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

291–300 of 499 posts

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#291

Post by gammarator »

vlunkr wrote: post #143

I'd love to see stats on how many people actually still use webcams for online meetings. I rarely do, and I don't care if anyone else turns theirs on. Watching someone act like they aren't hyper-aware of what they look like on camera adds very little value to the conversation. Unless you're in sales, trying to make a good impression, or some kind of introductory meeting, who cares?

Personally I use the “turn off self view” option in Zoom, which at least reduces my own self-consciousness (and Zoom fatigue!).

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#292

Post by Sunspark »

usrn wrote: post #180
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…

Honestly the video adds pretty much nothing to a Zoom meeting. You're better off without it. Maybe it's different for managers/executives but for engineers it's more of a distraction. People built Linux over email. Having audio meetings is more than enough.

Unless one of the participants has some degree of hard-of-hearing, in which case, being able to see the other person's lip movements is really helpful.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#293

Post by tomatocracy »

klodolph wrote: post #214

For video, I think this is a waste of time and money. Audio is a different story. The quality of your audio has an impact both on the intelligibility of what you're saying and on listener's subconscious evaluations of you. Audio software and hardware is also cheaper and much, much easier to deal with than video--I've had no problems with essentially the same setup across Mac, Linux, and Windows. The cost of entry is…

A lot of cameras will list maximum time before shutting off as 29 minutes, 59 seconds. This isn't neccessarily because of overheating issues but (I think) to avoid falling on the wrong side of some tax/duty differences between camcorders and stills cameras.

As an example, on my home setup I use a Canon R5 for video calls (way overpowered for this task but I have it for stills photography). This lists maximum recording time as 29:59. However it doesn't limit the amount of time it can be switched on and outputting via HDMI and I've used it for calls of 3+ hours without any issue (with an AC battery adapter).

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#295

Post by Graffur »

vlunkr wrote: post #143

I'd love to see stats on how many people actually still use webcams for online meetings. I rarely do, and I don't care if anyone else turns theirs on. Watching someone act like they aren't hyper-aware of what they look like on camera adds very little value to the conversation. Unless you're in sales, trying to make a good impression, or some kind of introductory meeting, who cares?

Some work environments really encourage them. I work in teams that always use them and in other teams that never use them. I don't think they add anything to conversations at all.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#296

Post by usrn »

Sunspark wrote: post #292
usrn wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly the video adds pretty much nothing to a Zoom meeting. You're better off without it. Maybe it's different for managers/executives but for engineers it's more of a distraction. People built Linux over email. Having audio meetings is more than enough.

Unless one of the participants has some degree of hard-of-hearing, in which case, being able to see the other person's lip movements is really helpful.

I'd be shocked if that really came through with the jitter/compression/etc. IMO Email is king for accessibility, I wish people didn't hate on it so much.

Lots of these tools do real time closed-caption now anyway.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#298

Post by kirse »

saturn5k wrote: post #43

Maybe it's a bit overkill, but I use a Fuji X-T4 + Fuji 10-24mm lens as a webcam. At around $2500 definitely not cheap but it gets the job done magnificently. Additionally, the Fuji X Webcam software allows me to switch between Fuji's film simulations, adjust color temperature and exposure on the fly. The cam is mounted on a Manfrotto ballhead tripod behind my monitor.

How do you deal with the 60-min video shutoff during important mtgs, streaming, etc?

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#299

Post by klodolph »

outworlder wrote: post #255
klodolph wrote: post #214

For video, I think this is a waste of time and money. Audio is a different story. The quality of your audio has an impact both on the intelligibility of what you're saying and on listener's subconscious evaluations of you. Audio software and hardware is also cheaper and much, much easier to deal with than video--I've had no problems with essentially the same setup across Mac, Linux, and Windows. The cost of entry is…

> The cost of entry is somewhere around $50-$100 for USB microphones, although if you're willing to spend closer to $250, you can get a decent USB audio interface ($120) + standard (XLR) microphone ($100) + XLR cable ($10) + stand or boom arm ($20). Is a XLR microphone worth the cost increase - for meetings, not streaming(or youtube creation)?

> Is a XLR microphone worth the cost increase - for meetings, not streaming(or youtube creation)?

I'm not sure how to quantify it, and I've not used USB microphones. By the time USB microphones appeared on the market, I already had microphones and there was no reason to downgrade.

My point of reference is the Shure SM57 / SM58 (which are very similar). The SM57/SM58 is dirt cheap at $100, extremely reliable, and has a very good sound to it. The "sound" of the microphone is largely created by the construction of the capsule and the construction of the microphone body. When you listen to a recording, you're hearing not only the sound, but also the resonances of the microphone capsule and body. My experience is that as you explore cheaper options below $100, you see microphones with much cheaper construction and noticeable resonance problems. I am extremely skeptical of USB microphones that are radically cheaper--up to 80% less expensive--than the most basic, inexpensive USB interface + microphone combo I could come up with.

For this reason, when I give advice to people who want to make music using a microphone, I recommend that they start with the $250 (total budget) USB interface and SM57/SM57. If $250 is out of their budget, then they should just save up until they can afford it.

So I will tell you that I am not happy with the quality of microphones in general under $100, or the quality of condenser microphones under $200-$300. I'll also tell you that the main thing I've been using Zoom for in the past couple years has been remote vocal lessons, so my needs are different from yours.

I would also caution you that there is an enormous amount of misinformation and bad advice about microphones online. People forget about acoustic treatment (super important), recommend that someone starting out get the SM7b (awful choice for first microphone), or tell you that condenser microphones are more sensitive to background noise and poorly treated rooms (just plain false--this one makes no sense at all).

So is it worth it? Don't know--how much money can you play around with, and how much do you care about audio quality?

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#300

Post by __mharrison__ »

nunez wrote: post #173
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…

He was probably using software, like Canon's Webcam Utility, to stream his camera's HDMI OUT to his computer instead of using a capture card. He likely did this because of his camera not having "clean" HDMI output (i.e. you'd see icons if he were to capture what was on his camera's screen). Software like this is extremely unreliable by comparison and consumes CPU cycles like crazy, both on the camera and on your comp…

I'm using a Canon M50 just with the webcam software. (I don't think it has clean HDMI out so capture card won't help with this camera.)

I've since started recording some of my courses directly from OBS. [0] The framerate probably suffers, but I've never had thermal/overheating issues.

0 - https://store.metasnake.com/view/courses/a1a19c9e-af18-4615-...

Post reply on HN