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