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

191–200 of 297 posts

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#191

Post by mikestew »

nine_k wrote: post #173
mikestew wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's the "USB audio interface" part of my list. Take multiple inputs, do some processing onboard, send it down a single USB cable to the computer. It will take anywhere from 1 to 4/8/16 XLR/line/instrument inputs, with headphone out and monitoring of inputs. Here's what I use:

https://motu.com/en-us/products/m-series/m2/

It's overkill for online meetings, in that many of its features will go unused. It's a well-built box, though, with better build quality than the (cheaper) Presonus it replaced. If there's just one mic or input, and some headphone output, then something like this would be less expensive (and less to fiddle with):

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/UM2usb--behringer-u-...

That's the first single input, inexpensive audio interface I found on Sweetwater; just an example, not a recommendation.

Add to that a cheeeeaaap dynamic mic:

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/XM8500--behringer-xm...

Now, for under $100 (surely you have some wired headphone lying around) you'll sound better than 95% of everyone else in online meetings. That's why I have no recommendation or ones to avoid, because for online meetings all it has to do is what it says on the tin to be better than what you've got now, and "good enough" for online meetings. If you're into music, then we can talk about which one is better over another (and frankly, I'm not the one to ask).

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#192

Post by anthony_romeo »

ourcat wrote: post #157
justwalt wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like something Apple would never do. Though I might have said the same thing about the camera notch on the iPhone.

I've always been amazed that Apple did the camera bulge. I'm quite sure that an iPhone not being able to lay flat on a table without wobbling would have caused Steve Jobs to throw it at whoever designed it.

Well, according to this random article I didn't fully read and just now searched for to justify the rest of my sentence's unfounded speculation (https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-case-survey-2014-7?op...), the vast majority of phone users put cases around their phones, so perhaps the opinion is that the bulge is negligible at this point, and the pursuit of thinness is in part to accommodate users with cases.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#193

Post by samatman »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #176
redisman wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

More than ugly, it would fill up with lint and gunk and prevent closing the laptop, perhaps even damaging the screen if the user applied force.

It's a non-starter I'm afraid.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#194

Post by u678u »

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.…

I always thought a headset is better than external mike as you can move around and dont get background noise. Is there a reason not to use a headset mic?

Half my team use speakerphones and it drives me nuts.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#195

Post by clairity »

warkdarrior wrote: post #170
clairity wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

an unsupported assertion is not conclusive proof. we’ve seen that people have been trying to substitute in-person meetings with video calls, but that doesn’t prove any additional utility beyond a conference call. even in educational or therapy/coaching situations, a recorded instructional video accompanied by a phone checkin likely has better outcomes than video chats.

> even in educational or therapy/coaching situations, a recorded instructional video accompanied by a phone checkin likely has better outcomes than video chats. This just screams "citation needed." Video chat is hugely useful whenever there is any kind of discussion, debate, or negotiation. With video chat you can read facial expressions, cut down on overlapping speech and interruptions, etc.

> "Video chat is hugely useful whenever there is any kind of discussion, debate, or negotiation. With video chat you can read facial expressions, cut down on overlapping speech and interruptions, etc."

this just screams "citation needed."

a planar, poorly lit, relatively low resolution video image doesn't provide enough detail to read expressions nearly as well as you can in person. it's actually much easier to misread expressions over video than just listening to voices, because we can focus much more on voice and it requires much less bandwidth to provide roughly equivalent clarity as speaking in person. long distance discussions, debates, and negotiations have happened just fine for decades without video.

as for interruptions, millions of years of social conditioning seems to suffice at allowing us to negotiate overlap adequately. besides, simple technology like a wish-to-speak signal can be employed if need be (though they're unnecessary).

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#196

Post by u678u »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #44
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.

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…

I'm coming around to the "b) quality goods sold to specialists or companies, usually severely overpriced", is actually fairly priced. It just seems expensive compared to the junk that is incredibly cheap. I used to be worried about getting ripped off I never bought good quality but now I appreciate it.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#197

Post by clairity »

scotcha1 wrote: post #95
clairity wrote: post #88

front-facing cameras (i.e., webcams) are unnecessary on a laptop, tablet, or phone. manufacturers should remove them in favor of better supporting dedicated equipment, since they'll never be 'good enough' when video quality actually matters. video calls have been part of the futurism canon for at least 100 years, but they still have little utility beyond a simple phone call (or even text messages in many cases). they…

i personally use my front facing webcam on my computer 10-20x per day (for video calls, or short quick video walkthroughs). my kids also are using their cheap school laptops front facing webcams 3-4x per day with remote school, and my wife and i frequently use facetime on our iphones to chat throughout the day. i'm not interested in add'l dedicated equipment, i'm interested in the easiest solution to perform the job…

for a walkthrough, why would i want to look at you the entire time, rather than whatever it is you're walking me through (for which a rear camera is much better positioned, with voice instructions)?

nothing else you mentioned requires video.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#198

Post by u678u »

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?

The other part is if you have a quality HD or better camera its a huge load to GPU and network which will chew your battery. Lower resolution is actually probably preferred if you could see the alternative.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#199

Post by ravenstine »

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...

Or they could at least make a webcam add-on with a superior camera, but as far as I know they don't sell anything like that. Hell, make it possible to use an iPhone as a webcam!

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#200

Post by ravenstine »

chrisweekly wrote: post #183
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…

Huh. OBS has worked well for me, incl on a 2012 mbp.

OBS is awesome software, but it drains the battery on my 2015 Macbook like nothing else.
Post reply on HN