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

141–150 of 297 posts

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#141

Post by sethhochberg »

snegu wrote: post #130
post_break wrote: post #115

The software in windows is terrible for logitech. On mac there are third party software that lets you adjust literally everything. And doing so I can make the C920 look just as good as my iPhone especially in good lightning.

Can you share the third-party software you are using? I hate my C920 right now. I'm already pale, and it makes me look on the edge of death in every call.

Would also love to know, I use a C920 and the white balance is terrible even compared to my (worse in most other ways) Macbook Pro camera.

I've seen people share config software for these on Windows but haven't seen anything that looks decent for Mac use.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#142

Post by tibbon »

Here's what really bugs me. It's clear Apple has good cameras, excellent even. And small.

Yet, the camera in my $2000 Macbook Pro? Remarkably worse than even the worse external webcam.

If they can throw an amazing camera in a phone, why can't they put a decent one in a laptop?

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#143

Post by stretchcat »

chrismorgan wrote: post #18
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.

I get the sense that you haven’t read the article. This article controls for lighting, showing the results of different types of cameras in different lighting conditions, and showing that even with good lighting, all of the webcams are still poor, and most are terrible. And they’re all distinctly worse than any Apple phones from the last few years (and even the front-facing camera from an Apple phone from five years…

I viewed all of the examples in the article and they all look adaquate. The worst of them is fit for purpose, unless maybe you want to stare up somebody's nose and count their boogers.

Personally, I've been thinking about how to sandblast the lens on my webcam to permanently fog it. Who would even care? I think nobody.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#144

Post by supergeek133 »

cbhl wrote: post #105
supergeek133 wrote: post #102

Also add to this that most popular Twitch streamers use a very expensive digital SLR as webcams these days to avoid many of the problems discussed here. I never gave much thought to the fact that all the old phones I have sitting around have a better camera than my logitech webcam. Interesting. I have multiple Galaxy S8s/S7s around.

NewTek NDI has both Android and iOS apps, and plugins exist to use it with the OBS Virtual Cam. They don't have the greatest open source record though (ffmpeg removed integration after they were found to be violating license terms).

Thanks for the tip!

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#146

Post by diamondo25 »

tibbon wrote: post #142

Here's what really bugs me. It's clear Apple has good cameras, excellent even. And small. Yet, the camera in my $2000 Macbook Pro? Remarkably worse than even the worse external webcam. If they can throw an amazing camera in a phone, why can't they put a decent one in a laptop?

I think because it has no room for the module. Cameras these days tend to bulge out of the case of the phone...

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#147

Post by cbozeman »

corysama wrote: post #15

Different article from a month ago “Why can’t you buy a good web cam?” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504771 Lots of points. Big one being that the market is bifurcated into: 1. People who just want the minimum as cheap as possible. 2. People willing to pay enough to buy a mirrorless photo camera and plug it in as a web cam when they need it.

> People willing to pay enough to buy a mirrorless photo camera and plug it in as a web cam when they need it.

Yeap. I feel like this is the way to go.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#148

Post by Der_Einzige »

tomc1985 wrote: post #119
Der_Einzige wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mirror less cameras aren't really overpriced. You can get a good entry level canon (M50) and a quality kit lens for 600$ Or you can get a Sony A6100 and crappier kit lens for 700$ These cameras have significant strong (e.g. aps-c sensor size) capabilities not found in anything except mirrorless and DSLR cameras. Seems not to be overpriced to me. Overpriced is like what nvidia does to the quattro cards...

I wouldn't diss kit lenses... I built my reputation as a local photographer on a Nikon D3100-and-kit-lens Costco special. I could print shots at 13x19 and they'd come out crisp as hell Hell, that DX 18-55 kit lens had, in some ways, better optics than the FX 24-120 that cost more than the entire D3100 kit

The Sony kit lens is far worse than those other lenses though. How do they get a zoom with OIS for 99$? Skimping on the optics...

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#149

Post by redisman »

diamondo25 wrote: post #146
tibbon wrote: post #142

Here's what really bugs me. It's clear Apple has good cameras, excellent even. And small. Yet, the camera in my $2000 Macbook Pro? Remarkably worse than even the worse external webcam. If they can throw an amazing camera in a phone, why can't they put a decent one in a laptop?

I think because it has no room for the module. Cameras these days tend to bulge out of the case of the phone...

Good optics need physical space that a super flat screen doesn't have (in depth). My Macbook screen is like 1/4th of the depth of my iPhone
Post reply on HN