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

Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

tratt.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 499 posts

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#281

Post by Melatonic »

jonpurdy wrote: post #73

What I am surprised about is that nobody has made a high quality UVC camera with a large sensor and great lens, specifically for videoconferencing. Even the "good" webcams (like the Elgato FaceCam and Logi Brio) have tiny sensors with small lenses. And iPhones (with Reincubate Camo) have bigger but still relatively tiny sensors. Pair an APS-C sensor with a ~24mm f/2 lens, with no controls; just a USB connection. This…

An old phone is probably your best bet - you do not necessarily need that big of a sensor to get decent video. As long as you can provide enough light to keep the noise down and the lens (there are addon lenses for phones that are not half bad) is decent you can achieve probably what you want. The phone will have the necessary horsepower to actually process the video - I think that is probably the main issue vs a webcam

More importantly though why does most conferencing software limit us to such low resolutions? From what I remember Zoom is still max or 720P which is pretty damn terrible....

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#282

Post by NikolaNovak »

skrbjc wrote: post #174
NikolaNovak wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree 100% - This is why I eventually dropped it. I used to run a photography side gig, so I reused my full frame DSLR, nice portrait lens and lighting + cloth backdrop. But I had cables everywhere and multiple points of failure in the chain. Camera could overheat, software was wonky, something would get unplugged, and there was stress on the CPU at times too due to 3rd party apps required. Overall it just wasn't wor…

What camera did you end up with that had a narrow FOV?

Hi - I assume your question is which webcam did I use for narrow FOV - for actual camera, it's trivial to pick a lens or zoom :).

I ended up getting Logitech Brio. It's expensive for a webcam, and honestly I'm a bit peeved - I don't feel I am getting my money's worth in terms of image quality. The software is also absolutely atrocious, so I don't really use it. But it is the best compromise of image quality and FOV that I could find.

(if your question was about DOF / bokeh/ blur, no webcam will do that and so far I haven't liked any software options. I just put a black collapsible photography background behind me so nothing but me is in the photo to begin with :)

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#283

Post by mkr-hn »

jtvjan wrote: post #274
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like profile pictures?

Take a picture of your face, set it as your background in OBS, and stream that. It's much more convenient, because you only have to make sure your camera works well once, instead of for every meeting.

You could even have it change at random intervals so it looks like you're on a choppy connection.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#284

Post by jamescun »

867-5309 wrote: post #277

I picked up a new C920 a few years ago on a £30 deal (I think they go for around £50 now) and it is by far the best USB webcam for quality at this price point I'm am at a loss as to why this guy is comparing said camera to cameras in the region of £600-1300. if they could produce 20x the quality, then it might be a wothwhile comparison, but they evidently cannot the C920 has inbuilt hardware h264 encoding (for £30!)…

+1 for the C920.

Got lucky and got one before the prices of webcams went crazy due to pandemic demand. Think they are back to around ~£60 now.

It just works. Plugged it in, picked up within macOS without a problem, immediately usable in Google Meet. Picture is fine, audio is fine. No complaints.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#285

Post by NikolaNovak »

phantomread wrote: post #259
randerson wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can recommend a full-frame Canon RP ($999) with RF 35mm f1.8 lens ($449) as a relatively inexpensive narrow FOV setup. Edited to add: Meant Narrow DOF when writing this, but both are true if you sit close to it!

Amateur photographer looking to learn more here. My initial impression is that a 35mm focal length on a full-frame/35mm film equivalent sensor would have a relatively _wide_ field of view (FOV). Or do I have that backwards? My other thought is that the suggested lens can stop down to f1.8, which would give a nice narrow depth of field (DOF) and add a pleasant background blur, but it would also be harder to stay in fo…

Not the OP but the GP, FWIW:

On full frame I used 85mm 1.8 to get a a good FOV / DOF / proportions.

But it sat on a tripod 1.5 meters behind my computer and made the room a nightmare to navigate :D

35mm on FF would indeed be mildly wide (just on wide side of "normal" 50mm lens)

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#286

Post by __mharrison__ »

mrdonbrown wrote: post #56

I'm surprised no one has mentioned using a teleprompter yet. You can pick one up for around $100 and when combined with a little 7" monitor (another $100) attached to your computer, creates a nice setup for zoom calls where you can look directly at your partner. Also doubles as a great talking head setup for video production.

I got a teleprompter when Covid hit. I do a lot of training and I use it mostly for "looking into the eyes" of my students.

I have a twitter thread describing my setup. [0]

Were I to do it again, I would get a slightly larger monitor for it. I don't know if it is causation or just correlation (I'm getting old) but my eyes have gotten a bit worse in the past bit.

0 - https://twitter.com/__mharrison__/status/1515078084600348677

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#287

Post by filmgirlcw »

I’ve done this for two years with an A6400 (that is sadly discontinued and now sells for 2x the price with a kit) and a CamLink 4K, and I’m very happy with the results but for the usual web meeting, it’s overkill to spend $1100 on your setup (before lighting).

I record a lot of video in my office so it’s a different thing, but I think the new Opal camera ($300, I got one last week) is pretty great. It’s going to be my new travel camera setup.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#288

Post by jakebasile »

phantomread wrote: post #259
randerson wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can recommend a full-frame Canon RP ($999) with RF 35mm f1.8 lens ($449) as a relatively inexpensive narrow FOV setup. Edited to add: Meant Narrow DOF when writing this, but both are true if you sit close to it!

Amateur photographer looking to learn more here. My initial impression is that a 35mm focal length on a full-frame/35mm film equivalent sensor would have a relatively _wide_ field of view (FOV). Or do I have that backwards? My other thought is that the suggested lens can stop down to f1.8, which would give a nice narrow depth of field (DOF) and add a pleasant background blur, but it would also be harder to stay in fo…

Most modern cameras have the ability to do constant autofocus in video mode, to varying degrees of quality and success. Usually they will try to follow anything that looks like a human face, or at least the brightest object in the field of view.

That said, even the greatest autofocus isn't going to be able to keep up with a person who moves around a lot at f/1.8 - so it's reasonable to stop down a bit if that's the case for your subject.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#289

Post by KineticLensman »

jd3 wrote: post #230
awoodbeck wrote: post #12

Some camera manufacturers offer software that uses your mirrorless camera to emulate a webcam without requiring a capture card. For example, Fujifilm's X Webcam software[1] would allow the author to connect his X-S10 to his PC using a USB-C cable, and use it as a webcam. The downside is X Webcam lacks support for Linux. [1] https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/software/x-webcam/

It looks like Nikon supports this functionality[0] through their "Nikon Webcam Utility"[1]. Z 9, Z 7II, Z 7, Z 6II, Z 6, Z 5, Z fc, Z 50, D6, D5, D850, D810, D780, D750, D500, D7500, D7200, D5600, D5500, D5300 and D3500. I think the Z 50 (and updated, but cheaper construction Z fc) are the cheapest options here out of the mirrorless cameras. [0]: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/webcam-utility... [1]: ht…

I used this for a while with my D850. It installed okay and worked, technically. I stopped using it for video calls because it was a hassle positioning the relatively heavy DSLR on my desk during calls and because it eats cam batteries for breakfast (you need a power lead that that slots into the battery location on the camera, which I don't own).

The (free) version of the webcam utility doesn't give you full tethered photographic control of the camera, which might have made it more useful to me.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#290

Post by __mharrison__ »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #137

If you go this route, please make sure your system is robust and ready to go before meetings. We had to ask one employee to go back to his reliable built-in webcam because every other meeting started with 2 minutes of him getting his camera turned on, messing with audio inputs, getting his microphone boom in place, and fighting other quirks. He also had a tendency to drop out of long meetings when his camera overheat…

Yes, if you are using a camera for the webcam, it should probably be dedicated to it. Mine is a Canon M50, attached into a quick-release shoe into a teleprompter but even then it still two wires (USB and HDMI) and I also have to take out the AC power adapter to use the camera on its own.

I'm using mine all the time (I do corporate training and haven't done in-person since March 2020), so it sits in the mount. I also know the correct combination of rain/blow-into-the-Nintendo dances to get OBS and other software to work with it.

Post reply on HN