem but it
| introduces black bars on the left and right and in Google
| Meet my feed is horizontally squashed. Other video apps the
| picture is fine though.
| arvinsim wrote:
| I tried to use the Elgato Camlink with my Macbook and Sony
| ala6400. But everytime I use it, the fans would ramp to a noisy
| level.
|
| Turns out that processing is still being done by the Macbook.
| raegis wrote:
| I have the Elgato 4K and the Sony a6400 and my computer (NUC8
| running Debian) does not overheat.
| antonyh wrote:
| Rumour has it that the imitation 'Camlink' products overheat
| and cut out. Probably solvable with the addition of a heatsink
| if true.
| gsich wrote:
| The cheap USB-HDMI is perfectly viable for using it as a
| webcam. Qualitywise you won't notice any difference through a
| highly compressed Zoom/Teams/Skype video. They can output
| 1080p30 or 720p60, which is again mostly irrelevant in the
| webcam situations.
| antonyh wrote:
| I got the CamLink 4k, for use with a 4K camera (Sony AX33).
| Unfortunately, the HDMI out is only 1080P. So yeah while it
| works it doesn't feel like much of an upgrade over my aging
| Logitech C910.
| riho wrote:
| Finally made an account, just to reply to this. With newer
| Canon DSLR bodies you can use the Canon Webcam Utility[1] to
| directly get the video feed show up as a webcam, with just a
| USB cable.
|
| I've been using the EOS R as my webcam with the RF 35mm F1.8
| lens and it's working pretty great. I just hook it up with the
| USB-C cable and it shows up as a webcam.
|
| The only annoyance that I haven't been able to get around yet
| is switching batteries. There's a Kickstarter project[2] for a
| battery that is hot-swappable, but among those features it also
| allows you to just use the power while plugged in, which I'm
| eager to try out.
|
| I haven't tested the audio quality of the camera, so I can't
| say much about that. I've always just used my headset. I would
| expect it to be somewhere between meh and ok-ish. Of course you
| could invest in a proper mic plugged into the Camera[3].
|
| I have it set up on a tripod behind my desk. One thing I have
| been considering is getting some kind of a monitor arm style
| setup for the Camera, but so far I haven't found such a
| product.
|
| The setup of course is quite expensive depending on the Camera,
| but I already had the camera and tripod since I do photography
| as a hobby, so I was pleasantly surprised when Canon came out
| with the webcam utility.
|
| Is it worth it? Probably not if you just want something that
| works all the time. I mostly use the camera to take photos, so
| I have to re-mount it every time I come back from shooting, and
| keep the batteries charged, etc. but people do notice and it's
| fun to see their reactions and getting accused of being a
| YouTuber every once in a while.
|
| [1]
| https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/se...
|
| [2] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/x-tra/the-camera-
| batter...
|
| [3] https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/best-shotgun-mic/
| deepakhj wrote:
| You can buy a dummy battery with a/c adapter.
|
| Sony also updated their software in august and now support
| using their cameras as webcams without a capture card.
| ghaff wrote:
| I know a couple people who are doing the DSLR or mirrorless
| to HDMI->USB thing. The results are indeed nice. But, to be
| honest, I have a Logitech 920 webcam and some decent lighting
| and that handles even making video recordings pretty well.
| "Can't buy" seems like a stretch.
|
| And for anything I'm streaming I'm frankly more likely to
| have issues because my Internet upload sputters than anything
| to do with the camera. And with the Logitech webcam attached
| to my monitor, the whole thing "just works." If I had a newer
| model of Canon, I might have tried it but as it is I'd need
| to buy a converter.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Fuji does something similar with their cameras. I can use
| their webcam software and get clean video output when I
| connect my Xt3 via usb to my pc or laptop. No need to
| purchase extra unnecessary dongles.
| mitch-snipline wrote:
| I was quite excited to try this when Fujifilm first
| announced it, but then immediately dissapointed when I
| found out it does not support the x-t30.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Yeah, I ended up trading in my old XT1 and picked up a
| used XT3 at a great price which helped. It's frustrating
| that not all models are supported though.
| douglasheriot wrote:
| To mount a camera on my desk, I'm about to purchase this
| "Neewer Tabletop Light Stand", and a mini ball head with
| standard 1/4 inch screw for angle adjustment.
|
| I can't vouch for it yet, but hope it arrives and does the
| job. There's other similar products in other sizes by other
| brands.
|
| [1] https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001657723138.html
| chrismorgan wrote:
| What resolution does it produce? My Sony a6100 yields only
| 1024x576, which is not great, though still better than any
| laptop webcam at 1920x1080, or mostly even a phone or tablet
| front-facing camera at 1920x1080.
|
| (The Sony a6100 is also quite happy to run on USB power
| indefinitely, no fancy battery arrangement needed. I've used
| it thus for multi-hour webcam sessions, and plugged into a
| wall charger for multi-hour recordings, where its battery
| would otherwise be depleted after about 100 minutes.)
|
| Another thing to be aware of when using fancy cameras like
| this is the latency: you'll get added latency of 100-400ms,
| which is easily into the disconcerting zone if audio and
| video are out of sync by that much, so you may need to do
| things like add a corresponding delay on the audio, if that's
| connected to the computer directly (which will give much
| lower latency). OBS Studio can do this. I don't yet have an
| HDMI capture card, so I'm not certain about it, but the
| impression I've received is that latency will be much lower
| with a decent capture card than the USB/PTP approach, though
| still probably higher than your webcam.
| riho wrote:
| I'm not actually sure what resolution gets passed through
| the USB cable. I would assume it's either native resolution
| or at least 1080. But to be fair I'm mostly recording in
| 720p 50fps, since the 4k is cropped with the EOS R and I
| felt more fps is better for webcam footage (the other modes
| are capped at 30fps (25?) or have a crop). Besides, people
| don't need to see my face in more detail.
|
| I haven't seen any noticeable delay in the footage so far,
| but now that you mention it, I'll definitely keep an eye on
| that.
|
| The EOS R can draw some power from USB, but it doesn't seem
| to be nearly enough, or it doesn't work while recording or
| something.
| chrisa wrote:
| If you're using it powered all the time, have you checked out
| the existing plug in "fake battery" options? Here's one
| example: https://www.amazon.com/Glorich-Replacement-Adapter-
| Cameras-F...
| leemailll wrote:
| Have you try to use the max aperture, and let other enjoy the
| bokeh? ;-)
| [deleted]
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I have a 7$ Chinese knockoff HDMI-USB dongle, it works
| perfectly well even in Linux. Quality is quite good.
| jacurtis wrote:
| Just to add my own experience, I have a friend who had the
| Elgato Link and it died. He decided to give a $15 amazon one
| a try and he said it works "just as good" as the Elgato one.
| So I then bought my own $15 one (having never used Elgato
| before) and I can also say that it does the job.
|
| I don't know how to further qualify it, you expect it to
| convert HDMI into USB and it does it. The resulting quality
| is amazing. So it performs its function.
| kevincharm wrote:
| I use a similar setup with a Panasonic GH5 I already had, but I
| bought one of those EUR15 Chinese HDMI capture USB UVC cards
| [1]. These work surprisingly well, and I've had zero issues
| using them for ~4 hours back-to-back Zoom meetings on my MBP.
| They've also received some good reviews on YouTube [2].
|
| For audio, I use my Airpods. Great setup for meetings. Latency
| is good enough IMO.
|
| --
|
| [1]: https://www.amazon.nl/gp/product/B088ZTK56F
|
| [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daS5RHVAl2U
| Tepix wrote:
| Panasonic released a (beta) webcam software this year. It
| supports the GH5 and works well. Give it a try, it's free.
|
| https://www.panasonic.com/global/consumer/lumix/lumix_webcam.
| ..
|
| It's available for Windows and macOS. The Mac version seems
| to have more issues with various apps than the Windows
| version at the moment.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Manufacturers spouting specs like '4k' are deliberately
| misleading the public if the sensor and/or the lens aren't also
| upgraded.
|
| I vaguely remember reading about a video card that had more RAM
| than it was able to address.
| fuzzy2 wrote:
| You may be referring to the GeForce GTX 970. It had reduced
| bandwidth to parts of its RAM.
| [deleted]
| 542458 wrote:
| Maybe the RX480? Many of the 4GB models sold were actually
| 8GB models with firmware locking them down.
|
| https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-radeon-rx-480-4gb-
| to-8...
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Many of the 4GB models sold were actually 8GB models
| with firmware locking them down.
|
| Definitely not that; the concept was that you had a large
| amount of RAM you could advertise on the box, but the
| card was unable to use the RAM. You're describing the
| opposite, the card has a large amount of RAM that is
| advertised as a smaller amount.
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| I have a similar setup but don't you find the latency to be
| bad? At least it's not good enough for video calls IMO. It's
| fine for streaming to an audience or recording.
| vetinari wrote:
| With random chinese knock-off and GoPro 3, I had a latency of
| 10-11 frames when doing 60 fps stream.
|
| It was usable for video calls, but I had problems with
| reliability (old battery in Gopro, and even if it was
| permanently connected to power source, it charged only when I
| turned it on -- which usually was when I wanted to have a
| call).
| piranha wrote:
| > you can get cheap china-knockoffs for about PS12, I don't
| know how good they are.
|
| They are so-so. Well, they are much-much better than any
| webcam, of course, but 1080p is almost the same as 720p on
| them. So as a budget thingie it'll work, but Elgato's adapter
| is much better, of course.
| Tepix wrote:
| It's converting a digital signal (HDMI) to another digital
| signal. Why should there be any quality loss even if it's a
| cheap chinese model?
| coldtea wrote:
| > _So as a budget thingie it 'll work, but Elgato's adapter
| is much better, of course._
|
| I saw a video where Elgato Camlink opened up, is just a
| chinese card repackaged with the Elgato logo, 99% similar
| internally to the cheap knockoffs.
|
| Can't find it again to link it to...
| rasz wrote:
| https://wiki.apertus.org/index.php/Elgato_CAM_LINK_4K
|
| 8 layer pcb with custom fpga hardware, doesnt look all that
| cheap chinese knockoff to me
| coldtea wrote:
| You're right, I watched this youtube video on an
| expensive brand name item vs several chinese knockoffs
| and they had the same internals -- but it probably wasn't
| the Camlink then.
|
| Can't find the video atm, or remember what product it did
| show, but it was posted in the last 2-3 months and it
| concerned a similarly on-demand item -- and the
| "repackaging" brand was respected by creators...
| jimmies wrote:
| > So there is a market gap between so-so webcams for $100-200 and
| a full-blown setup with a mirrorless camera...
|
| Don't know where you can buy a readymade one. However, if you
| don't mind DIY, try our free software project showmewebcam. It
| uses a Pi and its HQ sensor and some software glue to make a USB
| webcam [1]. You'll have a wide selection of affordable lenses [2]
| and cases [3] that people cook up for their personal use. It's so
| much fun experimenting with them for different use cases.
|
| Last time I commented here, there have been criticisms about the
| quality of the lens that the Pi foundation offer. We have
| discovered many other decent alternative lenses that help remedy
| the quality and distortion issue of the stock lenses. An example
| of a good accumulation of knowledge as we have more users and
| people paying more attention is the commonlands lens guide [4].
|
| The software is very actively developed and we have a pretty
| supportive developers community. We try our best to have good
| software engineering practices so we can maintain this project in
| the long run. The software is designed to be modularized. It is
| easy to understand, build, and improve upon. I have a lot of fun
| building it - in fact I just finished a 5 hours coding session to
| address comments on the Pull Requests that I started earlier. I
| hope eventually it's not just another pi project for fun, the
| firmware has the potential to make this solution more powerful
| than the best webcam that money can buy, just like how openwrt is
| for routers.
|
| I still have yet to record a decent demo video to demonstrate the
| power of the Picam but there is just too many things and too
| little time to get it done. Oh well...
|
| 1. https://github.com/showmewebcam/showmewebcam
|
| 2. https://github.com/showmewebcam/showmewebcam/wiki/Lenses
|
| 3. https://github.com/showmewebcam/showmewebcam/wiki/Cases
|
| 4. https://commonlands.com/blogs/camera-engineering/raspi-
| video...
| kingosticks wrote:
| I've been using this for a whole now and really happy. Looking
| over the repo it seems there has been some software
| improvements so I will upgrade mine now - saving the settings
| will be very useful as it's too dark for me by default. Thank
| you!
|
| Regarding the lens, I'm using the '6mm 3MP Wide Angle Lens for
| Raspberry Pi HQ Camera' and I have zero problems with it. I'm
| hardly moving in the way I use it as a simple webcam so I have
| no problem with staying in focus and I just don't get what a
| few people are saying about distortion, I must be blind. I
| looked up one of the recommended alternatives, the 'Fujinon
| HF9HA-1B 9mm 1.4', I can only find it pre-owned on ebay shipped
| from China for PS70 (+ a load of tax I am sure). I will happily
| stick with my regular lens.
| jimmies wrote:
| Happy to hear!
|
| >I have no problem with staying in focus and I just don't get
| what a few people are saying about distortion, I must be
| blind.
|
| If you point it to a piece of rectangular paper you'll see
| the distortion. In the commonlands review link above, Max
| pointed that out with a picture as well.
| kingosticks wrote:
| Perhaps my head and torso are already slightly distorted
| and the lens is doing me a corrective favour. Either way,
| still happy!
| arc-in-space wrote:
| For a few weeks now I've been doing something similar, using a
| Pi + v2 camera module instead of the HQ1. This gives me an
| affordable(and hackable, to boot) webcam of a surprisingly
| decent quality with 60fps at 720p, which most consumer webcams
| can't do at all, since apparently no one cares about
| framerates(I have niche reasons for caring).
|
| 1 It's also over a network with uv4l because the v2 720p 60fps
| mode isn't supported by the uvc gadget stuff. It's a bit of a
| shame, but I haven't had problems with the network transfer.
| The biggest issue with all this is that my Zero will
| occasionally overheat and the video will start freezing up, and
| I don't have much of a solution besides "don't put it in any
| kind of case".
| troupe wrote:
| This sounds very much like the market that Webex Desk Camera is
| targeting, but I don't know the pricing has been announced.
|
| (https://www.webex.com/desk-camera-sign-up.html)
| unnouinceput wrote:
| Wasn't here on HN like a month ago an article how to setup a
| Raspberry Pi as an USB camera? With everything in it (software on
| github, BoM, wiring/PCB. Can't find it now.
|
| The price would be around $200 sans good audio, not that it
| matter anyway since in a conference I always ask for headsets.
| Also the setup was so good that the RPi would've been recognized
| as an USB camera by another RPi directly - plug'n'play.
| _carbyau_ wrote:
| At the particular market segment they seem to be aiming for - the
| enthusiast middle ground - the cost of extra capability is not
| competing with higher/lower priced cameras.
|
| It is competing with environment control on price. If I can
| change lighting with a $10 lamp or two and clean up the space
| behind me then why do I need "low light capability" and shallow
| depth of field?
|
| When this middle ground is marketed, it should be against the
| convenience of NOT having to arrange your surroundings "Just so".
| muro wrote:
| Some friends use ipads as their webcams, I've switched to a Nest
| something hub. It's nice to make video calls on a different
| device, as my laptop doesn't run its fans at crazy speeds and
| noise. The video and audio quality from the nest hub max
| whatsizname is great.
| macintux wrote:
| At my workplace, I've had effectively zero video calls since the
| pandemic began. We're just using audio (occasionally someone will
| leave their camera on, but it's uncommon).
|
| Are video calls in other companies mandatory? More common than
| audio-only calls? Even at my previous job at a small tech
| startup, where the entire company was remote from day one, video
| chats were rare.
| Phelinofist wrote:
| Same here, working from home since February, had exactly one
| video call, everything else was audio only.
|
| Company size: ~1.2k employees, ~500-600 of those are developers
| joegahona wrote:
| Video chats are more personal. We communicate a lot via body
| language.
| ucha wrote:
| The same way there is a protuberance to fit large lenses on the
| back of phones, there should be one on top of laptop monitors.
| The exterior of the laptop wouldn't change but we would be able
| to get a smartphone-like camera in a laptop. Add in features such
| as an led strip to improve lighting, market the product to people
| who use their laptop mostly for video conferencing and that
| surely would be a hit.
| ansgri wrote:
| Sony recently added support for webcam-over-usb to a lot of their
| cameras, apparently. And they are known for video quality and
| good lenses. So that's $700-800 for a very good camera (new) that
| also works as webcam.
|
| https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/app/webcam/en/download/
| diarrhea wrote:
| Sadly, the software is quite terrible. Last I checked, it only
| did 720p. Even an entry-level Sony at that $700-800 price range
| outclasses what the software can do by a long shot.
|
| So there's no way to make use of high-end Sony gear for mind-
| blowing webcam quality, since the software is a huge bottle
| neck. Very disappointing and a missed opportunity (not to
| mention Sony was months behind Canikon and others with their
| software release).
| bserge wrote:
| Canon's software has the same limitation in my case, people
| say it's because of the USB 2.0 port on the camera (750D).
| chrismorgan wrote:
| Worse than that, actually--720p is 1280x720, but this gets
| you 1024x576. (I have an a6100.)
| tweetle_beetle wrote:
| So close, but annoyingly my older ICLE-6000 didn't make the
| cut. Thanks for the information.
| ansgri wrote:
| Yes, my 5100 (which is basically a more compact and software-
| limited 6000) also not included, but it seems to be a
| hardware limitation -- e.g. live view over USB is also ont
| supported on these cameras, and live view over wifi is rather
| crappy.
| [deleted]
| muro wrote:
| Same for Nikon and Canon, works reasonably well. None of the
| software supports audio, so you need a different mic (e.g.
| built into your laptop, external USB or on headphones).
| jcims wrote:
| I know they are getting long in the tooth but I wish Sony would
| do something with the NEX cameras. Latest firmware release was
| v1.03 released a year or two after they released the camera.
| Feels like Sony has completely abandoned them.
| ansgri wrote:
| Nobody updates their old products nowadays. At least they
| haven't abandoned the app support for those cameras and
| continue to expand the APS-C line.
| [deleted]
| tyingq wrote:
| I'm no expert, but there do seem to be cameras in this space. The
| Logitech Brio and Aluratek Live Pro 4K in the $200 range, for
| example. The article doesn't "name names", so I can't tell if
| these are the models the author didn't like.
| praptak wrote:
| My entry-level Canon DSLR (EOS 550D) can stream over USB,
| although it's not "plug and play", at least not on Linux. To make
| Chrome detect it as a webcam I need to go through gphoto2 ->
| ffmpeg -> v4l2loopback pipeline.
| D2187645 wrote:
| usb resolution is poorer to start with. older cameras cannot
| run for 30+ mins before overheating.
| bozzcl wrote:
| You can save yourself some trouble by using a HDMI capture
| device. I use one with my Sony a7ii with good results.
| [deleted]
| fock wrote:
| which means l
|
| aaaag
| jimktrains2 wrote:
| This is a little off-topic, but a little tangential. Why do so
| many people insist on doing video chats? Regardless of camera
| quality, you're going to come in as a blocky and stuttery mess to
| most people anyway.
|
| Audio-only has worked really well for my team for a few years now
| (my team is all remote all thr time), so it's always jaring when
| interfacing with the rest of the company and having people pop up
| with video.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| They want to mimic the office as much as possible, that's
| really all the argument tends to boil down to.
|
| Some will claim it is for charisma --> sorry, no amount of
| charisma is going to fix a bad cam and bad audio.
|
| Some will claim it is more productive --> I really only need to
| hear your words or see your screenshare, your face moving in
| front of my screen is distracting.
|
| Some will claim it is more natural --> Try looking at a
| whiteboard while everyone stares at you from the front. That's
| about what happens when you use videochat in important
| meetings. I don't think that's the way people used to have
| meetings.
|
| Some will claim it is to read body language --> Don't depend on
| body language and stop assuming things from audio alone. We're
| adults. People will tell you when something is up.
|
| The only argument I can't go against is bonding. But if you
| don't want to bond with your team past business-only, that
| argument is voided.
|
| And I haven't named the cons yet. One of my pet peeves being
| people will start calling you over every single thing, make you
| repeat yourself often, misunderstand or even forget what was
| said in 10 minutes. You don't have that problem with
| asynchronous communication, and it also yanks the callee away
| from their flow.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Why do so many people insist on doing video chats?
|
| Control. They want to make sure the silent people in the
| meeting aren't doing something else or not actually present.
|
| It's probably why it's particularly common with managers who
| run meetings that are neither effectively timeboxed, limited to
| the essential personnel as required, nor planned well to handle
| an agenda that requires a meeting rather than an email or
| exchange of emails to handle effectively.
| EwanToo wrote:
| This article does seem to skirt around the obvious, that you
| _can_ buy a decent webcam, if you pay Logitech the money they
| want. Given how often they've been sold out this year, people are
| buying them.
|
| Both the C920[1] and the StreamCam[2] work well.
|
| 1 - https://www.logitech.com/en-gb/products/webcams/c920-pro-
| hd-...
|
| 2 - https://www.logitech.com/en-
| gb/products/webcams/streamcam.96...
| murkt wrote:
| C920 is literally 8 years old.
| gaudat wrote:
| I wonder why it is so hard to find a webcam with USB 3.0
| interface that can do something better than 1080p 30fps YUV. I
| understand in video call applications the video stream is
| compressed to hell anyways, but I am just trying to make my
| computer able to take photos better than a 20 years old point and
| shoot. Now I am using a HDMI capture card with my mirrorless
| camera. It may seem overkill but the picture quality definitely
| blows any "webcam" out of the water.
| Syncbo wrote:
| And here i was thinking , you'd actually build one. Great article
| though
| murkt wrote:
| I too wanted the article to be a luring into my Kickstarter.
| Won't happen, though
| Waterluvian wrote:
| A used GoPro is probably fine for people who want more than a
| junk camera but less than some pro level stuff.
|
| I wonder how easy it is to get OS to treat a GoPro as a webcam?
| jayonsoftware wrote:
| My understanding is BRIO ULTRA HD PRO BUSINESS WEBCAM is the best
| webcam in the market which I got, if you want to move up Sony
| ZV-1. Any one thing other way please let me know before I buy
| Sony ZV-1 :)
| xn wrote:
| I've been happy with the quality of the Logitech 4K Pro sold by
| Apple. Works great out of the box with linux.
| JimA wrote:
| This camera seems to check all of the boxes for what he was
| looking for. https://thorbroadcast.com/product/4k-hdmi-and-usb-e-
| ptz-comp...
| Pxtl wrote:
| Probably the best midrange webcam you could get would be a good
| mount for your smartphone and some decent software. I use my
| phone and a headset for zoom meetings - I use software to add the
| phone as a soft webcam to my PC.
| nailer wrote:
| Owner of a Logitech Brio 4K here. The quality is terrible just
| like this article mentions and I would have happily spent the
| money elsewhere if I had options.
|
| I used to have a tiny Canon digital camera in 2003 that had
| better quality than this.
| murkt wrote:
| Brio is retailing at ~$330 in my country.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| My Brio is fine if you are not sitting in darknesd or exoect
| pixel perfect 4k
| shaicoleman wrote:
| It's terrible out of the box. With a firmware update and bit of
| tweaking it's not bad.
|
| Under Linux, you can use guvcview to play with the settings to
| your liking. Here's an example command line for Zoom purposes:
|
| v4l2-ctl --set-fmt-video=width=1280,height=720,pixelformat=MJPG
| --set-parm 30 --set-ctrl=contrast=32 --set-ctrl=sharpness=176
| --set-ctrl=zoom_absolute=133 --set-ctrl=tilt_absolute=-36000 -d
| /dev/v4l/by-id/usb-046d_Logitech_BRIO_*-video-index0
|
| For Windows, you can check out the following video:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwXR27wLhoE
|
| For webcams, the only other decent option is the Avermedia
| PW513, which only came out a month ago.
| FeistySkink wrote:
| I've been trying to find PW513, but it doesn't seem to exist
| anywhere last time I checked. Is it out for sale already?
| shaicoleman wrote:
| PW513 is available on US sites (e.g.
| amazon.com/bestbuy.com), but not globally yet.
|
| See also my comment here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25506629
| tzury wrote:
| sounds to me the question is why can't you buy an _high-end_
| streaming camera with integrated microphone for an _affordable
| price_.
|
| I use Logitech BRIO Ultra HD Webcam[1] along with Headphones and
| very very happy for all my needs. From calls to recording
| training sessions and demos.
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.com/Logitech-BRIO-Conferencing-
| Recording-...
| murkt wrote:
| Brio is better than most webcams, still worse than all top
| smartphones.
| NDizzle wrote:
| I thought I'd mention that you can convert a Wyze cam to a webcam
| with this firmware update.
|
| https://wyzelabs.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360041605111-...
| hellisothers wrote:
| I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that a huge hurdle to wanting
| a nicer webcam is recording at higher quality doesn't matter.
| Zoom is limited to 1080p and even then you'll rarely actually get
| it due to various limitations. Zoom for our (large) company
| limits streaming to around 640x320
| markild wrote:
| You will very much see the difference between high quality and
| low quality optics/sensors, even at fairly low resolution.
| graiz wrote:
| I went down this rabbit hole at the start of the pandemic and
| it's more complex. The thing that makes for a good web-cam is a
| great lens. The sensor and body of the camera is mostly commodity
| and contributes at max $50-$100. A good lens with shallow depth
| of field will cost $500-$700. So the best case current solution
| would be $700+ for something that will look as good as a high-
| quality DSLR without the body complexity.
|
| I designed a prototype of this type of camera and I think there's
| a market but it's difficult to defend. You end up competing with
| Logitech or Canon, GoPro & Apple enter the market.
|
| It's more likely that cell-phone quality cameras start being
| added to laptops and the shallow depth of field is done in
| software.
| kohlerm wrote:
| What about using an action cam? Picture quality is quite good
| these days even for the cheaper chinese ones. Audio might not be
| too bad either. As others have said not sure whether audio with
| the webcam is so important. It will we relatively far away, which
| might not be ideal for sound quality .
| eddhead wrote:
| I'd start with a cheap camera focused Android phone, they start
| at PS200. Plenty of apps to turn them into IP webcams too.
| napolux wrote:
| what about camcorders? is there any model that also acts as a
| webcam? they're pretty cheap nowadays
| raesene9 wrote:
| The article doesn't really go into a lot of depth about which
| Logitech cameras they looked at. I've got the Brio
| (https://www.logitech.com/en-gb/product/brio) and it seems pretty
| good to me.
|
| If you are looking to use an iPhone camera for streaming/Video
| conferencing camo (https://reincubate.com/camo/) works well.
| murkt wrote:
| > The article doesn't really go into a lot of depth about which
| Logitech cameras they looked at.
|
| All of them. Brio is better, but still has much worse quality
| than any top smartphone.
| raesene9 wrote:
| Depends what you're looking for I guess. The brio's been fine
| for me for video conferencing and even the odd conference
| talk.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| Hard to justify the ($200) price. You can literally buy an
| entire smartphone with two cameras for the cost of a Brio.
|
| It is pretty clear that there's no competition in the
| webcam market, and that the offerings have stagnated for
| years.
| dsr_ wrote:
| In the typical videoconference meeting everything would work
| better if each participant is represented by a nicely-chosen
| photograph.
|
| The client software can light up the borders to designate which
| audio streams are active and pop an icon of a hand when someone
| wants to get attention.
|
| Save the video for chatting with your friends and family.
| toyg wrote:
| Webex does this. It's alright, although there is always a bit
| of a feeling that non-camming participants have something to
| hide - be it a messy living-room, a pyjama, or a side-gig as
| property developer. This said, forcing webcam usage feels
| impolite here (UK), particularly (I'm told) for women, so it
| seems like, in moderately large companies, everyone just
| defaults to audio-only 99% of the time.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| Reading this article actually got me sold on the idea of a phone-
| holder+software in lieu of a good web cam.
|
| I, like many people have an old smartphone lying around.
|
| My Samsung S7 has better camera (front and back) and better mic
| than any webcam I've owned.
|
| Getting a nice holder and a reliable app that could spit webcam
| picture out of that phone would be great.
| soylentcola wrote:
| I have used phones with obs.ninja to stream the camera output
| to OBS over the local network and then send that to conference
| applications with OBS's virtual camera plugin.
|
| It sounds janky (and it kinda is) but compared to some of the
| client/server app pairs I'd messed with earlier, it works more
| reliably. One plus is that I don't need to install anything on
| my phone since it just uses WebRTC in the browser to send the
| cam/mic feeds to OBS.
|
| Of course, even once you get it set up on a tripod and pointed
| at your face, you will want to turn down screen brightness and
| keep it plugged in. It works and it works well, but your phone
| may get warm and drain some battery if you are using it for
| hours at a time. In the end I consider it a good backup option
| (used it when I forgot my webcam at another location) but I
| prefer the ease of a dedicated camera if I have the option.
| Tepix wrote:
| I ended up using my Micro FourThirds mirrorless camera.
|
| At first I used a Panasonic DMC-GH3. There is no official way to
| stream the image to a PC so I ended up using a HDMI capture box
| (costs around $50). The image quality with a nice prime lens is
| fantastic. You get a blurry background and some nice bokeh,
| something no Logitech camera can give you and it looks great. The
| camera and the capture box support up to FullHD.
|
| I recently bought a better camera, the Panasonic DC-G9. Panasonic
| offers a (beta) webcam software for this camera so you can use it
| as a 1280x720 webcam via USB 3.0. It also looks fantastic. The
| resolution is high enough! There is no audio though. For now i
| use a separate microphone.
|
| If you care about your webcam's image quality, here's my main
| advice:
|
| - Put the camera at eye height (using a small tripod)! This alone
| makes a big difference
|
| - Put some light sources behind the camera and not behind the
| user
|
| - If you want to use the virtual background feature of Zoom etc,
| use a real greenscreen behind you. They are very cheap and the
| quality of the virtual background with chroma keying is just so
| much better!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-12-22 23:01 UTC)