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

171–180 of 297 posts

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#171

Post by CodesInChaos »

masklinn wrote: post #163
mfkp wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people don't mind a bulge in their phone, I doubt they'd mind a camera bulge sticking out the back of their laptop.

> I doubt they'd mind a camera bulge sticking out the back of their laptop. A bulge at the back of the laptop would be way more problematic e.g. way more likely to catch on bags, or otherwise be damaged. What I doubt most people would mind is the screen side being slightly thicker.

Or have a bulge on the front side of the screen and a corresponding mound on the keyboard side. While it conflicts with the touchpad, it could still be a worthwhile tradeoff.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#172

Post by gingerlime »

krrrh wrote: post #93

I spend a lot of time on video calls every day, and wanted to take advantage of my iPhone camera. I had tried Epoccam and it was buggy, and broke between releases of Zoom or didn’t work in Slack calls. Screwing around with OBS was time consuming and pinned my fans. Reincubate Camo has been a pleasure to use over the last 3 months, and has never let me down. Having good image quality on video calls is on par with wear…

Yeah, Camo is probably the best out there at the moment.

But... (there's always a but)

1. they had a bug with Mojave which made it disconnect, especially with Zoom calls with many people (I imagine CPU issue?)

2. There's no way to control / switch off the camera from the app. The phone is still on with the app open and camera is working

3. I've got a nice holder, and used a dedicated older phone, but still it was a hassle, because you want to use the back facing camera -- to avoid seeing yourself. And then starting the app is effectively "behind" the camera. It's awkward.

4. They charge a yearly subscription fee. I can understand why, but in the long run I'm not sure it works out in their customer's favour financially.

I eventually gave up and got a Logitech Brio. So far I'm pretty happy.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#173

Post by nine_k »

mikestew wrote: post #132
guenthert wrote: post #111

Hmmh, I couldn't care less about webcams. I'm not that pretty and not all that eager to share the interior of my dwelling. I do however care about sound quality. With my accent and mumbling I need all the help I can get. Others reported that the camera in their phone beats most webcams, but what about the microphone(-array)? The sound quality of phablets hasn't quite won me over. Is there anything better available, s…

I'm an amateur musician with a USB audio interface, several hundred dollars worth of microphones (though for office work, it's just the Shure SM27 condenser), and wired set of good headphones. And it is glorious. Until everyone got used to it, I got consistent compliments on the sound quality. You'll sound like a radio DJ. Because everything is wired, latency is minimal and a lot less of "okay, go head. No, go ahead.…

How do you connect all this to the computer? A typical PC has a single TRSS analog socket.

Do you use some USB interface that accept a separate microphone and a separate headphones jacks? If you do, any advice on what to look for and what to avoid?

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#174

Post by tomc1985 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #148
tomc1985 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That's a shame. What's wrong with optics on that? I can't imagine the 18-55 kit lens costs much more.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#175

Post by toast0 »

bluescrn wrote: post #20
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…

Even Apple was recently mocked for putting a 720p webcam in their latest 2020 MBP/MBA (while their phones sport clusters of cameras each in silly-megapixel territory)

Ugh. 720p is plenty of pixels for the use case, if the sensor is good quality. If the sensor is not good quality, more pixels won't help. Sensor size is a better first approximation of quality than pixel count.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#176

Post by TechBro8615 »

redisman wrote: post #149
diamondo25 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe the camera could protrude from the screen and fit into a hole on the bottom of the case when folded. Would be pretty ugly though.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#177

Post by variaga »

Animats wrote: post #162
TeMPOraL wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this pattern everywhere - the market bifurcating into a) race-to-the-bottom garbage products that are barely crossing the legal threshold of fit for purpose, and are essentially a huge waste of natural resources, and b) quality goods sold to specialists or companies, usually severely overpriced (to cover low volume of sales, and/or just because the market will bear it). Does it have a name in economics? Are the…

Sears. Sears' niche was in the middle. Everything was good, but not great, quality. Products were durable, came with good warranties, and "We Service What We Sell". Sears sold to the middle class, with middle prices. They went bankrupt with that model.

Sears didn't just "go bankrupt" - it was killed by CEO Eddie Lampert.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-eddie-lampert-set-sears-...

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#178

Post by nine_k »

Animats wrote: post #162
TeMPOraL wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this pattern everywhere - the market bifurcating into a) race-to-the-bottom garbage products that are barely crossing the legal threshold of fit for purpose, and are essentially a huge waste of natural resources, and b) quality goods sold to specialists or companies, usually severely overpriced (to cover low volume of sales, and/or just because the market will bear it). Does it have a name in economics? Are the…

Sears. Sears' niche was in the middle. Everything was good, but not great, quality. Products were durable, came with good warranties, and "We Service What We Sell". Sears sold to the middle class, with middle prices. They went bankrupt with that model.

Maybe it's because the middle class itself is vanishing.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#179

Post by Sunspark »

stretchcat wrote: post #143
chrismorgan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just buy some sandpaper and rub it over the lens. You can get sandpaper in different grit fineness.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#180

Post by mixmastamyk »

variaga wrote: post #177
Animats wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sears. Sears' niche was in the middle. Everything was good, but not great, quality. Products were durable, came with good warranties, and "We Service What We Sell". Sears sold to the middle class, with middle prices. They went bankrupt with that model.

Sears didn't just "go bankrupt" - it was killed by CEO Eddie Lampert. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-eddie-lampert-set-sears-...

    s/killed/looted/
Post reply on HN