[HN Gopher] Using a "proper" camera as a webcam
___________________________________________________________________
Using a "proper" camera as a webcam
Author : ltratt
Score : 364 points
Date : 2022-05-17 15:06 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tratt.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (tratt.net)
| humanwhosits wrote:
| I've been using the 'thecentercam' the last few days, and I get
| good comments on the "eye contact" that I now have with people
| [deleted]
| max599 wrote:
| A compromise for when you want a high quality webcam without
| spending money or dealing with the downsides of using an "real"
| camera is to use your phone. A 3 year old iphone/samsung will
| have a built in camera that is better than any webcam you could
| find under 150$. When you are pairing it with a PC, you can use
| the back camera instead of the front facing one.
|
| They either work through OBS or a dedicated app that you have to
| start on your pc. I paid for an app (droidcam, 15$ for the
| "premium" HD version and free for SD+watermark irrc) because I
| was in a hurry but I know there are good free alternative if you
| have some time to spend trying them.
| Melatonic wrote:
| I bought a Panasonic Lumix S5 (amazing camera btw - the whole
| full frame lumix collection blows away everything else I have
| used and I came from a Sony A7iii) and there is a beta software
| from panasonic that installs drivers to make it act as a webcam.
| Actually works quite well and smoothly (it just recognizes like
| any other webcam - no software to tweak). Unfortunately it is
| only limited to 720P while the camera can shoot 6K raw video (SSD
| external required of course) but it works well for Zoom and
| whatnot.
| 867-5309 wrote:
| I picked up a new C920 a few years ago on a PS30 deal (I think
| they go for around PS50 now) and it is by far the best USB webcam
| for quality at this price point
|
| I'm am at a loss as to why this guy is comparing said camera to
| cameras in the region of PS600-1300. if they could produce 20x
| the quality, then it might be a wothwhile comparison, but they
| evidently cannot
|
| the C920 has inbuilt hardware h264 encoding (for PS30!) which the
| majority of video streaming and conference platforms will thank
| you for, freeing up your processor to focus on network quality -
| which is _far_ more important than choice of camera
|
| the C920 also outputs its nicely pre-encoded stream at 1920p, so
| I'm not sure why this guy is testing at 720p. perhaps he doesn't
| realise this and is why he is surprised by the wider angle.
| perhaps his PS600-1300 "proper" camera or HDMI-to-USB only
| outputs at 720p. who knows. maybe if he'd have spent less time
| faffing around with desmurfification and Moire he'd have noticed
| this in the settings
|
| I was expecting an article comparing the C920 to an affordable
| proper camera with some ffmpeg wizardry, but all I got was a
| wishy-washy amateur photographer with a stable internet
| connection and lots of money to burn
| jamescun wrote:
| +1 for the C920.
|
| Got lucky and got one before the prices of webcams went crazy
| due to pandemic demand. Think they are back to around ~PS60
| now.
|
| It just works. Plugged it in, picked up within macOS without a
| problem, immediately usable in Google Meet. Picture is fine,
| audio is fine. No complaints.
| jrodthree24 wrote:
| Are you actually using the webcam microphone? And does it
| normally work well for you?
| jamescun wrote:
| Yes, works fine. I'm not sure what it's optimal audio
| pickup area is, but perched atop my screen ~50cm away from
| my mouth, I have no issues.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Does anyone have a comprehensive guide for Canon DSLRs on MacOS
| on M1? The Canon drivers to use as a webcam are nightmarish and
| my friends had a hell of a time trying to get it to work.
| ldayley wrote:
| I've solved most compatibility problems with several camera
| brands (and their drivers) by simply using a hardware HDMI->USB
| video capture/processing card or stick. Then I can mount it as
| a generic video device and not install drivers at all, allowing
| me to switch cameras out at will.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Ah ha, thank you. Which device are you currently using?
| ldayley wrote:
| Currently using an Atomos Connect since theyre compact and
| not expensive. Good luck!
| jannyfer wrote:
| FYI, online reviews say the Atomos Connect is just a
| repackaged version of the same generic HDMI-to-USB
| converters with the ms2109 chip that sell for $10-20 on
| Amazon (like the one linked in the original article).
| ldayley wrote:
| The recently viral "USB hubs drove me crazy" post forced
| me to realize that all commodity outboard consumer
| hardware are probably identically sourced boards/chips,
| with western branding responsible for the markup-- but
| this one survived where a previous cheaper one failed,
| YMMV.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Thank you!
| kmike84 wrote:
| As I understand, the drivers (webcam utility? not sure) are
| built for x86. For some reason they don't work in apps which
| are built for M1, so the camera only works if an app which
| needs a video is running in emulation mode.
|
| So, if you want to use Canon DSLR on M1 in a web browser (e.g.
| google meet), get a browser built for x86.
|
| I'm using Chromium, it can be downloaded for x86. The issue is
| that Chromium doesn't have screen share feature. So, for screen
| share, I'm using Chrome, and joining the call for the second
| time, in "companion mode". That's 2 separate browsers to
| participate in a call. Maybe there is a way to get Chrome or
| Firefox for x86, but I was a bit too lazy when setting it up :)
| renewiltord wrote:
| Haha thank you! That's certainly an interesting approach.
| protomyth wrote:
| We used an ATEM mini from Blackmagic Design with a couple of
| cameras with HDMI out. The mini acts like a USB web cam when you
| hook it to the computer.
| hahamrfunnyguy wrote:
| I've done some live streams using OBS, a DSLR and a capture card.
| Definitely not something I'd want to do for every online meeting.
| When I need a camera, I use a Logitec C920 webcam. Not as good as
| a DSLR or mirrorless camera, but it's sufficient and works.
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| I don't understand what's wrong with the Logitech C920's output
| there. He has plenty of light, so it's a decent image. He talks
| about video calls and not video production (YouTube, etc...). How
| great do the video calls need to be?
|
| And I get it, to each their own, but it just seems overly
| complicated.
|
| I think as long as you have good lighting, something like the
| c920 is good. I have a Razer Kiyo Pro and it's good too. My
| biggest issue is lighting. I have blackout curtains to keep heat
| out so my office is dark. I need more front lighting. Even an
| expensive set up like the article wouldn't help much.
| Geonode wrote:
| My C920 will suddenly drop focus and constantly tries to
| compensate lighting. And I cannot get it to stop. I'm
| definitely in the market for the right clean HDMI camera.
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| Sounds like a defective camera.
| favorited wrote:
| I've had to talk myself out of pulling the trigger on this
| several times. It's such an obvious level-up compared to how
| horrible most webcams are - but I just don't _need_ it, and I 'm
| unlikely to use the camera for anything else.
|
| I did spring for a nice software-controlled key light[0], and it
| makes a huge difference. It basically compensates for the fact
| that my home-office location has the worst lighting conditions,
| with a bright window directly behind me and another to one side.
|
| [0]https://www.amazon.com/Elgato-Key-Light-Air-app-
| adjustable/d...
| jcelerier wrote:
| I use an X-T4 that way, exposed to V4L2 like this it works well
| (but with a ridiculous 1024x768 resolution which is apparently
| the best one can get out of its USB...):
| gphoto2 --stdout --capture-movie | ffmpeg -i - -vcodec rawvideo
| -pix_fmt yuv420p -threads 0 -f v4l2 /dev/video1
|
| At some point I should buy a proper capture card for it... but
| for meetings it's already day&night vs laptop webcam
| flipflipper wrote:
| Another reason to not use a DSLR is that many (all?) have
| timeouts (<30min) in their video mode due to some import tax
| reason, even when hooked up to a computer. Atleast this is what I
| found when I tried a canon DSLR with canons webcam software.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| This changed in 2019 IIRC. The EU changed its regulation and
| the 30 minute record limit no longer applies. Furthermore, it
| was always possible to install custom firmware on many cameras
| that bypassed this limit. Record limits due to temperature and
| overheating, though, is a different story.
| xdennis wrote:
| > have timeouts (<30min) in their video mode due to some import
| tax reason
|
| People are often misinformed about EU laws, but on the other
| hand the EU has no shortage of ridiculous laws that give fodder
| to the euroskeptics.
|
| In this case, it DOES look like the 30 minute limit is the EU's
| fault[1]. Thankfully it ended in 2019.
|
| [1]: https://www.fujirumors.com/yes-eu-import-duty-reason-
| fujifil...
| adoxyz wrote:
| That's only if you actually hit the record button and are
| actively recording to the memory card, but if you're using the
| DSLR as a passthrough, it works all day. I have done it w/ my
| Sony a6500 and it works really well.
| ericd wrote:
| I think Sonys tend to be recommended as working well as
| webcams, partly for this reason, not all do.
| crtasm wrote:
| I've read some cameras still have a timeout when not
| recording, e.g note on Canon EOS 6D here:
| https://www.elgato.com/en/cam-link/camera-check
| michaelt wrote:
| Can you run autofocus continuously when you're not actively
| recording?
| ericd wrote:
| The Sony a series can, no idea about others.
| ldayley wrote:
| Sony cameras work (as mentioned below) but nearly every
| mirrorless or dslr I've used does this by default or can be
| set up to by switching to continuous AF modes. This is best
| done while connected to a power source, as the motors drain
| battery faster.
| kmike84 wrote:
| Is it such a big issue? My Canon DSLR turns off every 30min,
| but that's only for a couple of seconds, it then turns back on.
| On a positive side, it's now easy to notice when 30min or 1hr
| meeting is running over, it's a nice reminder :)
| adhoc_slime wrote:
| Extra note here, I've been running my olympus em5 mk-2 with the
| drivers Olympus released to run it as a web camera and its been
| working just fine, out of the box. I got an extra dummy battery
| to power it (cannot be powered though usb) so I have no worries
| of it dying during a long meeting.
|
| in a remote office world, I'm glad my team leaves their cameras
| on and I view it as a form of professionalism to present myself
| as best I can, and if that's not following a dress code and
| keeping trim in an office, its giving good video quality in
| online meetings.
| jeffbee wrote:
| I'm also using an E m5 mk2 on macos, with the battery holder
| grip and 25mm lens. I'm happy with the image but the software
| is pretty bad, isn't it? There's a substantial lag between the
| audio and video which is disconcerting to the viewer. And the
| video stream doesn't reliably start. I usually have to flip the
| video off and on a few dozen times in the Zoom app before it
| begins working.
|
| Aside from that the cost of the Very Special USB Cable is a
| real insult.
| adhoc_slime wrote:
| I haven't had the same experience at all, perhaps its because
| I'm on windows? I also don't use my camera as my audio
| source. I use my laptop microphone for now, with plans to get
| an external microphone. I just use the usb cable that came
| with the camera, I never had to purchase it separately.
|
| The battery I use is one that uses the shell of a matching
| battery but provides a wired 8V DC through a usb SMPS, 20$
| from aliexpress and I never have to worry about it.
| jeffbee wrote:
| I'm using the microphone on the mac ... the audio is ahead
| of the video. I don't think the OM-D Webcam software
| supports audio at all.
| at_compile_time wrote:
| >Mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter and have almost
| entirely replaced DSLRs.
|
| I haven't paid attention to cameras in a while. Did I miss this
| happening?
| Kerrick wrote:
| Yes. Sony became as big of a player as Canon and Nikon because
| of it. Canon launched a new lens mount (RF) and announced they
| will stop producing EF lenses and flagship DSLRs. Nikon
| launched a new lens mount (Z).
| spoonjim wrote:
| The problem with all "proper" cameras is that they have multiple
| frames of latency and latency is by far the most important thing
| in a call. Has anyone found a "proper" camera pipeline as low
| latency as a webcam?
| kmike84 wrote:
| Hm, I haven't noticed any increased latency when using a DSLR
| as a webcam.
| klodolph wrote:
| For video, I think this is a waste of time and money. Audio is a
| different story.
|
| The quality of your audio has an impact both on the
| intelligibility of what you're saying and on listener's
| subconscious evaluations of you. Audio software and hardware is
| also cheaper and much, much easier to deal with than video--I've
| had no problems with essentially the same setup across Mac,
| Linux, and Windows.
|
| The cost of entry is somewhere around $50-$100 for USB
| microphones, although if you're willing to spend closer to $250,
| you can get a decent USB audio interface ($120) + standard (XLR)
| microphone ($100) + XLR cable ($10) + stand or boom arm ($20).
|
| I've been in countless online meetings where I'm barely able to
| hear one or two of the participants.
|
| Every time I've evaluated a better video setup, it's been clear
| that there are a bunch of things you want to get right in order
| to have a smooth & reliable experience. You want a camera with
| clean HDMI output, a capture card, and make sure that your camera
| can be run continuously for as long as the meetings will last--
| don't forget back-to-back meetings. If you might be in meetings
| for three hours in a row every once in a while, do you need a
| camera that can be run for three hours continuously? Most
| "proper" cameras just can't do that. If you dig into the specs,
| some of them will list the maximum amount of time that they'll
| run before shutting off. Twitch streamers and people who run
| YouTube channels have done the research and will tell you which
| cameras are suitable for this kind of work, but at that point,
| you're often spending like $700 or more just so people can see a
| clearer picture. I would love it if I could just use my DSLR,
| which is a very nice prosumer DSLR with some nice lenses, but
| it's just not designed for streaming video. I would have to buy
| something new.
|
| High-quality audio for $50-$100 is a much, much better deal.
| aphit wrote:
| I would love to upgrade my audio game but don't know where to
| start. Any similar guides like the OP but for audio?
| klodolph wrote:
| There are a ton of guides online, especially since the
| pandemic started. Getting a USB microphone is so easy and
| cheap that you probably don't need a guide for it. The guides
| that I've seen for USB mics are generally focused on the
| features that streamers need, which are somewhat unique (they
| want to capture desktop audio at the same time).
|
| If you are going for the prosumer option, I recommend
| Scarlett Solo + Shure SM58 + XLR cable + mic stand. This may
| be a bit overkill for meetings, but it's a good starting
| point if you want to record music, stream, record a podcast,
| etc.
| tomatocracy wrote:
| A lot of cameras will list maximum time before shutting off as
| 29 minutes, 59 seconds. This isn't neccessarily because of
| overheating issues but (I think) to avoid falling on the wrong
| side of some tax/duty differences between camcorders and stills
| cameras.
|
| As an example, on my home setup I use a Canon R5 for video
| calls (way overpowered for this task but I have it for stills
| photography). This lists maximum recording time as 29:59.
| However it doesn't limit the amount of time it can be switched
| on and outputting via HDMI and I've used it for calls of 3+
| hours without any issue (with an AC battery adapter).
| unicornporn wrote:
| > A lot of cameras will list maximum time before shutting off
| as 29 minutes, 59 seconds. This isn't neccessarily because of
| overheating issues but (I think) to avoid falling on the
| wrong side of some tax/duty differences between camcorders
| and stills cameras.
|
| That's for recording to memory card, not for the HDMI feed.
| outworlder wrote:
| > The cost of entry is somewhere around $50-$100 for USB
| microphones, although if you're willing to spend closer to
| $250, you can get a decent USB audio interface ($120) +
| standard (XLR) microphone ($100) + XLR cable ($10) + stand or
| boom arm ($20).
|
| Is a XLR microphone worth the cost increase - for meetings, not
| streaming(or youtube creation)?
| klodolph wrote:
| > Is a XLR microphone worth the cost increase - for meetings,
| not streaming(or youtube creation)?
|
| I'm not sure how to quantify it, and I've not used USB
| microphones. By the time USB microphones appeared on the
| market, I already had microphones and there was no reason to
| downgrade.
|
| My point of reference is the Shure SM57 / SM58 (which are
| very similar). The SM57/SM58 is dirt cheap at $100, extremely
| reliable, and has a very good sound to it. The "sound" of the
| microphone is largely created by the construction of the
| capsule and the construction of the microphone body. When you
| listen to a recording, you're hearing not only the sound, but
| also the resonances of the microphone capsule and body. My
| experience is that as you explore cheaper options below $100,
| you see microphones with much cheaper construction and
| noticeable resonance problems. I am _extremely_ skeptical of
| USB microphones that are radically cheaper--up to 80% less
| expensive--than the most basic, inexpensive USB interface +
| microphone combo I could come up with.
|
| For this reason, when I give advice to people who want to
| make music using a microphone, I recommend that they start
| with the $250 (total budget) USB interface and SM57/SM57. If
| $250 is out of their budget, then they should just save up
| until they can afford it.
|
| So I will tell you that I am not happy with the quality of
| microphones in general under $100, or the quality of
| condenser microphones under $200-$300. I'll also tell you
| that the main thing I've been using Zoom for in the past
| couple years has been remote vocal lessons, so my needs are
| different from yours.
|
| I would also caution you that there is an enormous amount of
| misinformation and bad advice about microphones online.
| People forget about acoustic treatment (super important),
| recommend that someone starting out get the SM7b (awful
| choice for first microphone), or tell you that condenser
| microphones are more sensitive to background noise and poorly
| treated rooms (just plain false--this one makes no sense at
| all).
|
| So is it worth it? Don't know--how much money can you play
| around with, and how much do you care about audio quality?
| outworlder wrote:
| Thanks for the great response.
|
| I care enough to want to upgrade my work-issued Plantronics
| headset. Not enough to spend $500 doing so. $250? Possibly
| since it's a one-time investment, as long as there's a
| significant upgrade that can still be perceived in low
| bandwidth online meetings.
|
| One thing I would like to avoid is the 'youtuber' setup.
| Ideally I'd like the microphone to be able to pick up my
| voice without it itself being in the camera view.
| klodolph wrote:
| Fair. I'd prefer to call it the "Johnny Carson" setup,
| though!
|
| Microphone placement is a massive subject by itself. The
| basic idea is that you make the signal loud by moving the
| microphone reasonably close to your voice and point it at
| your mouth, and simultaneously, the part that people
| forget, you put the microphone far away from noise
| sources and pointing away from them. This second part is
| what built-in laptop microphones are especially bad at.
| (Note that microphones have different pickup patterns, so
| pointing "away" from a source means different things to
| different mics, and it's irrelevant for omnidirectional
| mics.)
|
| Depending on the camera set up, you can put something
| like an SM57 just out of frame and still have it be
| fairly close to your mouth, away from noise. A boom arm
| or mic stand will help. Setting your mic on the desk can
| work but this will pick up vibrations from the desk.
|
| Other common setups are lavalier microphones, headset
| microphones, and shotgun microphones. Fair to assume
| you're not using a shotgun microphone.
|
| Lav mics are simple and unobtrusive. TV hosts use them a
| lot. (You can see that late night TV hosts have a lav mic
| in addition to the desk mic... 99% of the time, you're
| hearing the lav mic, and the desk mic is off.) Headset
| mics give you more consistent and clear sound, with more
| freedom of movement, which is why singers and presenters
| use them a lot. Beware that cheap lav / headset mics will
| sound as bad as your laptop microphone, just with less
| background noise. You can watch reviews on YouTube for
| these kind of mics and decide if you want to try one out.
| madduci wrote:
| But isn't running a camera as a Webcam actually bad for the
| battery, especially if you plan to use that camera also for
| trips?
| wingmanjd wrote:
| I've seen some AC adapters that fit into the battery
| compartment to replace the battery. No idea if it's a good idea
| or not.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| That's a standard accessory
| scarmig wrote:
| You can connect it to a power source that has the form factor
| if a battery.
| jrockway wrote:
| I have a thing that replaces the battery with AC power supply.
| While the DSLR is being used as a webcam, it doesn't even
| contain a battery.
| samatman wrote:
| There's no reason it should be, it's unclear to me which
| scenario concerns you:
|
| Mirrorless cameras can be powered by USB, either Micro or C
| depending on model. The batteries have a built-in BMS so
| leaving the camera plugged in won't harm them.
|
| Some mirrorless aren't thermally compatible with running full
| video on battery for long periods, this is worth researching
| before purchase, but for the ones which are it's not going to
| damage the battery to run off of it.
|
| There's no motive to do so with a desktop setup.
| aeturnum wrote:
| Webcams often simply use cheap, small sensors but I think it's
| worth mentioning that these "proper" cameras are also not
| designed to do on-demand video well. It turns out that if you
| spend $1000 on camera + lens it will look better than your $100
| camera + lens, but that's not because the tool is 'better
| designed' for your use.
|
| On the higher end, cameras make different choices around pixel
| quality, heat fluctuations, etc in still and video cameras. I
| think the "professionally remote" segment of the market is _super
| under developed_ but it 's the perfect bingo of awful startup
| challenges: selling specialist (HIGH capital) hardware to end
| users with a socially-contextualized value proposition. Good
| luck!
|
| Edit: in case anyone else is confused - it's that you build a
| sensor differently to best transmit lower-resolution images for
| extended periods of time.
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| GiorgioG wrote:
| I use a Sony A6000 with an Elgato CamLink 4K USB adapter. Works
| great in Windows and Pop_OS 22.04. Slack, Discord, etc all work
| and I didn't have to fiddle with any configuration since the
| CamLink shows up as a generic webcam.
|
| I set up howdy (facial recognition login) in Pop_OS and was
| pleasantly surprised at how relatively simple it was to get
| working.
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| I'm using a Sony A6300 with 35mm F/1.8 lens and I get a lot of
| comments about my "webcam".
|
| I've put it next to my monitor and put my meeting on the side of
| the screen so I look "into" the camera.
| TheBozzCL wrote:
| During the pandemic, I tried something similar since there was
| little point to go out to take photos:
|
| 1. Sony A7II
|
| 2. 35mm lens (I tried others and this gives the best results for
| 2-3 feet)
|
| 3. Sony XLR-K2M adapter + Shure condenser microphone (this is
| absolutely overkill but I like to record myself playing guitar,
| and it beats timing stuff by hand)
|
| 4. Mini-HDMI cable to Elgato CamLink 4K USB dongle (I tried
| others, this one worked the best)
|
| 5. Two cheap LED photographic lights from Amazon - my workspace
| is very badly lit, so these also help me keep things well
| illuminated.
|
| The main downside of using a setup like this is white balancing -
| I found the camera was not doing a good job by itself, so I had
| to do some trial-and-error. In less controlled environments, like
| rooms with lots of windows, this becomes even harder over the
| course of the day.
|
| And yeah, I originally set all this up to stream games. How could
| you tell?
| tgtweak wrote:
| Just a note - I had a Nokia D90 dslr that would overheat if left
| in video mode for too long (over 5 minutes). Check for any "max
| video recording length" mentions on the camera's spec sheet as a
| early sign that this might be the case.
|
| A "yesteryear" smartphone that is collecting dust is also an
| excellent alternative, as they have surprisingly high quality
| cameras and lenses (on the rear side, anyway). I use a cracked-
| screen-not-worth-repairing Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (about 5 years old
| now) placed in an amazon ring light (that conveniently has a
| phone-sized clamp-style mount in the middle). There is an android
| app that turns the phone into a network-accessible webcam, and a
| windows app to receive it and map it as a system camera input.
|
| Quality (resolution, field-of-view, focus and light levels even
| with very bright background) is miles ahead of my logitech brio
| 4k webcam - to the point I resold the brio after only a few days.
| I can actually stream in 2160p from the device at a pretty
| respectable framerate.
|
| Probably not on par with a modern DSLR but for something that
| most people I think have laying around - highly worth trying
| first.
| sorenjan wrote:
| What's the latency like?
| tgtweak wrote:
| Less than 100ms which is very acceptable for video
| conferencing. Phones also have pretty solid wifi antennas in
| them so throughput is great even when wirelessly connected to
| the network.
| mrdonbrown wrote:
| I'm surprised no one has mentioned using a teleprompter yet. You
| can pick one up for around $100 and when combined with a little
| 7" monitor (another $100) attached to your computer, creates a
| nice setup for zoom calls where you can look directly at your
| partner. Also doubles as a great talking head setup for video
| production.
| hammock wrote:
| Do you have a good telepromper recommendation? I have found it
| hard to search/find good ones at a good price.
| mrdonbrown wrote:
| I use the Caddie Buddy one [1], which is a bit more robust
| for bigger cameras. There are other options where you can use
| your phone or something, but I prefer using a mirrorless and
| a good sized monitor.
|
| [1] https://caddiebuddy.com/teleprompter-for-ipads-androids-
| and-...
| dylan604 wrote:
| Oh my! A teleprompter for less than $200! I haven't kept up
| with this market, but that's so amazingly affordable. I've
| long switched to tablet for the text, but this is easily 5x
| cheaper than what I still use from a purchase back when
| dinosaurs roamed the earth. I'm guessing that mine is 5x
| heavier too. However, it is one of those things that once
| you have it, you don't need a new one so I've just never
| looked to see what is cheaper today
| __mharrison__ wrote:
| I got a teleprompter when Covid hit. I do a lot of training and
| I use it mostly for "looking into the eyes" of my students.
|
| I have a twitter thread describing my setup. [0]
|
| Were I to do it again, I would get a slightly larger monitor
| for it. I don't know if it is causation or just correlation
| (I'm getting old) but my eyes have gotten a bit worse in the
| past bit.
|
| 0 -
| https://twitter.com/__mharrison__/status/1515078084600348677
| ldayley wrote:
| I second this! I've been using one of these as well, and I've
| noticed the positive impact looking directly at the camera can
| have on my conversations.
| robszumski wrote:
| Do either of you have a shot of what this looks like in
| practice? Google Images isn't giving me much. Specifically
| what the Zoom or Meet looks like from your perspective.
| mrdonbrown wrote:
| Sure, this is what I see [1] and you can see how it looks
| on the other side from my Twitch streams [2]
|
| [1] https://i.imgur.com/4JPIHx1.jpg [2]
| https://www.twitch.tv/mrdonbrown
| i_am_proteus wrote:
| A decent webcam with good off-camera lighting yields most of the
| benefits and none of the hassle of using complicated camera
| equipment.
|
| I turn on the lights before teleconferences and turn them off
| afterwards, everything else is plug and play.
| bradlys wrote:
| I hate to say this but it's almost entirely not worth it.
|
| The image quality only shows up here because they're uploading
| images that they took from the camera locally. Trying doing it
| with Zoom.
|
| The compression is absolutely terrible. You're gonna find that
| you spent a lot of time and money only to see a decent quality
| image _on your side_. Everyone else is gonna see the same muddy
| mess that they always saw.
|
| The image is always bad due to the compression. If you're a
| twitch steamer or something where you're doing a 50mbps bitrate
| then whatever. But for most folks - there is little to no
| improvement. Your best way to improve image quality would be to
| improve lighting. Even a good camera will have a bad image with
| bad lighting.
| tjpd wrote:
| Respectfully, I have to disagree. I have a similar setup to the
| one in the article (Sony A6400 + Simga 30mm f1.4) and the
| difference in image quality is dramatic _even over Zoom_. It is
| such an improvement that, in my experience, almost every first
| meeting that I have with someone over Zoom the other
| participant will remark on how good my picture is. The
| perception of "quality" has little to do with resolution issues
| or compression artifacts and far more to do with good
| framing/focal length, focus depth and bokeh all of which a good
| camera setup has in spades and all of which webcams lack.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| The lens and sensor makes the biggest difference here -
| paints a completely different picture due to capturing light
| in the way were used to seeing in tv and film.
| bradlys wrote:
| > The lens and sensor makes the biggest difference here -
| paints a completely different picture due to capturing
| light in the way were used to seeing in tv and film.
|
| Not really true. It's often editing + lighting that really
| has the strongest effect.
|
| $100k cameras can take dogshit videos and photos when you
| don't know how to edit them properly or know how to light
| the shot.
| MoonSwell wrote:
| Let's all just be honest with each other. It's an equal
| mix of everything. An appropriate lens, lighting, and
| post-production.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Strong disagree.
|
| Video streaming someone's work station is about as ideal as you
| can imagine for most codecs. There is VERY little movement,
| everything is consistent and stable. Change from frame to frame
| is ultimately what determines how good a picture looks at a
| given bitrate. Little change means the codecs can spend more
| bits on fine details.
| coryfklein wrote:
| Uhh Zoom is _not_ going to erase the improved color balance and
| bokeh. Although I 'll agree with you when it comes to the
| author's claim about fine-grained facial details being improved
| by the camera; those you'll almost certainly lose over Zoom
| compression.
| sebular wrote:
| This is absolutely not true.
|
| I worked with a guy who used a DSLR as a webcam and his picture
| was totally remarkable over Google Meet and Zoom. The very
| first thing I did was send a screenshot of the meeting's tile
| view to a friend, asking if he noticed anything funny about one
| of the videos, and he easily spotted the one I was talking
| about.
|
| Every time we had a new team member join the calls, they would
| immediately comment on this guy's ridiculously nice picture
| quality and ask him what kind of camera he had.
| anonred wrote:
| Sorry, but have you actually compared the two? As another point
| of anecdata, I immediately noticed that my new coworker was
| using a proper camera during our first 1:1. The depth of field
| and crispness really stands out from your typical MacBook Pro
| webcam.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| Is this true? I know that Zoom can stream in HD, I can't
| imagine the extra detail getting lost in those resolutions?
| bradlys wrote:
| Bandwidth requirements for Group HD video
|
| Standard HD (720p)
|
| - 1-on-1 video calls: 1.2Mbps (up/down)
|
| - Group video calls: 2.6Mbps / 1.8Mbps (up/down)
|
| Full HD (1080p)
|
| - 1:1 video calls:
|
| -- Receiving 1080p HD video requires a minimum of 3.0Mbps.
|
| -- Sending 1080p video requires a minimum of 3.8Mbps.
|
| Group video calls:
|
| - Receiving 1080p HD video requires a minimum of 3.0Mbps.
|
| - Sending 1080p video requires a minimum of 3.8Mbps.
|
| https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/207347086-Using-
| Gr...
|
| I know it says "minimum" there but it's likely going around
| that rate most of the time or lower. I've worked in
| environments where they pay tens of thousands of dollars per
| room to set them up with professional cameras, high end
| plans, etc. Compression ruins it all. May as well be a $10
| webcam. There are other requirements as to how you interact
| with other members. You won't even get high quality unless
| you full screen + make it to where you can only see one
| member at a time.
| a10c wrote:
| > I've worked in environments where they pay tens of
| thousands of dollars per room to set them up with
| professional cameras
|
| Me too. The value isn't so much in the quality of video,
| its things like PTZ control of the camera and preset
| control of the position of the camera. For example, in a
| larger room you can click a button 'whiteboard' on the
| control panel and it will pan up and zoom in to the
| whiteboard.
| aeturnum wrote:
| I think you are mostly right, but I'd rank it like this (from
| best to worst combo of quality for time + cost):
|
| 1) "high end" webcam (~$200)
|
| 2) DSLR + capture card you already own
|
| 3) Any Webcam
|
| [...]
|
| 10) Buying a DSLR and capture card only for this
|
| You miss out on most of the benefits of a nice still camera
| when you use it this way - 90% of people will have less trouble
| and cost by just buying a better dedicated webcam. That said,
| some people need a nice webcam _and_ need to produce video
| content - they SHOULD use this setup (or at least try it).
| Purpose-made webcams are "bad" as general purpose cameras but
| good at what they are sold to do - deliver good enough video
| that you expect to get murdered by compression.
| bertman wrote:
| I found my phone's camera together with DroidCam[0] to be good
| enough for my conferencing needs.
|
| [0]https://www.dev47apps.com/
| plorg wrote:
| Only thing I find annoying about Droidcam is that I end up
| having to reinstall the audio and video drivers on Linux every
| week or so, either due to updates, restarts, or PulseAudio
| breaking.
| mikece wrote:
| "...the A6400 seems to be slightly better as a webcam."
|
| Contact me if you want to buy mine! I bought mine at the start of
| quarantine for streaming live video at my local church but
| haven't really used it much since.
| leetrout wrote:
| Yes, please!
|
| Twitter or email? My gmail is my username.
| mikece wrote:
| Email sent.
| curiousgal wrote:
| I guess the only reason for me not to try this is how insecure I
| am about seeing my make-up free face in HD haha Solid write-up
| though!
|
| For those with no camera, DroidCamX works rather well too!
| florbo wrote:
| Yep, I'm using a Pixel 2 with both DroidCamX and DroidCam OBS
| (with OBS' virtual camera), I can second that claim.
|
| I occasionally use a Nexus 6 on another setup, but it's a bit
| bulkier to mount and is a bit finicky with DroidCamX. It has
| froze up on me a couple times. The OBS version works fine,
| though. I'll chalk it up to not cleaning up the phone prior to
| repurposing it.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| If you go this route, please make sure your system is robust and
| ready to go before meetings.
|
| We had to ask one employee to go back to his reliable built-in
| webcam because every other meeting started with 2 minutes of him
| getting his camera turned on, messing with audio inputs, getting
| his microphone boom in place, and fighting other quirks. He also
| had a tendency to drop out of long meetings when his camera
| overheated, at which point it was another 1-2 minutes of messing
| around with the camera setup.
|
| If you're going to do this, it must be reliable and ready to go
| before meetings. Don't be the person fighting with expensive
| equipment all the time just to get a marginally better image for
| your highly compressed Zoom video stream. This isn't a Twitch
| stream. We just want to talk and get down to business.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| Amen. Can confirm this 100% - I just spent the past two years
| doing robust physical tech product presentations with multi-cam
| setups and many different video streaming configurations. It
| always takes quite a bit of effort to set up and _something_
| doesn't work right randomly all-the-fucking-time.
| usrn wrote:
| Honestly the video adds pretty much nothing to a Zoom meeting.
| You're better off without it. Maybe it's different for
| managers/executives but for engineers it's more of a
| distraction.
|
| People built Linux over _email._ Having audio meetings is more
| than enough.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| We've had a few video meetings at the beginning of this whole
| plage situation, but after a few weeks, cameras were left
| turned on just for the initial "hi!"s and "hello!"s, and
| after that, everyone turned their camera off, because
| everyboy was watching the shared screen, and probably because
| noone was wearing pants anymore. Now, we don't even turn them
| on in the first place.
| kadoban wrote:
| Even for streamers, audio is _much_ more important than
| video. You can have a potato webcam and get by, but if your
| audio sounds like crap nobody is going to stick around at
| all.
| lancefisher wrote:
| For almost everything, audio is the most important part of
| video.
| Sunspark wrote:
| Unless one of the participants has some degree of hard-of-
| hearing, in which case, being able to see the other person's
| lip movements is really helpful.
| usrn wrote:
| I'd be shocked if that really came through with the
| jitter/compression/etc. IMO Email is king for
| accessibility, I wish people didn't hate on it so much.
|
| Lots of these tools do real time closed-caption now anyway.
| SeasonalEnnui wrote:
| I guess you're shocked then. Seeing lips is essential for
| me, even works in poor quality streams.
| munificent wrote:
| I've got a very nice mirrorless camera and glass and eventually
| came to the same conclusion: It's just not worth the hassle
| even for the improvement in image quality.
|
| However, I have found that it's absolutely worth it to upgrade
| to a better _microphone_. Just about anything is better than
| the mic built into most computers and better voice quality will
| give you more presence and make it significantly more enjoyable
| for others to listen to you. Wearing headphones also helps so
| that the computer isn 't forced to do echo cancelation on the
| signal.
| martin8412 wrote:
| I use a Shure SM58 for voice chats. It works great. I have
| less trouble with my USB XLR interface than the people using
| Bluetooth
| SamPatt wrote:
| I 100% agree. I have a decent video and lighting setup and
| never get comments on it, but I always get comments on my
| audio.
|
| It's fairly easy to get an audio interface and a xlr
| microphone. I always appreciate when other people have clean
| audio.
| Kudos wrote:
| Every other day I have someone ask me about my mirrorless
| setup (I frequently have calls with new people), it is night
| and day to my expensive waste of a webcam.
| FastMonkey wrote:
| Ya, a good microphone makes a huge difference and it's just
| plug and play.
| cevn wrote:
| That sounds unfortunate. After a few kinks at the beginning,
| I've moved to using my nikon z6 as webcam. The first kink was
| power delivery, I found a plug that goes into the battery slot.
|
| After that everything works flawlessly.
| ISL wrote:
| This advice goes for... life. Don't switch over from something
| reliable to a newer/flashier solution until the reliability of
| a new system gets close-enough that you won't break critical
| functionality.
|
| Source: Recently swapped over to a better camera, after testing
| it out in informal meetings and verifying reliable function...
| ldayley wrote:
| Agree! It took time to learn how to do this effectively while
| remaining mobile/nomadic, and it forced me to decide what
| meetings are worth it which ones aren't. For all of the gear I
| have (as a filmmaker...) I fall back to using an iPad quite a
| bit on the road.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Agree 100% - This is why I eventually dropped it. I used to run
| a photography side gig, so I reused my full frame DSLR, nice
| portrait lens and lighting + cloth backdrop. But I had cables
| everywhere and multiple points of failure in the chain. Camera
| could overheat, software was wonky, something would get
| unplugged, and there was stress on the CPU at times too due to
| 3rd party apps required.
|
| Overall it just wasn't worth the effort, especially once I
| realized nobody cared or even really noticed. Now, absolutely,
| many projects are worth doing for their own sake and for your
| own satisfaction :). But while accomplishing it brought that
| satisfaction, continued use on daily bases just wasn't worth
| it.
|
| So I looked for a nice webcam with narrowest possible FOV
| (which is the opposite from what manufacturers are going for,
| unfortunately), put it on a tripod with ring light, and I get
| results that are externally undistinguishable (if not better),
| but FAR superior reliability.
|
| ----
|
| Note also that photographer in me wanted to do a Portrait shot
| with zoom in my face. Interestingly, overwhelming feedback once
| I actually asked real people, is that they PREFERRED a wide
| shot with my office visible. Made it more human and less
| stark/intimidating, apparently. So as ever, don't make
| assumptions of your user base! :)
| skrbjc wrote:
| What camera did you end up with that had a narrow FOV?
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Hi - I assume your question is which webcam did I use for
| narrow FOV - for actual camera, it's trivial to pick a lens
| or zoom :).
|
| I ended up getting Logitech Brio. It's expensive for a
| webcam, and honestly I'm a bit peeved - I don't feel I am
| getting my money's worth in terms of image quality. The
| software is also absolutely atrocious, so I don't really
| use it. But it is the best compromise of image quality and
| FOV that I could find.
|
| (if your question was about DOF / bokeh/ blur, no webcam
| will do that and so far I haven't liked any software
| options. I just put a black collapsible photography
| background behind me so nothing but me is in the photo to
| begin with :)
| osener wrote:
| I find the LogiTune software good enough for managing my
| Brio webcam. Certainly less buggy and frustrating on Mac
| than some other official software I tried previously.
|
| https://www.logitech.com/en-us/video-
| collaboration/software/...
| randerson wrote:
| I can recommend a full-frame Canon RP ($999) with RF 35mm
| f1.8 lens ($449) as a relatively inexpensive narrow FOV
| setup.
|
| Edited to add: Meant Narrow DOF when writing this, but both
| are true if you sit close to it!
| aaronharnly wrote:
| OP here was referring to webcams with narrow FOVs
| randerson wrote:
| My bad, I read this as "narrow DOF", in which case a low
| f-stop helps.. Will leave the recommendation for anyone
| who wants a nice background blur. But perhaps go for a
| 50mm f1.8 if you want a narrower FOV.
| phantomread wrote:
| Amateur photographer looking to learn more here. My
| initial impression is that a 35mm focal length on a full-
| frame/35mm film equivalent sensor would have a relatively
| _wide_ field of view (FOV). Or do I have that backwards?
|
| My other thought is that the suggested lens can stop down
| to f1.8, which would give a nice narrow depth of field
| (DOF) and add a pleasant background blur, but it would
| also be harder to stay in focus during a call. If the
| person on camera moves forward or backward very much at
| all when the lens is at f1.8, they would be pretty
| blurry. So perhaps they could get away with a lens that
| just stops down to f2.8 or so, albeit with worse low-
| light performance (smaller aperture, less light coming
| through).
|
| But take these comments with a grain of salt. It sounds
| like you have a setup that works well for you.
| randerson wrote:
| Yeah, not enough coffee - got my DOF and FOV mixed up.
|
| In any case I find if you sit close to your camera, 35mm
| is a good FOV that will fit in your head and shoulders.
| The background blur for f/1.8 works well if you enable
| Servo Autofocus with Face Detect. It will momentarily get
| confused if you step out of the frame and back in again,
| but it can track a face pretty well after that.
| phantomread wrote:
| Just checked using a camera and you're right; a person
| right around "conversation distance" from the camera
| focusing at 35mm looks pretty natural in frame for a
| video call. It sounds like I underestimated modern
| continuous autofocus. Great info from you and the sibling
| comments, thanks.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Not the OP but the GP, FWIW:
|
| On full frame I used 85mm 1.8 to get a a good FOV / DOF /
| proportions.
|
| But it sat on a tripod 1.5 meters behind my computer and
| made the room a nightmare to navigate :D
|
| 35mm on FF would indeed be mildly wide (just on wide side
| of "normal" 50mm lens)
| jakebasile wrote:
| Most modern cameras have the ability to do constant
| autofocus in video mode, to varying degrees of quality
| and success. Usually they will try to follow anything
| that looks like a human face, or at least the brightest
| object in the field of view.
|
| That said, even the greatest autofocus isn't going to be
| able to keep up with a person who moves around a lot at
| f/1.8 - so it's reasonable to stop down a bit if that's
| the case for your subject.
| foo92691 wrote:
| "relatively inexpensive"
| maccard wrote:
| Thats roughly my team's budget for a laptop.
| munk-a wrote:
| To be honest, 1.5k is a pretty decent budget for any non-
| gaming laptop. It's definitely a red flag to start at a
| company and get a bargain bin laptop, but giving out 5k
| laptops to every new hire is probably just being wasteful
| with about 3.5k. Chairs & desks are where penny pinching
| is an even more dreadful flaw.
|
| If you expect someone to sit for 8 hours a day give them
| a good chair lest they start having back issues after two
| months of employment.
| __mharrison__ wrote:
| Yes, if you are using a camera for the webcam, it should
| probably be dedicated to it. Mine is a Canon M50, attached into
| a quick-release shoe into a teleprompter but even then it still
| two wires (USB and HDMI) and I also have to take out the AC
| power adapter to use the camera on its own.
|
| I'm using mine all the time (I do corporate training and
| haven't done in-person since March 2020), so it sits in the
| mount. I also know the correct combination of rain/blow-into-
| the-Nintendo dances to get OBS and other software to work with
| it.
| deathanatos wrote:
| ... I mean, that's Bose QC headset's & macOS's relationship
| with Bluetooth, in a nutshell.
|
| Heck, I've had to fight to just get the onboard to function,
| particularly so in MS Teams.
| nunez wrote:
| He was probably using software, like Canon's Webcam Utility, to
| stream his camera's HDMI OUT to his computer instead of using a
| capture card. He likely did this because of his camera not
| having "clean" HDMI output (i.e. you'd see icons if he were to
| capture what was on his camera's screen). Software like this is
| extremely unreliable by comparison and consumes CPU cycles like
| crazy, both on the camera and on your computer.
|
| Additionally, for most cameras, the input feed used by the
| software goes through the camera's image processing stack as if
| they were using the real-time "Live View" feature (i.e. showing
| you the image you're going to take post-processing, i.e. real-
| time image processing). This often heats the camera up and
| causes it to shut down due to thermal overload. If you use a
| capture card, it captures whatever's on the screen without
| hitting the image processing stack, which is much less
| resource-intensive.
|
| The first person I interviewed with this setup had the same
| problem. He looked great, but the software processing the input
| from his camera made him lag horribly.
|
| I have a Canon M200 mirrorless SLR with an Elgato HDMI Capture
| card and have used it for all-day online meetings (even through
| OBS!) with no issues at all. Startup takes me, like, 30
| seconds: turn key and fill lights on, turn camera on, press
| hotkey to start OBS, Krisp and Zoom, turn on video.
| __mharrison__ wrote:
| I'm using a Canon M50 just with the webcam software. (I don't
| think it has clean HDMI out so capture card won't help with
| this camera.)
|
| I've since started recording some of my courses directly from
| OBS. [0] The framerate probably suffers, but I've never had
| thermal/overheating issues.
|
| 0 - https://store.metasnake.com/view/courses/a1a19c9e-af18-46
| 15-...
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| I'm starting to suspect something is wrong with our Elgato
| card because it has been a hit and miss experience for a long
| time now. We also have a knock off chinese 4k stream box (not
| the total dirt cheap ones) and that has sometimes been better
| than the elgato.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > He was probably using software, like Canon's Webcam
| Utility, to stream his camera's HDMI OUT to his computer
| instead of using a capture card.
|
| No, he was using an HDMI capture card and trying to do things
| with OBS.
|
| > Startup takes me, like, 30 seconds: turn key and fill
| lights on, turn camera on, press hotkey to start OBS, Krisp
| and Zoom, turn on video.
|
| Which is all great and fine if you've got it perfected and
| you're the type of person to handle all of this before the
| meeting starts.
|
| But when someone shows up late to a meeting or forgets to
| prepare, it's far easier for everyone involve if they can
| just open their laptop and join the meeting with the built-in
| webcam instead of turning on their camera, turning on lights,
| starting OBS, confirming all the settings, etc.
| randomdata wrote:
| If you don't need a "pro" setup for the Zoom call, you
| don't need video at all. Nobody cares to see your low
| resolution, grainy face.
| spicybright wrote:
| Disagree. You still get a ton from a low res image of a
| person vs a static image.
|
| Same way how you get a lot from talking face to face vs
| talking on the phone.
|
| Why would my coworkers need to see the individual pores
| on my nose anyways?
| tomxor wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| However one thing I have noticed is mic quality
| matters... up to a point.
|
| I'm not even talking mic booms and super expensive
| setups, the difference between some omnidirectional mic
| on the bottom of a laptop or the side of one of those
| bluetooth headphones and pretty much _any_ headset with a
| mic pointed at your actual face is night and day. It
| doesn 't need to be expensive, but it does need to be
| within reasonable proximity to your mouth, and preferably
| not over a questionably compressed bluetooth stream.
| modzu wrote:
| just upload pictures of your faces to zoom and there u go
| boss
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Like profile pictures?
| jtvjan wrote:
| Take a picture of your face, set it as your background in
| OBS, and stream that. It's much more convenient, because
| you only have to make sure your camera works well once,
| instead of for every meeting.
| mkr-hn wrote:
| You could even have it change at random intervals so it
| looks like you're on a choppy connection.
| dvtrn wrote:
| Let's just end the simulacra and embrace the absurd, take
| a video of yourself walking into the room, acting
| surprised that someone's on a call and awkwardly backing
| out of the room, if your platform supports animated
| backgrounds, use it.
|
| Take anyone who notices and asks if you have a previously
| undisclosed twin-sibling out to dinner for being
| observant.
|
| Bonus points if you wear the same clothes as your video
| self to really mess with someone's head
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Yeah Apple's network link conditioner is great for this.
| If you don't want to send video but the organizer
| insists, just tune it down to the point your audio goes
| roboty. They'll be begging you to turn off video to
| improve the connection :D
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > Additionally, for most cameras, the input feed used by the
| software goes through the camera's image processing stack as
| if they were using the real-time "Live View" feature (i.e.
| showing you the image you're going to take post-processing,
| i.e. real-time image processing). This often heats the camera
| up and causes it to shut down due to thermal overload. If you
| use a capture card, it captures whatever's on the screen
| without hitting the image processing stack, which is much
| less resource-intensive.
|
| These pathways are the same. You're decidedly not getting raw
| video out of (most) consumer cameras via HDMI.
| DreamFlasher wrote:
| And if you don't go that route, please make sure to turn off
| your camera.
|
| From what I've seen people being late is more often a problem
| of the people and not the hardware.
|
| And if after three years of remote work, you weren't capable of
| getting a working microphone, camera and stable internet
| connection, I'd con that as a people problem, too. Working
| meaning you can actually hear the other person and not only
| their fan.
| danielodievich wrote:
| My setup is: Older Nikon D71000 DSLR here with 17-55mm on wall-
| mount Elgato Cam 4k dongle mentioned in the article two good
| lights with nice diffusers to the left and right of my monitor
| facing the wall, for reflected light HyperX glowy red mike with
| physical mute, love that thing
|
| This gear works 100% of the time, all the time, in Zoom, Google
| Meet, Teams, Webex, you name it.
|
| Bootup is definitely does some things, turning on two lights,
| camera on/off switch, and a small button on back of it to shift
| to the 1080p output. But at this point it is just seconds,
| muscle memory.
|
| I get a lot of compliments on quality, clearness, and the
| natural optical effect of out of focus blurred background.
|
| And I definitely notice other people's poor lightning, bad
| quality picture, artifacting of cheapo webcams or got forbid
| native built in laptop cameras.
| gkoberger wrote:
| I had a similar setup, and it was a pain. It was flaky and
| clunky.
|
| I switched to a Logitech Brio, and have been very happy. It's
| almost just as good, with no hassle. Highly recommend for anyone
| looking for an upgrade without wanting to go all-in.
|
| https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/webcams/brio-4k-hdr-...
| hu3 wrote:
| For those of us with less than perfect skin, using a webcam can
| be a feature.
|
| Also I found out that the difference in image quality between a
| good webcam and a semi-professional camera is not that big after
| video compression.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| One big advantage of a dedicated camera over a webcam is that
| you can get a focal length that actually makes sense, instead
| of an ultra-wide angle.
|
| Apart from that it's pearls before swine - any mm2 of sensor
| area above 1/4" OF doesn't matter for MS Teams video crushing.
| karaterobot wrote:
| "Wow, karaterobot, your ultra compressed, stuttery video signal
| has such a great color gamut and and brightness. The 2-inch
| square your face lives in on my monitor looks amazing, except for
| the compression and stuttering. Did you get a new camera? ...
| What's that? Can't hear you... your audio is... yeah you sound
| like a robot... oops, looked like we lost him."
| kuschku wrote:
| It's ridiculous that even the free tier of Jitsi Meet gets
| better quality than most expensive videochatting services.
| tzs wrote:
| We had a surprising result using a "proper" camera instead of a
| webcam for a task.
|
| We needed to take a picture of a particular thing every 15
| seconds over a weekend. Our first though was to get a cheap
| webcam that has some reasonable interface to retrieve static
| images.
|
| Then someone remembered that the owner of the company was doing
| some personal projects that involved photography and he had a
| bunch of cameras in his office. One of them was a Canon Digital
| Rebel. That could be controlled by a computer.
|
| The owner always liked to save money, so agreed to let us use the
| Canon for the weekend. I wrote a script to trigger it every 15
| seconds, set it running Friday before I left, and came back
| Monday to see how it went.
|
| What I found was a dead camera. The electronics seemed fine, but
| something mechanical was broken. A bit of poking around on camera
| forums turned up that something in the mechanics of the Digital
| Rebel didn't like extended rapid picture taking, and apparently
| every 15 seconds counted as rapid if you were doing it for more
| than a few hours.
|
| We then bought an under $100 Logitech webcam that ran a web
| server on its ethernet interface that made available a URL that
| when fetched gave you a static image of whatever the camera was
| currently looking at. It was simple to write a script to hit that
| URL every 15 seconds and save the result in a file named with the
| current timestamp. That ran flawlessly over the weekend capturing
| all the images we needed.
| zrail wrote:
| > We then bought an under $100 Logitech webcam that ran a web
| server on its ethernet interface
|
| Wait hold up. Logitech webcams run web servers and have
| ethernet interfaces?
| someweirdperson wrote:
| Maybe confused with Logilink?
| andix wrote:
| I would like to have the ease of use of a webcam (plug it in via
| usb and it works), and the quality of a dedicated camera. And a
| possibility to make some presets (focus, zoom, crop, white
| balance), that are on by default and can be switched easily.
|
| It doesn't have to be perfect, just better than a standard
| Logitech Webcam. If it would be in the quality range of an iPhone
| camera, I would be super happy.
|
| Any ideas what to buy?
| mwarkentin wrote:
| These look neat but not widely available yet:
| https://opalcamera.com
| andix wrote:
| Yes, something like that. But not Mac-only and without a 4
| usd per month subscription service to use it...
| nrmitchi wrote:
| For what it's worth, the camera itself functions just fine
| without the additional software (which currently still has
| its quarks). I'm sure you could replicate at least most of
| the software functionality with OBS if you really wanted
| to.
| nicolas_ wrote:
| Do you have a spare smartphone lying around? Install Camo or
| any other alternative on it. Connect your smartphone via USB,
| launch the app, and you're done.
|
| https://reincubate.com/camo/
| andix wrote:
| This is way too brittle. What happens if someone calls me?
| Then I need to check if the smartphone is on, open the app,
| make sure it's connected.
|
| I want it to just work. With zero overhead.
| nicolas_ wrote:
| Disable any sleep function on the smartphone and keep it
| connected to an USB port with the app opened?
| NamTaf wrote:
| Protip: if your goal is to use your smartphone as a webcam, check
| out this: https://vdo.ninja
|
| Written by some guy named Steve, it's an incredible piece of web
| software that uses WebRTC to stream phone audio and video as an
| OBS input. OBS then features a virtual webcam capability to take
| that stream and make it a webcam. I can then also use OBS to do
| whatever processing I want, e.g. making my webcam also contain a
| screen share or whatever else.
|
| It's trivial to then load up multiple instances for multi-angle
| scenes in OBS, then cut between the two. For example, you could
| have one 'face' camera and one 'page' camera showing paper on
| your desk and make a 2nd scene with the 'page' camera as the
| primary and a small PIP view of your face.
|
| It goes much farther than just being an input for OBS, though.
| For example, it can create video chatrooms of multiple
| participants with URL parameter configuration and without
| touching OBS (indeed that's now one of its primary use cases).
|
| I use it to stream applications/webpages with my partner when
| we're apart so we can watch a movie together by creating a high
| res vid/stereo audio input with no noise cancelling as the movie,
| then have her and I connect as lower quality, mono+noise
| cancelling participants. Each of us receives the video and audio
| of the movie, but only the audio of each other.
|
| There's heaps of parameters to control video and audio quality,
| buffering, etc. - just about anything you need.
|
| I stumbled across it when I was trying to get my iPhone to be a
| webcam early on in the pandemic. There's multiple apps for that
| purpose - many paid - but this was _so_ easy and worked so well
| that it blew them out of the water from a capability perspective.
|
| I know I sound like a shill but honestly I'm just a huge fanboy.
| It's one of those web apps that does a job really bloody well,
| with heaps of flexibility and extensibility. I'm genuinely
| impressed with it and all the hard work Steve's clearly put in.
|
| The docs explain a lot of its capability: https://docs.vdo.ninja/
|
| Flick through the how it works and use cases pages, they'll
| explain it far better than me.
|
| Guides that show sown of the advanced capability:
| https://docs.vdo.ninja/guides
| fulafel wrote:
| How is the latency?
| dekhn wrote:
| Does anybody know how to source a WebRTC stream for OBS inputs?
| In particular, I have a python program and want something that
| looks like: rtc = open_stream_to_obs(address) while True:
| rtc.send_frame(my_numpy_array)
| Acen wrote:
| > https://vdo.ninja
|
| An alternative for a local network is running NDI. That's how
| for events we stream a bunch of remote cameras (and even
| computers on the network) into visual displays.
|
| https://www.ndi.tv/
|
| There are NDI apps for most phones etc.
| dddddaviddddd wrote:
| I use something similar to stream video from a Pixel phone over
| USB to OBS (Droidcam). I tried doing it over WiFi but the
| latency is better over a wire.
| kejaed wrote:
| At work we had to create a streaming setup to provide remote
| training to a customer on the other side of the world that
| involved parachute packing & guided drone integration. Stuff
| that was usually done in person but due to the pandemic
| traveling was not an option at that time.
|
| vdo.ninja and a couple of iPod Touch's (RIP) were really useful
| to give the trainers the ability to walk around the parachute
| loft to get up close and personal with a specific set of
| equipment. Combined with OBS, some powerpoint plug-ins, and
| vdo.ninja, we were able to bring something together that worked
| really well in no time at all.
| tveyben wrote:
| This was the best tip of the day - this is why I read HN - to
| find such gems. Work smart - not hard, thank you for the tip
| NamTaf!!!
| mcdonje wrote:
| I agree with the blogger that you should go with a smaller sensor
| size. In addition to better price points, they have less scanning
| to do for each image and should work better for this scenario.
| I've heard reports of some full frame mirrorless cameras
| overheating when used extensively for video.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| That really entirely depends on the brand / model. Some will
| overheat in under an hour, some will go on forever as long as
| you supply power. Price has nothing to do with it.
|
| DSLRs will almost certainly be a cheaper option than a
| mirrorless camera for this, because pretty much any DSLR from
| the last ten or so years works for this, and there are many
| more of them. Autofocus and availability of clean HDMI in
| video-liveview mode depends though. Many support direct
| streaming over USB using proprietary tools.
| kuschku wrote:
| > DSLRs will almost certainly be a cheaper option than a
| mirrorless camera for this, because pretty much any DSLR from
| the last ten or so years works for this, and there are many
| more of them
|
| That used to be true, but with used a6300 cameras going for
| around 300EUR nowadays, it's not the case anymore.
| alexitosrv wrote:
| I disagree with the people here saying that no image is better
| than a camera feed. As an individual contributor and trainer
| myself, multiple times, I've found out that looking at someone
| explaining something in itself adds value. It doesn't need to be
| a sales pitch, you can discuss something with a colleague with a
| shared whiteboard, and still I appreciate seeing another one,
| their expressions, face complexion, mood, even their cats, dogs,
| etc.
|
| That doesn't subtract to the fact that audio is the stronger
| medium. A great mic setup is orders of magnitude better than a
| pretty face via a DSLR. Podcastage has been one of my favorite
| youtubers on the matter since last year,
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEMZa5VN3Zw, and in that video he
| somewhat proves the point.
|
| For camera recommendations, I agree with the majority that it
| needs to be a reliable setup. I was not a fan of DSLR with
| capture cards precisely because of that. I recommend AverMedia
| line of 4K webcams which have good defaults, amazing glass and
| have a great resolution and adjustable depth of field. In the
| past I used an Aver C340 4K which is amazing, but bulky, and now
| more recently I use a PW513 which is way better than anything
| Logitech has to offer.
| JamesMcMinn wrote:
| I've been using an A6300 with a Sigma 16mm f1.4 lens (both of
| which I already had), mounted to the monitors stand using a basic
| clamp. It works great, looks fantastic [3] and I still get a lot
| of compliments for how good my video quality is.
|
| One issue I did run into was getting a decent HDMI -> USB capture
| device that works with Linux. My first choice was a high end
| (~PS200) ClonerAlliance Flint 4KP [1] which worked fine for
| Hangouts, but had issues with Zoom and actually seemed to get
| worse as time went on and it eventually became a bit of a joke as
| I tried to join calls and had to restart my camera, unplug
| cables, etc. just to get video. Eventually, I swapped it out for
| a cheap PS15 no-name brand from Amazon and have had literally 0
| issues since [2].
|
| The biggest drawback to this sort of setup is that if you're
| using a camera you already own, it can be a pain to switch
| between using it as a camera and using it as a web cam, so I've
| essentially got an expensive camera that I don't get to use as a
| camera very often. The advantage of course is that even on a
| dark, rainy evening with nothing more than a small lamp hidden
| behind my monitor, the image still comes out looking great [3].
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07YY52YP6/
|
| [2] https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B09955PYSH/
|
| [3] https://i.imgur.com/ReHStnV.png
| Derbasti wrote:
| Very similar setup here: Sony a5100 + Samyang 30 + Elgato Cam
| Link 4k and a usb-powered dummy battery. This setup has been
| rock-solid for over a year now, and I run it all day, every
| day.
|
| Also useful is Sony's remote control, for engaging/disengaging
| autofocus without reaching for the camera. The a5100 has a
| useful flip-up screen, where I can see myself.
|
| Before that, I was running a RasPi Zero with a HQ camera module
| and a C-mount lens as a webcam. That worked well, too. Better
| image quality than any of my colleagues, but a long shot from
| the Sony, obviously.
| dekhn wrote:
| My only suggestion was going to be "get the cheapest HDMI->USB
| you can find", but I see you also discovered that trick :)
| kohlerm wrote:
| I use a Canon 600d with a 50mm 1.4 lens.people say it looks
| professional
| 01100011 wrote:
| How does this compare to using something like the Raspberry Pi HQ
| camera and a decent c mount lens?
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| I've done this for two years with an A6400 (that is sadly
| discontinued and now sells for 2x the price with a kit) and a
| CamLink 4K, and I'm very happy with the results but for the usual
| web meeting, it's overkill to spend $1100 on your setup (before
| lighting).
|
| I record a lot of video in my office so it's a different thing,
| but I think the new Opal camera ($300, I got one last week) is
| pretty great. It's going to be my new travel camera setup.
| cr3ative wrote:
| I'll put Reincubate Camo here as an option too - turns your
| iPhone in to a webcam.
|
| I was so impressed I bought a used iPhone to use solely as a
| webcam; the whole setup was cheaper than the Logitech C920 he
| mentions.
|
| The picture quality is great.
| fakename wrote:
| camo is great. I was doing what the OP outlines at the
| beginning of the pandemic with an a6000 and a $10 ebay hdmi
| capture card. It looked 10% better than camo for 100% more
| effort.
| hammock wrote:
| Can you use portrait mode?
| ldayley wrote:
| Camo does support portrait mode, but I think it's a paid
| feature included with the "Pro" version on iOS.
| pineconewarrior wrote:
| Seconding Camo. It's not as cheap as the Elgato offering but I
| found the quality and options to be superior.
| gernb wrote:
| what stand/mount do you use and where is it on your setup?
| (right now I have crappy logitech hanging on to top of monitor)
| fakename wrote:
| I use a flat piece of cardboard, folded with slots cut for
| the phone on top, and the monitor on bottom.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/InImQFo
|
| I just switched from an old apple cinema display to a modern
| monitor with small bezels, so I need to cut a new one to stop
| it from blocking the top of my screen.
| caiusdurling wrote:
| I've got a lego stand built from a few bricks holding an
| iPhone 7 in landscape above my screen. The lens is maybe 18mm
| above the top of the display pixels.
| nicwolff wrote:
| These $10 selfie sticks with handles that open into a stand
| are actually great and much more compact and portable when
| closed than even a small tripod
| https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09B6QHZK5
| straws wrote:
| If you have one of the newer magsafe iPhones, you can attach
| one of these to the wall (front camera) or the back of your
| monitor (back cameras):
|
| https://www.shopmoment.com/products/wall-mount-for-
| magsafe/s...
| EveYoung wrote:
| Does this work with the Teams client on MacOS without having to
| disable code signing?
| minimaxir wrote:
| With the latest update on macOS 12.3, it _should_ work with
| any camera-using app as it uses the native macOS APIs.
| cruano wrote:
| I repurposed my old 6s and I gotta say the quality is
| excellent. And the free version of the software has more than
| enough for most people, so this could very well be a completely
| free upgrade for someone.
|
| I do have a lifetime license, and have tested it with my 12 pro
| and while it obviously looks better, most of the time I stay
| with the 6s and default settings since I can just leave it
| mounted on top of my monitor.
| olah_1 wrote:
| Don't iPhones do that annoying thing where it shows your image
| flipped the wrong way when you use the selfie camera? Selfie
| cameras should always behave like a mirror, in my opinion. It's
| how humans are used to seeing themselves.
| [deleted]
| bydo wrote:
| I forget if that's the default or not, but if it is you can
| disable it. You ideally wouldn't use the selfie camera,
| though; the rear camera has a bigger sensor and a better
| lens.
| ldayley wrote:
| Zoom and I think Teams and OBS have a setting to flip the
| video input.
| cr3ative wrote:
| There's an option to flip the image, you can have it either
| way.
| antomeie wrote:
| Shameless plug here, but I want to mention the free alternative
| https://webcamplus.app for Mac/iOS. (It is a personal project
| of mine).
| hammock wrote:
| Does it support portrait mode?
| antomeie wrote:
| No, unfortunately I have not added that feature yet, but it
| is on the list.
| rkeene2 wrote:
| This looks neat. It seems like it requires you to install
| software on the system, which is often (usually?) not an
| option.
|
| Is there anything like this that shows up as a webcam without
| additional software that doesn't come with the OS (i.e., uses a
| driver already available on Windows, Linux, ChromeOS like most
| webcams such as the Logitech C920 do) ?
| birdman3131 wrote:
| A cheapish alternative is to use
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ndi-hx-camera/id1477266080 or
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.newtek.ndi...
| and OBS as a webcam. The back camera on most phones is quite a
| bit better than any webcam.
|
| Yes the app is $20 but for me it was worth it.
| tonyhb wrote:
| You can also use https://vdo.ninja/ for free to stream the
| phone camera to OBS.
| some-guy wrote:
| Another good option is to use an older flagship smartphone. I
| have a heavily cracked iPhone 8 that works wonderfully as a
| webcam.
| [deleted]
| ratsimihah wrote:
| I've been using a Sony A7iii and it's been great until I switch
| to an m1 mac. No compatibility anymore.
| jccalhoun wrote:
| A cheaper but somewhat more kludgy solution is using an old
| camcorder with a line out and converting that to USB.
|
| I had an old camcorder laying around (a samsung
| https://www.samsung.com/ca/support/model/SC-MX20/XAC/ ) with
| composite out and I also had a composite to hdmi converter and
| another to convert hdmi to usb. (they also make composite to usb
| all in converters) I found the box for the samsung camcorder and
| I still had the RCA output cable. Chained them all together and
| windows sees it as a usb camera.
|
| Works without a hitch so far.
| hathym wrote:
| honestly I can't tell the difference. for online meetings both
| are good enough as long as I am not colsulting a dermatologist
| for a problem with my skin.
| wnolens wrote:
| Latency and audio quality are wayyy more important than video
| quality.
|
| Optimizing for that would have me downgrade the video resolution
| being received by the 8-10 people on my calls.
|
| Also what are the folks on the receiving end actually seeing?
| Certainly not the image he posted.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Why does my Go Pro Hero 9 Black not work as a webcam with
| anything other than Cisco WebEx on MacOS? I can't get it to work
| with OBS or Discord on Mac, and I can't get any video from it on
| Windows. It's a fucking mess.
| gcoguiec wrote:
| I bought an Anker PowerConf C200 for less than 60 bucks; I
| expected an OK camera, but it's surprisingly good!
| waddlesworth wrote:
| I have a pretty full on setup, with a condenser microphone on a
| boom, studio lights and softboxes pointed at me, with a full
| frame mirrorless camera and a high frame rate capture card.
|
| I tried doing meetings with it, but ended up getting a lot of
| inane comments about it, particularly as the microphone is in
| frame. Personally, I don't want to draw attention to myself in a
| meeting, so I've ended up going back to using a terrible webcam
| for work, like everyone else.
| draw_down wrote:
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| Ha! That would be the off putting trying too hard effect
| hnthrowaway0328 wrote:
| Actually I prefer not to show face during any meeting. So
| probably won't buy an extra camera just for that. However, could
| be useful once I'm semi-retired and start streaming retro gaming.
| post_break wrote:
| I use my GoPro and it's pretty excellent. The logitech C920 is
| amazing when using the software "webcam settings" unfortunately
| the app no longer works. You could adjust the gain, exposure,
| every setting that logitech for some reason does not let you
| adjust. I could get incredible quality out of that thing with
| that software, but since I can't use it on my M1 it's garbage.
| chiefgeek wrote:
| Use Camo and your iPhone FTW!
| dijonman2 wrote:
| Video muting needs to be normalized
| canbus wrote:
| > Most kit lenses are pretty bad
|
| errrr... no they aren't. The 24-85 I have on my Nikon D600 is
| extremely sharp. The 18-55 on most DX Nikons is also pin sharp.
| For a webcam it surely doesn't even matter?
| probabletrain wrote:
| I agree with you. For use as a webcam, however, the author is
| probably after a much shallower depth of field than kit lenses
| generally provide, so opts for a fast prime lens.
| vlunkr wrote:
| I'd love to see stats on how many people actually still use
| webcams for online meetings. I rarely do, and I don't care if
| anyone else turns theirs on. Watching someone act like they
| aren't hyper-aware of what they look like on camera adds very
| little value to the conversation. Unless you're in sales, trying
| to make a good impression, or some kind of introductory meeting,
| who cares?
| rane wrote:
| It's nice to see your colleagues and it adds an extra dimension
| to meetings.
| karaterobot wrote:
| It's a higher bandwidth signal. There's a lot of information
| conveyed in a person's face and posture. Seeing their reaction
| to what you say tells you more than just hearing their voice.
| It's also useful for avoiding collisions where everybody tries
| to talk at once, and even for identifying who clearly wants to
| say something, but may be hesitant to do so.
| gammarator wrote:
| Personally I use the "turn off self view" option in Zoom, which
| at least reduces my own self-consciousness (and Zoom fatigue!).
| ldayley wrote:
| True. But I think one can avoid the credibility damage
| presenting or appearing poorly over time can cause with just a
| little thought about audio and lighting etc. There are gains to
| be had simply by being seen and heard better even if there is
| low 'diminishing returns' point.
| Graffur wrote:
| Some work environments really encourage them. I work in teams
| that always use them and in other teams that never use them. I
| don't think they add anything to conversations at all.
| jonpurdy wrote:
| What I am surprised about is that nobody has made a high quality
| UVC camera with a large sensor and great lens, specifically for
| videoconferencing.
|
| Even the "good" webcams (like the Elgato FaceCam and Logi Brio)
| have tiny sensors with small lenses. And iPhones (with Reincubate
| Camo) have bigger but still relatively tiny sensors.
|
| Pair an APS-C sensor with a ~24mm f/2 lens, with no controls;
| just a USB connection. This would barely be bigger than the lens
| itself (think double the size of Apple's old iSight).
|
| I'd easily pay $400 or more for this just to avoid messing around
| with mirrorless cameras and trying to mount them and use their
| drivers or HDMI capture USB interfaces.
| Melatonic wrote:
| An old phone is probably your best bet - you do not necessarily
| need that big of a sensor to get decent video. As long as you
| can provide enough light to keep the noise down and the lens
| (there are addon lenses for phones that are not half bad) is
| decent you can achieve probably what you want. The phone will
| have the necessary horsepower to actually process the video - I
| think that is probably the main issue vs a webcam
|
| More importantly though why does most conferencing software
| limit us to such low resolutions? From what I remember Zoom is
| still max or 720P which is pretty damn terrible....
| ISL wrote:
| Yep -- I'm real surprised Logitech hasn't shipped such a thing.
| $2-400 is the sweet spot. At ~$600, one starts being able to
| use a Canon M50 and a 22mm f/2 for plug-and-play high-end
| webcam usage.
|
| There's a huge market there that doesn't know it wants one yet,
| but it will once it becomes available.
| jannyfer wrote:
| Off topic, but does anyone know which monitor that is? Looks
| beautiful.
| Hamcha wrote:
| Only tangentially related but if you already have a popular
| Logitech webcam (like the C920) chances are you can find a kit to
| mount C/CS/D-mount lenses on it, like with this one:
| https://www.kurokesu.com/shop/C920_REWORK_KIT2
|
| C/CS/D mounts are for CCTV camera so you can find new and used
| lens for cheap. They will not fix a cheap/bad sensor, but they
| will definitely get you extra flexibility in what kind of
| framing/shot you can do.
| zrail wrote:
| With these kits do you lose the ability to autofocus?
| porphyra wrote:
| I got a Mokose UC70 USB C mount camera on Amazon. It's just a
| plug and play webcam but I mounted a Ricoh f/1.4 lens on it and
| it's fantastic. Much cheaper than getting a real mirrorless
| camera too.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| Do you know of sites with examples of the results?
| james_xu wrote:
| This right here is the best solution I've found. I have their
| Brio kit w/2.8-12mm CS lens and it's excellent in a small
| package. Low light conditions are still a challenge due to the
| tiny sensor.
|
| As a bonus, you can disconnect the built in mics and opt for a
| nice boom mic with a hardware cut off switch.
| danjc wrote:
| How would you disconnect the built in mic?
| alx__ wrote:
| If I understand that correctly, it's a mount to allow you to
| use a normal camera lens? That are a specific screw-thread
| type?
|
| Similar to how you can get mounts for phones to improve the
| shot options?
| ldayley wrote:
| One thing that I've been trying to educate my colleagues about
| (including the A/V folks!) is that one can bypass the need to
| fiddle with drivers by using a generic hardware HDMI -> USB video
| conversion stick utilizing the mirrorless/DSLR's HDMI output.
| It'll mount as a generic video input that Zoom/Teams/OBS can use.
| You can find these for $40-$100 and it allows one to switch out
| hardware brands at will without installing drivers. And don't
| forget that it opens up a world of filmmaking mics to complete
| the package, and sends it all on one cable!
|
| I've used Fujifilm, Sony, Canon, Panasonic, and I think even a
| gopro once successfully using this method.
|
| Edit - added mic suggestion
|
| Also: this works for me on Win/Mac, but I've not tried Linux yet.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I even got one for 8$ on AliExpress, it's still working fine
| two years on :)
|
| It's a bit limited in that it only does 1080p30 and it's not
| the best quality either.
| rhplus wrote:
| Ditto. I'm currently using an old Nikon D5100 with a generic
| HMDI->USB input stick ($15), a generic USB-->battery adaptor
| ($35) and a custom firmware (to remove borders and menus) from
| https://nikonhacker.com/
|
| The body is old enough to not car about voiding warranties by
| using a generic battery adaptor and custom firmware.
| hkon wrote:
| Yes, using this with my XT2. Works perfectly.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Isn't the video interface over USB standard? You don't need
| drivers do you? Just plug and play.
| dividedbyzero wrote:
| At least my Fuji X-T4 insists on its own driver that makes
| use of live view video the camera sends via some proprietary
| protocol and exposes that as a virtual webcam. It doesn't do
| USB webcam sadly.
| raesene9 wrote:
| This is the method I use, in conjunction with the Sony ZV-1
| which gets a mention in the article. It also bypasses the
| problem mentioned in the article about turning up as a mass
| storage device.
|
| What I've found is that by USB charging and using HDMI out,
| it's good for ~2.5 hours of streaming, which I've only ever hit
| once as a limit.
|
| there's a newer Sony in the same line (the ZV-E10) but it moved
| the ports to the other side of the camera, so if you flick the
| LCD round so you can see it, the cables are in the way...
| kuschku wrote:
| With my a6300 I actually managed to get a week (!) of
| constant streaming and USB charging out of it. I use a USB
| data blocker to enforce USB charging only, it works
| incredibly well.
| moduspol wrote:
| I just failed at this recently. Apparently the camera needs to
| support "clean HDMI out," which many don't. Mine (for example)
| has HDMI out, but it's for like a "preview" screen for a
| photographer--it doesn't just output a clean, high-res HDMI
| stream.
|
| There's a web page on Canon's site here:
|
| https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/se...
|
| You'll see one list of cameras on there, but at the bottom, you
| can expand "Clean HDMI", and then you'll see a different list
| of cameras.
|
| Now I'm debating whether or not I want to spend hundreds of
| dollars for a DIFFERENT photography camera that support clean
| HDMI.
| ldayley wrote:
| Yes, that is a gotcha, as some of the cheaper or older camera
| models have no HDMI out or the require proprietary conversion
| with a vendor driver. I haven't run into this often myself
| yet since most people I know have been buying newer and more
| video focused cameras over the past couple years.
|
| EDIT - For your case perhaps using camera settings to
| minimize the data (ISO/aperture/shutter etc) being shown on
| on the screen works well enough to use what you have?
| moduspol wrote:
| > EDIT - For your case perhaps using camera settings to
| minimize the data (ISO/aperture/shutter etc) being shown on
| on the screen works well enough to use what you have?
|
| I saw a few threads with that suggestion, but I wasn't able
| to minimize the data being shown, or confirmation that
| anyone with a Rebel T7 was able to do it.
| enzanki_ars wrote:
| I was able to do this on my Rebel T7i by switching to
| manual focus, and then selecting the "info" button a
| couple of times to remove the overlay. There might have
| been some other changes I made, like turning off the grid
| overlay, but I think just the first two changes were
| enough though.
| delinom wrote:
| Custom software, such as Magic Lantern[1] for Canon cameras,
| can offer clean HDMI out for certain models, among other
| features.
|
| [1] https://magiclantern.fm/
| moduspol wrote:
| It can, though it doesn't seem to support my Rebel T7
| either.
| ISL wrote:
| For a T7, one can simply use Canon's webcam software.
| moduspol wrote:
| Kind of, yeah [1].
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31413073
|
| EDIT: I mean it'd probably be OK if I were just shooting
| a video--I can fumble through it connecting unreliably,
| or just do another take if it unexpectedly disconnects.
| But I'm doing multiple video calls a day, and the webcam
| built-in to my monitor "just works" every time. It's
| tough to justify the additional complexity for something
| that isn't working reliably.
|
| That's why I started leaning toward "Clean HDMI". With
| that method, as long as the HDMI capture device works,
| everything should "just work" on the Mac side, and as
| long as the camera can output clean HDMI, it should also
| "just work." I'm not dealing with a poorly-supported
| software webcam utility, special USB signaling, or
| annoying inactivity timeouts.
|
| But it looks like I'll need a different camera, and it
| won't be cheap, but at least it's an option.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| This is the gap I hit, after trying to set up an old Canon
| G11 (released 2009) as an alternative to a webcam for my
| partner's Twitch streaming. It has a micro-HDMI port on the
| side of it, but _only_ for reviewing photos-- it doesn 't
| pass through the live viewfinder image, and it appears there
| may be hardware limitations which prevent that from ever
| being possible, even with the various hacked up firmware
| options like CHDK/Magic Lantern [1].
|
| [1]: https://chdk.fandom.com/wiki/G11
| inbx0 wrote:
| It's not ideal but I've circumvented this by disabling
| automatic focus and other things that add visible elements to
| the preview, and the just using the preview's 720p output.
| It's a hassle and you'll have to manually adjust the focus so
| that everything's not blurry, but the end result quality is
| quite good.
| moduspol wrote:
| Are you doing it on a Rebel T7 or a different camera? I
| tried doing this on mine but it didn't seem possible.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > You can find these for $40-$100 and it allows one to switch
| out hardware brands at will without installing drivers.
|
| The cheap ones (as little as eight bucks) all use the same all-
| in-one HDMI-receiver-MJPEG-encoding-USB-device chip; it's not
| perfect, but they do actually support 1080p at 30 fps.
| tomatocracy wrote:
| They're generally pretty reliable but an issue to be aware of
| is that the cheaper ones can have quite high latency (0.5s or
| more). This means for Zoom etc you will have to choose
| between audio/video being desynced and more awkward
| conversation (if interactive discussion is more important
| than presenting).
| em-bee wrote:
| is the quality at least comparable to what i can get from a
| mid-range webcam? because that is what this is competing with
| for someone like me who already has the necessary camera, but
| also needs a webcam occasionally.
|
| i found this article
| https://havecamerawilltravel.com/nikon-d3400-webcam-live-
| str... that suggests the budget device is workable but
| obviously doesn't deliver the quality that the camera can
| provide. but how does it compare to a regular webcam?
| awoodbeck wrote:
| Some camera manufacturers offer software that uses your
| mirrorless camera to emulate a webcam without requiring a capture
| card.
|
| For example, Fujifilm's X Webcam software[1] would allow the
| author to connect his X-S10 to his PC using a USB-C cable, and
| use it as a webcam. The downside is X Webcam lacks support for
| Linux.
|
| [1] https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/software/x-webcam/
| Tomte wrote:
| And my X-E3 is not supported, but the practically identical
| X-T2 is!
| [deleted]
| jd3 wrote:
| It looks like Nikon supports this functionality[0] through
| their "Nikon Webcam Utility"[1].
|
| Z 9, Z 7II, Z 7, Z 6II, Z 6, Z 5, Z fc, Z 50, D6, D5, D850,
| D810, D780, D750, D500, D7500, D7200, D5600, D5500, D5300 and
| D3500.
|
| I think the Z 50 (and updated, but cheaper construction Z fc)
| are the cheapest options here out of the mirrorless cameras.
|
| [0]: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/webcam-
| utility...
|
| [1]:
| https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/548/Webca...
| KineticLensman wrote:
| I used this for a while with my D850. It installed okay and
| worked, technically. I stopped using it for video calls
| because it was a hassle positioning the relatively heavy DSLR
| on my desk during calls and because it eats cam batteries for
| breakfast (you need a power lead that that slots into the
| battery location on the camera, which I don't own).
|
| The (free) version of the webcam utility doesn't give you
| full tethered photographic control of the camera, which might
| have made it more useful to me.
| jamesfisher wrote:
| I love it. Where is the startup to fill this gap in the market?
| dawnerd wrote:
| I use a Sony a6400 with one of those powered "battery" adapters
| and hdmi out to an Elgato Cam Link 4k.
|
| Works nearly flawlessly. Sometimes Google meet refuses to pick up
| the video until I unplug but that might have to do more with the
| handshake between my back and my TB3 dock.
| EveYoung wrote:
| Early into the pandemic, I was experimenting with an Elgato Cam
| Link as an alternative to a webcam. However, I never got the
| setup to work reliably with MacOS and MS Teams (e.g., random
| disconnects). Has this changed over the years and become a good
| solution suitable for daily usage? Currently, I'm using a
| Logitech Brio with two video lights; the quality isn't amazing
| but at least everything works out of the box.
| briandoll wrote:
| I have the Elgato FaceCam and it's absolutely fantastic on the
| Mac. Zero issues, great adjustability, good quality (much
| better than a laptop webcam, not quite as good as an
| iPhone/"real" camera.
| ozten wrote:
| +1 I wish I could make the Elgato Cam Link 4k more reliable.
| Some days it is flawless and then other days during an
| important meeting, I have to keep resetting the USB dongle.
|
| I have a setup much like the article, Sony A5100.
| lumost wrote:
| Why can't laptops just get smartphone cameras? Is the BOM impact
| of a phone camera from 2018 really that high?
| randyrand wrote:
| not the bom, it's the screen thickness.
|
| Most laptops screens are much thinner than a smartphone.
|
| That said, i'd gladly have a little camera bump.
| lumost wrote:
| Aye - it would probably need to be ruggedized, but a camera
| pod wouldn't be the end of the world.
| [deleted]
| npteljes wrote:
| Because the sauce is not in the camera, but in the software. I
| recommend the following article, if not even for reading, just
| to appreciate how much processing magic is going on:
| https://vas3k.com/blog/computational_photography/
| outworlder wrote:
| That can't be... the full picture.
|
| Laptops have a decent amount of compute power available.
|
| If you look at laptop webcams, they are much smaller(and
| thinner) and have way crappier optics than an iphone camera.
| And nowhere near the same amount of optics.
|
| Look at this ancient iPhone 6 exploded camera view. Does it
| look like it's even close to laptop webcams? Let's not even
| go into the "huge" (in smartphone terms) lenses modern phones
| have.
|
| https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2016/08/iPhone-2...
| lumost wrote:
| In that case, my laptop has substantially more computational
| power than my phone - why can't it run the same software?
| RationPhantoms wrote:
| I use this webcam and I'm pretty happy with the quality:
| https://getlumina.com/
| kmike84 wrote:
| Not sure about the autofocus advice; I'm pretty happy with manual
| focus. It requires static camera placement, and fixed distance to
| the person, but isn't this happening anyways? Are people really
| walking around the room or moving camera between calls?
|
| Manual means there are less failure modes - slow autofocus,
| autofocus trying to refocus, focusing on a wrong thing, etc.
|
| It also means the hardware can be cheaper - camera doesn't need
| to have good autofocus (some old DSLR is fine), you can also use
| manual lenses.
| saturn5k wrote:
| Maybe it's a bit overkill, but I use a Fuji X-T4 + Fuji 10-24mm
| lens as a webcam. At around $2500 definitely not cheap but it
| gets the job done magnificently. Additionally, the Fuji X Webcam
| software allows me to switch between Fuji's film simulations,
| adjust color temperature and exposure on the fly. The cam is
| mounted on a Manfrotto ballhead tripod behind my monitor.
| hammock wrote:
| What is the distance from you to the camera as you have it set
| up? Any issue with your monitors, etc coming into frame as
| well?
| kirse wrote:
| How do you deal with the 60-min video shutoff during important
| mtgs, streaming, etc?
| deanc wrote:
| Does using a professional camera (DSLR/Mirrorless) damage the
| sensor over time and lower the lifetime of your camera? Usually
| shutter count is a good indicator of health of a used camera -
| would this not have a similarly huge impact?
| JamesMcMinn wrote:
| I don't think there's any risk of damaging the sensor. The
| shutter is a mechanical part that will physically wear out over
| time, the sensor is converting photons into voltage.
|
| I've been using my camera as a webcam for over 2 years without
| any issue, and it's usually on for several hours per day. As
| long as the sensor isn't getting very hot then I don't think
| there's much risk to the camera.
| tamade wrote:
| I repurposed my old Fujifilm X100F as webcam with the Elgato cam
| link 4k and dummy battery during the pandemic-- video quality
| received heavy compliments on Zoom. The setup was working fine
| until I upgraded my desktop rig. Seems Cam link doesn't play nice
| with the new Mac Studios.
| aenis wrote:
| Did this out of boredom (and inability to use my photo equipment
| as intended in the travel restriction years). My setup was a
| Nikon Z6II with a 50mm f/1.8 glass, plugged via a capture card.
| It can do a 10hr meeting marathon without overheating while
| charging via the usb-c. Never crashed but surely a bit of a
| hassle and costs me a usb c port, since its not reliable when
| plugged to the dock (go figure).
|
| Agree with the others, it makes no difference. The only people
| likely to notice are other geeks. I look like a freshly excavated
| potato when shot with the webcam, and a slightly more favourably
| lit potato with the Z6Ii, good glass and diffused lighting.
|
| But hey, people have stupid hobbies, thats ok as long as it
| reliably works.
| callumprentice wrote:
| The quality aspect is obviously important but I'd suggest that
| the location of the lens is also vital if you don't want to have
| meetings where everyone seems to be not looking at you.
|
| I cannot wait until cameras work behind the screen and can be
| positioned right in the center but for now, the only option I
| found was something called Center Cam that mounts a small lense
| on a skinny support that can be positioned over the screen,
| _somewhat_ unobtrusively.
|
| I am a Camo user too and it's incredible but having the phone off
| to one side in a tripod or mount exacerbates the "here's (not)
| looking at you" issue.
|
| I started a project that uses Camo and suspends the phone upside
| down from the top of the screen via a 3D printed mount. Then, an
| app on the phone, mirrors the portion of the screen that is
| covered by the phone. Not perfect (or even close) and it means
| you need to use the lower quality front facing camera but it fun
| to dabble.
| jimhefferon wrote:
| I appreciate the cleverness of your approach. But is it
| possible to take a C290-ish webcam, chop off the left and
| right, and maybe the top and bottom, until it is the width of a
| dime, so I can suspend it in the middle of my screen? Unlike
| the thread's original post, I am not overly concerned with
| image quality, but the "not looking" effect that you mention is
| an issue for me.
| callumprentice wrote:
| Yeah - that's what Center Cam does I think. You might be able
| to make both the lens and the support _really_ small and /or
| transparent these days too.
| jimhefferon wrote:
| Cool. Thanks, somehow I didn't understand that it is a
| product instead of an idea. (I have a microphone and can
| put it off camera. The quality of the picture is not
| critical for my application, and my personal eye does not
| find it a bother. I just want to look at the screen.)
| ekrebs wrote:
| That's a super neat idea! I have a feeling the inevitable
| solution to this need will be a combo of a tech like Apple's
| Center Stage and some sort of eye-focusing alteration to the
| image, like a live deep fake of yourself (just the eyes).
| Software-only means widespread adoption.
| callumprentice wrote:
| Yeah, agreed - I had wondered if 4 lenses at the screen
| corners (maybe) plus some clever software could maybe do the
| trick too.
| zwily wrote:
| FaceTime actually did the eye adjustment thing for a bit, but
| they disabled it. Not sure why, it seemed to work okay. Maybe
| it freaked people out though.
| interestica wrote:
| Whoa really?? The future is probably a 'digital self' being
| transmitted + movements rather than actual video.
| gernb wrote:
| As someone that puts a cover on their camera since I am in
| various states of compromise in front of it I'm not looking
| forward to a camera I can not cover.
| protomyth wrote:
| Most cameras have a lens cover. Also, if you hook it to a
| device to hook to your computer, you can turn it off.
| callumprentice wrote:
| Oh good point - I hadn't thought about that and of course, no
| one will trust it's off via software. I should imagine that's
| a blocker for many people.
| ricopags wrote:
| I imagine a hardware switch on the back of the monitor would
| still be possible [and, indeed, necessary]
| kuschku wrote:
| Why don't you just use a teleprompter setup? That's so much
| simpler
| tra3 wrote:
| That's another device (and cost) to absorb. And not a small
| device at that.. I like the idea of the centre for 2-4 hours
| of meetings, then I just put it away.
| callumprentice wrote:
| I wasn't aware of such a thing until I came across the parent
| thread - something to look into for sure
| kuschku wrote:
| It's really just a piece of glass and some black fabric to
| keep the light out, very inexpensive and super useful
| compared to all the engineering solutions suggested here^^
| __mharrison__ wrote:
| This is why I use a teleprompter... See my other comment for
| links to my setup.
| [deleted]
| ulnarkressty wrote:
| Keep in mind that if you're going to be using a fast lens as the
| author suggests the focus depth will be paper-thin at large
| apertures. So you're probably not going to get that creamy bokeh
| in your standup unless you stand perfectly still and move only
| your mouth muscles.
|
| You can really see this effect when the early mirrorless DSLRs
| took to market and every youtuber was using one with a fast wide
| open normal lens. Everything was zoomed in and out of focus
| resulting in queasy viewers. It took a couple of years for them
| to get the hang of it though.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| If you're willing to throw $1000 at a "proper camera" of the sort
| the author recommends, then sure, it would be very disappointing
| if it didn't outperform the webcam built in to most laptops or
| phones.
|
| But is there a "proper camera" for under $100 that can also offer
| an improvement over a webcam?
| orbital-decay wrote:
| The key to the better quality is not camera, it's light.
|
| A dedicated camera with a fast lens has three key improvements
| over a typical webcam:
|
| - bokeh
|
| - less noise in the dark, better dynamic range (almost
| irrelevant for a webcam)
|
| - less compressed video (potentially), which is critical for
| chroma keying; certain USB3 webcams can deliver a much less
| compressed stream as well.
|
| If you're willing to sacrifice bokeh and don't need chroma
| keying, $100 or slightly more can buy you light sources to make
| you look substantially better on your under $100 webcam. And
| without proper lighting, the proper camera is useless as well.
|
| Some other steps to look good on a webcam: choose a good
| lighting scheme, use proper camera settings, do some color
| correction; a color calibration card helps with this immensely,
| even a cheap one. Use the virtual webcam in OBS with a LUT
| generated from your card, control your scene with a vectorscope
| plugin. Voila, you just upgraded your look to a 100x more
| professional one, using just a simple webcam.
|
| Keep in mind that you need much (and by this I mean _MUCH_ )
| more lighting than you probably think you do. And possibly
| blackout shutters or curtains to completely block the outside
| light, making your lighting controlled.
| MR4D wrote:
| I'll second this. My recommended order is:
|
| 1 - Lighting
|
| 2 - Microphone
|
| 3 - Camera
|
| Even when you see people on the news through webcams, their
| pictures and audio often are not well lit or mic'd.
| adhoc_slime wrote:
| > But is there a "proper camera" for under $100 that can also
| offer an improvement over a webcam?
|
| no just buy an off the shelf web camera if that's all you're
| willing to budget.
|
| but for those of us with these cameras already becuase we enjoy
| photography, this dual use is quite nice!
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| Not for $100, but a Sony A5100 with 16-50 lens can be bought
| for $400 over here, and will produce a great image. It is very
| similar to the A6000 but it a bit more compact, less features
| and a cheaper build.
| ldayley wrote:
| Not quite $100 but I see the aging yet highly-regarded, video-
| centric Panasonic GH4 sold used for as little as $200 without a
| lens. This is the camera many small-midsize video production
| outfits have stuck to for a >decade. There are many (often
| fairly good) generic lenses for the 4/3" sensor mount it uses,
| and the camera is known for having a clean Full HD HDMI out. I
| can see building a setup like this for as little as $300-400.
| Add a $40-$100 LED light mounted on the camera and you've
| improved your video presence by 10x for less than $500.
|
| *Edited for grammar.
| Kerrick wrote:
| At that budget you'd be better served getting a cheap lighting
| kit and a small to help push your webcam to its limits. Mount
| the webcam at eye level, pick a classic portrait lighting
| setup, and make every pixel work for you.
|
| https://medium.com/@sukeshgtambi/24-portrait-character-light...
| hammock wrote:
| No. It comes down to sensor size and that doesn't come cheap
| HidyBush wrote:
| Canon's EOS Webcam Utility supports cameras down to the EOS
| 1100D, which, depending on your level of luck, you can find
| used under $100. Then all you need is a kit lens which can be
| found for very very cheap nowadays. Or, if you really think you
| won't be moving much, just get a super cheap vintage one.
| moduspol wrote:
| Eh, I've had mixed results with Canon's EOS Webcam Utility
| and my Rebel T7.
|
| I didn't see this documented anywhere, but apparently it's
| built only for Intel-based Macs. It'll still work on Apple
| Silicon, but only if the application using it is _also_ built
| for Intel-based Macs. So you 'd want to ensure you install
| the Intel-based version of Zoom, and then be careful to avoid
| it auto-updating to the version for Apple Silicon.
|
| I bought a license for Cascable's Pro Webcam, and it mostly
| worked, but I'd often have issues getting it to initially
| connect to the camera and it'd sometimes cut out
| unexpectedly.
| aeyes wrote:
| It's under 10fps for most of the cheap models. And unless you
| don't move at all the focal point of the kit lens is going to
| make the video almost useless. Autofocus on these cameras
| can't follow as fast as necessary for live video.
|
| I have played with EOS webcam utility in the past and if you
| are not ready to spend big, DSLR is not the way to go.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| $100 can get you an excellent microphone with a boom arm and
| that will be appreciated by your colleagues much more than
| being able to count your stubble in 4K 60 fps.
|
| I actually don't want colleagues to be able to inspect my face
| in immaculate detail, and the amount of ceremony and awkward
| stands begind the monitor, etc. do not make sence to me. The
| more expensive webcams do a decent enough job.
| npteljes wrote:
| I agree. And you don't even need to spend much - I picked up
| a Fifine K669B usb mic for $25, and the thing records
| absolutely fine.
| ISL wrote:
| No boom needed for a big improvement -- the Blue Yeti Nano
| sits nicely on my desk, gets the job done.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| I think its nice, I find a big mic on the desk gets in the
| way
| lars_francke wrote:
| I'd like to have a solution where chroma keying is done in
| hardware and ideally also something where I can combine my
| monitor picture and my camera to do "talking head" videos without
| software running on my main laptop. It should "just" receive the
| final picture ready to be streamed to Zoom et. al.
|
| I'm probably not explaining very well. In the end I want to rely
| on OS & Software as little as possible because things keep
| breaking (on Linux) for me so if I can just get a single video
| feed to select as the camera source for Zoom, Teams et. al that'd
| be great.
| securitypunk wrote:
| Sony a7iii + Elgato camlink have been working flawlessly for me
| for several years now, on all platforms (windows, linux and even
| chromeos)
| Graffur wrote:
| Unfortunately I can't use my Sony A6000 or GoPro as webcams
| because they need software installed and it's blocked on my work
| laptop
| almog wrote:
| If you are going that route (I have), keep in mind that streaming
| from your mirrorless/DSLR HDMI port usually means h.264 live
| encoding, which might not work smoothly with older machine, there
| are very few HDMI to USB capture cards that perform the encoding.
|
| Since I'm still mostly using my old Macbook (late 2014) and a
| Sony A7II + (Sony FE 55mm f/1.8), I soon realized that with a
| basic USB capture device (a UVC device that exposes an
| uncompressed video as webcam) I couldn't get anywhere past 360p
| with 24fps, and even then, CPU was skyrocketing.
|
| Next I tried to utilize an Raspberry Pi that I have to stream the
| video, but using VLC as well as FFMpeg and few other streaming
| products, all did not do well when it came to resolution, fps and
| latency.
|
| At the same time, I researched some existing USB capture devices,
| and while Elgato seems like the popular choice, non of their USB
| capture devices perform hardware h.264 encoding, so the
| bottleneck remains the host machine.
|
| The only two hardware brands that I found at the time (around a
| year ago) that made USB capture devices with on-board h.264
| encoders were Blackmagic and Magewell.
|
| I went with the Magewell USB Capture Gen 2 which seemed to do
| exactly what I wanted and no more than that. I was able to find
| for ~$80 and it has worked perfectly since -- no latency or
| missing frames at 1080p. It also has a very nice management
| console that let you tweak the (hardware) encoding
| (enable/disable mirror mode, crop frame and more).
|
| EDIT: another thing that I tried was to use Sony Imaging Edge
| Webcam -- a USB driver that turn Sony cameras into UVC (webcam)
| device. It works pretty well but has a max resolution of 1024 x
| 576. Not what I was looking for but still I remember it as being
| equal or even better than combining a cheap HDMI to USB devices
| that don't do hardware encoding with OBS for virtual camera.
| manmal wrote:
| The Magewell capture card costs almost 300 bucks, finding it
| for 80 is quite lucky I'd say. I've just seen it for EUR260 in
| used condition where I live.
| almog wrote:
| I found it just after many of the covid restriction were
| lifted, which resulted in businesses, schools and even
| churches getting rid of streaming gear on ebay. I'm not sure
| if it's still the case, but I found quite a few at that were
| sold around that price (I just checked my ebay account and it
| was $75).
|
| Just checked and the price for new one where I live (Tel
| Aviv) is around $450, so I guess I was lucky, at least in
| that sense.
|
| Still, I do not know of any cheaper option to get 1080p video
| with older machines. I'm assuming that OBS on a 2022 Macbook
| would be able to deal with live encoding, but back in 2021 I
| was still seeing posts on OBS forums detailing streaming
| issues with M1 macs, and since most of them describe issues
| with streaming on Twitch, I could only assume it must be for
| video conferencing.
| dekhn wrote:
| I have an alternative approach that I discovered recently while
| building a microscope with a webcam driven by linux.
|
| Nearly all modern cheap webcams are UVC-compatible and they work
| with linux. Different models expose different functionalities,
| but I ended up with this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07R489K8L
|
| It does 1600x1200 25FPS YUYV (as well as a wide range of other
| resolutions and FPS) uses the C/CS-mount lens standard (easy to
| buy a wide range of high quality lenses). It doesn't have a
| microphone but you should be using an independent mike anyway.
| Has software control of exposure color temp, and gain, which is
| great for various lighting conditions.
|
| You read the data through USB, not HDMI. The one thing I haven't
| managed to do is autofocus, but imho, for webcams you want to set
| a fixed focus around your head anyway.
|
| Works with all video conference programs, and OBS studio (I
| actually import the video in OBS and then create a virtual
| camera).
| thinkmassive wrote:
| I have a very similar hardware setup and love it. What benefits
| does OBS provide for your video conferencing? If it's worth the
| extra hassle I might need to look into adding it.
| dekhn wrote:
| I use it for the chroma keying in VC software that doesn't
| support it, like Meet (which has a machine learning system
| that tries to identify the background). I often present other
| windows and using OBS is often more ergonomic than connecting
| and presenting a second window; I can composite a transparent
| version of my head over what i'm presenting. Or present my
| whole screen, etc. Basically, twitch streaming for video
| games and other stuff changed how I do VC.
| pwg wrote:
| > I have an alternative approach that I discovered recently
| while building a microscope with a webcam driven by linux.
|
| Do you have a web page somewhere describing your linux webcam
| microscope?
| dekhn wrote:
| Not really. It's unclear if the time invested in documenting
| the design is worth it yet. I haven't decided if it would be
| useful. For now, I recommend looking at OpenFlexure or
| Flexiscope (there's one other one that's good but I forget
| the name).
|
| The idea is fairly simple. It's a basic construction kit for
| simple microscopes (just LED, lens, objective, tube, and
| camera, all mounted to an aluminum extrusion post using 3D
| printed parts). Then some inexpensive XYZ stages to move the
| sample holder holder around for large FOV and focus stacking.
|
| Everything else is just cobbled-together from python, but see
| MicroManager for a tool that can drive an open source
| microscope.
| htgb wrote:
| I looked at similar cameras a while ago (Mokose brand), but
| never got around to it because I was unsure of the lens.
| Especially field of view (is it wide enough angle?), but also
| overall quality. I saw a sample somewhere with a dark ring
| along the edges of the final image.
|
| Did you have any issues with that? Do you have a rough
| approximation of what zoom setting you're using and what FOV it
| gives?
|
| I'd love to get a better camera than the built-in laptop one,
| but also don't want to shell out $1500 plus the hassle of a
| DSLR...
| dekhn wrote:
| I didn't have good luck with the included lens for web
| camming. It's a zoom lens with focus and aperture, which is
| silly for most video conferencing.
|
| Alternative C- and CS-mount lenses are easy to buy
| https://www.amazon.com/Neewer-Aperture-Compatible-
| Mirrorless... and will focus near your face and have plenty
| of light. People will say your background blur is amazing.
| thinkmassive wrote:
| I use a Mokose 4k USB webcam with a 5-50mm zoom lens that
| cost under $100 for the set.
|
| I experimented with a huge variety of mounting options before
| settling on a SmallRig adjustable arm clamped to the top of
| my monitor mount, so it peeks over the top of my monitor,
| basically where a built-in webcam would be.
|
| To me it's the best compromise between control, quality, and
| price. Having physical control of zoom, focus, and exposure
| is amazing. Meetings start up instantly, no software to mess
| with.
|
| To be fair I spent another $150ish trying various mounting
| options, but those are shared between the camera, mic (Rode
| NT-USB), and lighting. Eventually I gave up on the camera
| light and fixed my room lighting. A more frugal person could
| get a similar setup for $250 all in.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| This looks like it should compare favorably to the "real"
| camera + HDMI capture card solution. The lens is always the
| most important part of any camera setup, so if you get the
| right lens, you're probably gold.
| eropple wrote:
| Ehh. After a certain point that's true, but a lens doesn't
| help much with a garbage sensor, particularly one that has to
| be compensated for with huge exposure changes. (This is the
| core of why webcams are disappointing, not the lens.)
|
| I use a GH4 or G9 with a USB3HDCAP at my desk because I
| already have them and the glass, personally, and I know the
| sensor is not going to be a trailing problem behind the
| (cheap!) glass that I use.
| dekhn wrote:
| The sensor is an IMX179 which is a mainstay. I believe the
| sensor area is smaller, and probably higher noise than a
| DSLR or mirrorless, but for VC use, it's probably not going
| to make a difference.
| dekhn wrote:
| In my case, the "lens" is a microscope objective and a long
| tube, but I've also tested it as a webcam.
|
| Arducam has a bunch of C-mount lenses, https://www.amazon.com
| /stores/page/35052708-55DC-4832-A0B6-A... as well as nice USB
| webcams that let you choose from several sensors.
| https://www.arducam.com/sony/imx477/
| nunez wrote:
| Agreed. Using an SLR with a capture card and proper three-point
| lighting makes you look amazing in online meetings. Very easy to
| set up as well. Will cost about $700 to get going with, but it's
| a one-time cost that will work on any computer for a long time.
|
| Not every camera has clean HDMI output, though. It's hard to find
| a single list of cameras that have this feature, so you have to
| Google around. Cameras without clean HDMI out will show icons and
| focus windows when you stream from them.
| themacguffinman wrote:
| Elgato maintains a camera compatibility list for their Cam Link
| product, it notes which cameras have clean HDMI:
| https://www.elgato.com/en/cam-link/camera-check
| supermatt wrote:
| Having done exactly this, my main annoyance is that you have to
| manually power on and off the camera, which means losing whatever
| zoom and settings you had configured.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| There are proper cameras which don't remember settings across
| power cycles and battery swaps? Curious. Never heard of that
| before, that's a complete deal-breaker for actually, y'know',
| using a camera to me. Perhaps the SRAM battery/capacitor in
| yours is just dead? (Then again, not exactly sure how that
| happens, I've used 15+ year old Nikon DSLRs and they had no
| trouble with Alzheimers)
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| Some newer compact zooms aren't manual, but zoom by wire.
| They usually retract when the camera is turned off. This is
| also the case for most compact cameras, which maybe the GP is
| talking about, because technically they're also "proper"
| cameras".
| kuschku wrote:
| This is actually an issue I've got with the a6300 and the
| Sony 18-105mm f/4.0 G lens, because it's a zoom-by-wire lens
| and forgets the zoom setting after every restart.
| boomskats wrote:
| This is the main reason I own a Sony ZV-1: it supports UVC out of
| the box.
|
| With a use case as repetitive as jumping on a call, the UX is
| important.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| My problem is when you turn it on plugged in it defaults to USB
| mass storage. I have to turn mine on and then plug it in. What
| do you do?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Answering myself - turn on PC Remote mode, which disables
| mass storage.
| Linda703 wrote:
| giobox wrote:
| For me, I look for the opposite solution. What is the poorest
| quality camera my colleagues in meetings will passably accept? I
| want as few pixels of my sleepy head in morning meetings being
| beamed to my colleagues as I can get away with, which for now the
| crappy MacBook integrated webcam does a reasonable job for.
|
| I second others here in that having a good quality mic is
| generally far more important. High quality doesn't mean spendy
| either - the location of the mic is just as critical as the mic
| you choose, many cheap headset mics sound pretty good because
| they get to place the mic directly in front of your mouth, not
| because they are especially great mics.
|
| I fully appreciate my opinion might be different if I worked in a
| field where being seen clearly mattered, such as guitar teacher
| in online lessons etc, but I imagine for most of us here this
| isn't the case.
| extinctpotato wrote:
| Could somebody do an ELI5 on why some phones have very good
| cameras but for some reason there's no standalone USB version of
| them?
| alphabettsy wrote:
| Phone cameras are very good but owing much of it to the DSP and
| software. An iPhone camera will not produce iPhone quality
| photos without the chipset and OS.
| aendruk wrote:
| That still leaves the original question of why dedicated
| cameras aren't doing this.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| The question of GP wasn't that, but why you can't buy
| "iPhone image processing pipeline to UVC/USB".
| aendruk wrote:
| I think we agree but you don't understand me.
| dekhn wrote:
| there are cameras that do this; there are many UVC USB3
| webcams with phone-grade sensors (medium quality).
| aendruk wrote:
| "This" refers to the contribution of software processing
| described above, i.e. explicitly not the matter of sensor
| quality.
| dekhn wrote:
| oh, that's for economic reasons. The industrial and
| desktop consumer computer vision markets are orders of
| magnitude smaller and their development cycle times
| orders of magnitude longer.
|
| I looked into this a while ago- trying to use gcam
| technology for scientific imaging- when I worked at
| Google, and there was zero interest from those teams.
| They were 100% focused on next-gen camera tech (and it
| showed- that was the period when phones got unbelievably
| good at taking high quality images using computational
| photography).
| E4YomzYIN5YEBKe wrote:
| That appears to be what the Opal C1 is doing.
|
| https://opalcamera.com/
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| That looks great, except for being mac-only.
|
| Have they given any indication about whether it'll be a
| standard UVC camera and Just Work on all platforms?
| nickpeterson wrote:
| Also it isn't available to actually buy. I'm sure they'll
| be ready just in time for pandemic to end and macbooks to
| have better webcams...
| johnwalkr wrote:
| Phones have just an image sensor with a direct interface to the
| CPU, with a driver plus a ton of software running on the CPU to
| enhance quality. You can get good cameras with modern image
| sensors with usb interface. Note that they need a local
| controller to well, control them and provide a usb interface,
| and need firmware for the local controller and need to provide
| a driver or support for a standard API at the USB end. The
| market is tiny compared to phones, so for those reasons you
| can't buy a usb camera with the same low cost and high
| performance as what is in your smartphone.
|
| That being said, you can buy good usb cameras based on many
| modern image sensors from a company like e-con[1], but you have
| to do research about what features are enabled by the driver.
|
| I'm not sure why actual webcams including a way to mount on
| your monitor are so far behind and expensive. Logitech C920 is
| still a common recommendation, and it's now 10 years old!
|
| [1]https://www.e-consystems.com/See3CAM-USB-3-Camera.asp
| inetsee wrote:
| I can't justify the kind of prices being discussed here because
| the only use I have for a camera setup like this is Family Zoom
| meetings. I went looking on Amazon and I stumbled on "Vlogging
| Cameras". There seem to be quite a few of them available for less
| than $200, with 4K sensors, and either attached microphones, or
| an input for an external microphone. I have no idea of the
| quality of the image being produced by these cameras, but they
| seem like they could be a low cost option, and better than the
| typical webcams available.
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| The more appealing approach is to use a camera you already own
| rather than a C920 -- anything made within the last decade or
| so will probably work better, given the C920's awful white
| balance and autofocus.
| [deleted]
| onphonenow wrote:
| Top tips.
|
| Wear a headset for a microphone. Avoid the echo cancellation step
| on each other effect.
|
| If you can't be bothered to do that at least put earbuds in.
| goshx wrote:
| I use a Sony a6600 with Sigma 16mm f/1.4 lens as a webcam and
| people love it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-17 23:00 UTC)