Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why can’t you buy a good webcam?

vsevolod.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 794 posts

Re: Why can’t you buy a good webcam?

#521

Post by thayne »

simonh wrote: post #433
Firadeoclus wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And while there is certainly room for improvement with typical webcams: the problem is in many cases not the camera, but the conditions under which it operates. Low light, shooting against the light, smeared laptop lenses, weird angles (not eye level), weird perspective framing, bad combination of light and framerates, mixed light temperatures, low CRI lighting, etc. If you take an 40k€ Arri and a 20k€ Zeiss Prime…

The problem is laptop lids are a lot thinner than smartphones and just don't have the depth to contain a decent optic. Apple have tried to mitigate this a bit in the new M1 machines using some computational photography to improve the image. The Surface machines from Microsoft actually stand out in this regard. Because the brains of the machine are in the same section as the screen and camera, they are a lot thicker a…

But why can't I buy an external webcam, where that isn't an issue, with the same quality as a smartphone camera?

Re: Why can’t you buy a good webcam?

#522

Post by unwind »

dbspin wrote: post #463
atoav wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked as a freelance DOP and worked with cameras + lenses that coat more than a decent car. And while there is certainly room for improvement with typical webcams: the problem is in many cases not the camera, but the conditions under which it operates. Low light, shooting against the light, smeared laptop lenses, weird angles (not eye level), weird perspective framing, bad combination of light and framerates, mixe…

Freelance videographer and cam-op here. Your Arri experience is skewing your perspective. Any recent highly regarded DSLR will be significantly better in low light, intelligently apply both sharpening and noise reduction, and do so with auto focus in a package that weighs less than your Zeiss Prime. I AC for an Alexa Mini LF shooter, and it's interested to see just how far divergent evolution has got in this regard.…

I think "AC" here is a verbification of "assistant camera" [1], a role in professional (movie) photography.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_puller#:~:text=A%20foc....

Re: Why can’t you buy a good webcam?

#523

Post by dekhn »

justincormack wrote: post #488
dekhn wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thorlabs cameras, and scientific cameras in general, have very different response functions. useful if you want to make quantitative measurements, accurately represent a B&W scene, etc. I use a BlackFly (FLIR) camera on my scope, but have been looking to do something similar to you, since the camera API is not V4L2, but rather a custom framegrabber SDK.

Yeah I have one of these, the picture is nice with good lighting (I have a black and white one, with an antique 16mm film camera lens). Going to write a OBS plugin for it when I have time.

I'd be curious about this. I think what would make sense is to write a V4L2 driver for it, then any app that uses V4L2 could use it (on Linux). Or, is it far easier to write an OBS plugin than a driver?

Re: Why can’t you buy a good webcam?

#524

Post by dekhn »

ramraj07 wrote: post #452
dekhn wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently I'm playing with this: https://github.com/bionanoimaging/UC2-GIT which does a lot of that (mainly for educational purposes- I think most scientists should focus on getting grant money to buy professional equipment).

That's a candidate for sure, my efforts slightly predate the 3d printed microscope revolution slightly, and I had to MacGyver my way to prove I can image cell cultures long-term without spending 2-300k (since I was doing wild goose chase hypotheses) and hence this solution. Are you playing with it in a garage or in an academic / industrial setting? I'm not yet ready to start but my goal is to try and set up an actual…

Garage. The goal is to build a prototype which could then be scaled to a warehouse-sized robotic biological experimental system. But, I have also worked with such things in commercial settings.

I'd say that for most real scientists, it makes more sense to raise the funding to buy a professional scope because a lot of the dumbness is engineered out so scientists can just sit down and be productive.

Re: Why can’t you buy a good webcam?

#525

Post by ancientworldnow »

dbspin wrote: post #463
atoav wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked as a freelance DOP and worked with cameras + lenses that coat more than a decent car. And while there is certainly room for improvement with typical webcams: the problem is in many cases not the camera, but the conditions under which it operates. Low light, shooting against the light, smeared laptop lenses, weird angles (not eye level), weird perspective framing, bad combination of light and framerates, mixe…

Freelance videographer and cam-op here. Your Arri experience is skewing your perspective. Any recent highly regarded DSLR will be significantly better in low light, intelligently apply both sharpening and noise reduction, and do so with auto focus in a package that weighs less than your Zeiss Prime. I AC for an Alexa Mini LF shooter, and it's interested to see just how far divergent evolution has got in this regard.…

I'm a colorist and have to clean up footage from everything from cellphones (a lot recently with the pandemic), gopros, and dslrs to alexas, phantoms, 35mm, and even IMAX footage. Trust me when I say that I've seen it all.

Short answer is you're wrong, even the latest dslrs are miles and miles from those high end solution in nearly all scenarios (discounting ultra ISO lightless shooting that no one does for anything beyond Vimeo demo reels). DSLR footage looks similar to the untrained eye but falls apart in even moderately difficult situations even when shot with off camera recorders costing thousands to clean video videos, which invalidates your point anyway.

The same is true for the mid tier solutions like blackmagic pocket or ursa. I can get the footage to cut seamlessly with an Alexa, but it's much more work to make it look good and has deal breaker technical issues in many more pressing scenarios.

Re: Why can’t you buy a good webcam?

#526

Post by reaperducer »

atoav wrote: post #396
sambroner wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just not sure I buy this... The number of people willing to pay significant money for a high end webcam was very small. Now my parents and their friends are talking about better lighting and camera angles. It seems like this industry is unusually ripe for a "better webcam" that "just works"

I worked as a freelance DOP and worked with cameras + lenses that coat more than a decent car. And while there is certainly room for improvement with typical webcams: the problem is in many cases not the camera, but the conditions under which it operates. Low light, shooting against the light, smeared laptop lenses, weird angles (not eye level), weird perspective framing, bad combination of light and framerates, mixe…

Making a good looking image that feels natural is work, and while the camera is an important cog in the machine, it alone won't do wonders.

A agree with your observations. Is photography 101: you need good light and clean gear.

I was one of 16 people on a videoconference yesterday. We all have the same MacBook Pros, so all the same cameras. Some people looked awesome. Some people looked awful.

Re: Why can’t you buy a good webcam?

#527

Post by pbronez »

atoav wrote: post #396
sambroner wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just not sure I buy this... The number of people willing to pay significant money for a high end webcam was very small. Now my parents and their friends are talking about better lighting and camera angles. It seems like this industry is unusually ripe for a "better webcam" that "just works"

I worked as a freelance DOP and worked with cameras + lenses that coat more than a decent car. And while there is certainly room for improvement with typical webcams: the problem is in many cases not the camera, but the conditions under which it operates. Low light, shooting against the light, smeared laptop lenses, weird angles (not eye level), weird perspective framing, bad combination of light and framerates, mixe…

Interesting point - it’s a very similar situation for audio. Most people are fine with very low quality headphones or speakers. You can get a major improvement with desktop powered monitors that cost $50-$200. You can spend much more for higher quality speakers, but they’ll be limited by the acoustic environment. You really have to put more effort into wall treatments, seating position, and speaker placement before further improvements in the electronic signal chain will be noticeable.

Re: Why can’t you buy a good webcam?

#529

Post by lumost »

thayne wrote: post #521
simonh wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is laptop lids are a lot thinner than smartphones and just don't have the depth to contain a decent optic. Apple have tried to mitigate this a bit in the new M1 machines using some computational photography to improve the image. The Surface machines from Microsoft actually stand out in this regard. Because the brains of the machine are in the same section as the screen and camera, they are a lot thicker a…

But why can't I buy an external webcam, where that isn't an issue, with the same quality as a smartphone camera?

The market for dedicated external webcams is a little sparse because most people don't want to have more peripherals.

There's probably a good opportunity for home office external displays to incorporate smartphone cameras, studio mikes, and maybe even lighting elements to help people look good while working from home.

Re: Why can’t you buy a good webcam?

#530

Post by kevincox »

jetpackjoe wrote: post #496
dhosek wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When John Gruber did his "zoom" video edition of his podcast the Talk Show (back around WWDC), the video wasn't actually zoom. They used zoom for live interaction, but everybody had an iPhone mounted above their laptop screens for the actual recorded video and audio which was composited in post-production.

I still can’t believe that Apple doesn’t make this super easy.

If they made this a feature they would be admitting that their laptop webcams aren't very good.
Post reply on HN