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

Why webcams aren’t good enough

reincubate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 297 posts

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#61

Post by kleiba »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #30
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 th…

Well, I still have an analog (tube) TV, so I guess I'm not with you on that one...

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#62

Post by QasimK »

My first job straight out of university was at Reincubate. I thought I'd share my experience because Reincubate is a small company - you could count us with your fingers when I joined.

It was a fun place to work with nerf guns and rubber balls to throw at each other. You learnt to keep your computer locked the "fun" way. We always went for a team lunch on Fridays - something that I've missed ever since. I enjoyed coming into work every day because of the people.

The favourite highlight of my entire career was there, back in 2015. The whole team of engineers (~6ish) worked together to figure out how to decrypt iOS 9 beta backups as Apple had changed the encryption system. Everyone contributed in some way and I delved into using a disassembler, IDA Pro, from zero prior experience armed with a textbook. It took a whole week from the beta being released, and I believe we were the first (public) company to do it.

The values of the company, as described on the website, have changed, but what they say now still matches up with my time there.

Switching to something more relevant to this article. I was looking for a webcam a couple of months ago for quite a while before it also hit me that my iPhone camera was actually damn good. Since then I've been connecting to Zoom twice (from my phone for the video, and my computer for the audio). It's not a great experience but I never really looked into the "random" apps that could create a virtual camera. Well Reincubate is not random to me and it looks like there's a beta version of Camo for Windows, so I don't really have an excuse :)

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#63

Post by vr46 »

sebmellen wrote: post #29

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...…

For the cost of a small desk tripod, £50, and Canon’s latest Webcam Utility, I was able to repurpose a 2012 DSLR (1DX) into an absolutely fantastic webcam.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#64

Post by dingaling »

josephg wrote: post #33
llampx wrote: post #23

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 bet…

> even Apple would seemingly rather shave 50 cents off the BOM by speccing a 720p Facetime camera in their $3000 Macbook Pros The reason I've heard is that the macbook display assembly simply doesn't have the depth to house a decent camera. The camera bump in phones exists for a reason - and phones are already way fatter than macbook displays. I have no idea if thats true though.

The display frame has plenty of space for a phone-type camera sensor of any resolution, it's just a flat CMOS. Even a really big phone sensor is only 8x6x3mm

A good lens is more difficult to fit in the Z-dimension but that doesn't constrain the resolution of the sensor. A small bump in the bezel and a corresponding recess in the base would allow a better design of lens.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#65

Post by nbzso »

coldtea wrote: post #12
nbzso wrote: post #8

Is it possible to tag promotional blog posts? This must be titled: Why using our software is better than buying a web cam.

If it would be possible, of all promotional posts, this would be the one that least needed such a tag. It mentions the product just one time, in passing at the end, and is several pages of well written, well researched, general observations, plus a writeup of the results of actual testing of several cameras.

Thanks for your answer. I read your response as: If well written and well researched, self promotion material is presented on HN, there is no need for the reading audience to be aware of this. Ok.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#66

Post by m463 »

coldtea wrote: post #14
m463 wrote: post #6

They're comparing apples and logitechs. I wouldn't be surprised if the iphone cameras have had a billion dollars of development invested in them. But a large portion of this is on the software/firmware side which logitech doesn't benefit from. That said, we all reap the benefits of this because phone camera hardware has been driven down in cost considerably since phones first got cameras. There just needs to be more…

> I wouldn't be surprised if the iphone cameras have had a billion dollars of development invested in them Which is neither here, nor there. There are tons of dirt cheap (often cheaper) compact cameras on the market with better quality that most webcams, and have been for years. Including equally small as webcam options. There are also tons of dirt cheap Android phones with far better camera quality in an even more c…

The article is directly comparing apple iphones against logitech webcams.

iphones benefit from: a processor that costs more than the entire webcam. A firmware and software stack with a billion dollars behind it.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#67

Post by m463 »

chrismorgan wrote: post #19
m463 wrote: post #6

They're comparing apples and logitechs. I wouldn't be surprised if the iphone cameras have had a billion dollars of development invested in them. But a large portion of this is on the software/firmware side which logitech doesn't benefit from. That said, we all reap the benefits of this because phone camera hardware has been driven down in cost considerably since phones first got cameras. There just needs to be more…

Apple still ships bad webcams on their laptops. There seems to be a big class divide between phone cameras and webcams.

Isn't the iphone camera a primary phone feature - used primarily for still photos, and secondarily for video?

I've seen apple billboards about ONLY the iphone camera, so apple is investing money in it.

Meanwhile for a laptop, people don't care (as much) if it takes 10 megapixel images and can see in the dark. Personally I would like a laptop without a camera (or with a hardware switch)

(and I've never seen a macbook billboard)

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#68

Post by dingaling »

vr46 wrote: post #63
sebmellen wrote: post #29

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...…

For the cost of a small desk tripod, £50, and Canon’s latest Webcam Utility, I was able to repurpose a 2012 DSLR (1DX) into an absolutely fantastic webcam.

A 1DX is still an outstanding camera in professional use daily, well beyond overkill for a webcam! Still commands around 1000GBP on the used market.

Any of the Canon xxD or M series from the same era would be sufficient at a fraction of the cost.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#69

Post by coldtea »

m463 wrote: post #66
coldtea wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn't be surprised if the iphone cameras have had a billion dollars of development invested in them Which is neither here, nor there. There are tons of dirt cheap (often cheaper) compact cameras on the market with better quality that most webcams, and have been for years. Including equally small as webcam options. There are also tons of dirt cheap Android phones with far better camera quality in an even more c…

The article is directly comparing apple iphones against logitech webcams. iphones benefit from: a processor that costs more than the entire webcam. A firmware and software stack with a billion dollars behind it.

>iphones benefit from: a processor that costs more than the entire webcam. A firmware and software stack with a billion dollars behind it.

Still the camera is great alone, even without "computational photography".

And similar IQ quality can be had in competing Android phones for years -- some costing the same or less than a premium $200 or $300 webcam.

Anyway you slice it or dice it, this is not a "good cameras are expensive" issue.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#70

Post by michaelt »

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.

Of course existing webcams meet expectations for online meetings - nobody expects meeting participants to use something that doesn't exist.

But if you've avoided the $15 Amazon's Choice webcams and purchased the absolute peak of what the webcam industry can produce, wouldn't you expect something better than the mediocrity shown?

What if you're someone who cares about their appearance, and the pallid, unhealthy look of the C920 would have you reaching for your makeup bag if you saw it in the mirror?

What if the pandemic has forced your dating life into zoom calls, for a first date you want to absolutely look your best, and you don't like how the Kiyo makes your forehead look shiny and really adds contrast to your receding hairline?

What if you're slightly into photography and presenting such a shitty image as the best you can do goes against your pride when you can see so much wrong with it?

Post reply on HN