Why webcams aren’t good enough • Hacker News Board

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#21

Post by makomk » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:55 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #2

Literally all webcam 'problems' come down to expecting your webcam to perform well in conditions that even a $5000 dSLR wouldn't do a particularly good job in. Buy a light and all of the issues from the article will magically disappear.

No, it really isn't just about lighting. Not only do even cheap smartphone cameras perform better than the best webcams in typical indoor lighting conditions, but for example the "good" webcam everyone uses - the Logitech C920 - has a dodgy autoexposure algorithm that overexposes shots if people do use enough lighting, and the manual controls are apparently really buggy. Professional streamers mostly just seem to have gotten used to working around this. (Then there's the colour accuracy and autofocus issues, which everyone just puts up with.)

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#22

Post by stonogo » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:55 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #10

jstanley wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why is it that the iPhone example looks much better than every webcam in exactly the same lighting conditions?

iPhone cameras aren't particularly great. They're good, but the thing that makes iPhone pictures really good is the iPhone's computational photography software. If webcams started including powerful CPUs, GPUs, AI chips, and OSs that can turn average pictures in to amazing pictures then webcams would be good. They'd also be quite a lot more expensive.

Except the webcam in my Macbook has a powerful CPU, GPU, AI chip, and an OS from the same company and its webcam still sucks.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#23

Post by llampx » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:55 AM UTC

I also noticed fairly early on, that phone cameras were improving by leaps and bounds, while laptop webcams and USB webcams seemed to be at a standstill, image-quality wise.

I don't know why that is, but even Apple would seemingly rather shave 50 cents off the BOM by speccing a 720p Facetime camera in their $3000 Macbook Pros, and trying to make up the difference with software, like with the new M1 Macs that have better image quality using the same 720p webcam.

For my desktop I've taken to using an action camera, since software that supports using Android phones as webcams seemed to not be so good when I looked. It plugs in via USB, is cheap, has auto-focus and supports a wider angle of view than most webcams. Good for group calls. One can always zoom in with software.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#24

Post by _flux » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:56 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #10

jstanley wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why is it that the iPhone example looks much better than every webcam in exactly the same lighting conditions?

iPhone cameras aren't particularly great. They're good, but the thing that makes iPhone pictures really good is the iPhone's computational photography software. If webcams started including powerful CPUs, GPUs, AI chips, and OSs that can turn average pictures in to amazing pictures then webcams would be good. They'd also be quite a lot more expensive.

Surely you could put all that software on the expensive PC?

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#25

Post by timvdalen » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:57 AM UTC

When I wasn't able to purchase a webcam (for a reasonable amount) at the beginning of the lockdown, I started using my Pixel 3 with DroidCam[1]. My video quality is consistently the best in all the meetings I'm in, so I can really recommend using your phone.

I stream the video over adb myself, to make sure I don't drain the battery too much and to keep everything wired.

[1]: https://www.dev47apps.com/

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#26

Post by KingOfCoders » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:58 AM UTC

I was disapointed by the quality of my Logitech c920. Because I coach people with Zoom I've switched to a Sony ZV1, which is quite expensive but has better quality (although their webcam software only supports 720p - camlink is in the mail)

My old iMacPro has the best camera of a computer I know.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#27

Post by greenimpala » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:58 AM UTC

kleiba wrote: post #17

Good enough for what ? Most of the sample pics look absolutely fine to me for every day use, i.e., online meetings.

Agree, It's all wonderful comparing quality until you jump on a call and the stream gets throttled to 480p.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#28

Post by azatris » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 10:00 AM UTC

But given that you have a 4K RED setup in your bedroom with a studio microphone, what technology actually preserves most of the quality over the video call? Let's say both participants have fibre connections and located in the same city.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#29

Post by sebmellen » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 10:00 AM UTC

If you're interested in using a mirrorless or DSLR camera you have lying around as a webcam on Linux, I recommend this article: https://www.crackedthecode.co/how-to-use-your-dslr-as-a-webc....

If you're using a Mac, this article is the best I've found, though the CamTwist Studio setup is a bit slow if you don't have a Macbook Pro with 16GB RAM or more: https://www.nicksherlock.com/2020/04/using-a-canon-dslr-as-a.... I plan on writing a more comprehensive article for Mac users in the future.

All the steps are free! No paid software or hardware needed.

I've taken to doing this, and while the setup is a bit tedious, people are always super impressed with the bokeh and all-around nice quality of my "webcam." I haven't told anyone it's really a DSLR yet.

With my camera quality, I feel like Bill Gates with his camera setup (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyFT8qXcOrM).

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#30

Post by Al-Khwarizmi » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 10:00 AM UTC

kleiba wrote: post #17

Good enough for what ? Most of the sample pics look absolutely fine to me for every day use, i.e., online meetings.

And a few decades ago most people would say that SDTV looked absolutely fine for everything but some high-visuals movies that they would rather see in the cinema. Now, even a newscast looks crap in SDTV.

I think if webcams look absolutely fine to you for online meetings it's probably because you have become used to the crappiness. People don't typically show notebooks or pieces of paper in online meetings, because the cameras are crap, and they know they will create an awkward moment trying to focus on the notes and probably failing. For the same reason, people often won't use a whiteboard in an online meeting, etc. These would be totally normal things to do if we had decent webcams.