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

311–320 of 499 posts

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#311

Post by jamescun »

jrodthree24 wrote: post #304
jamescun wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+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.

Are you actually using the webcam microphone? And does it normally work well for you?

Yes, works fine. I'm not sure what it's optimal audio pickup area is, but perched atop my screen ~50cm away from my mouth, I have no issues.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#312

Post by stingraycharles »

bradlys wrote: post #305

I hate to say this but it’s almost entirely not worth it. The image quality only shows up here because they’re uploading images that they took from the camera locally. Trying doing it with Zoom. The compression is absolutely terrible. You’re gonna find that you spent a lot of time and money only to see a decent quality image on your side . Everyone else is gonna see the same muddy mess that they always saw. The image…

Is this true? I know that Zoom can stream in HD, I can’t imagine the extra detail getting lost in those resolutions?

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#313

Post by ricopags »

gernb wrote: post #102
callumprentice wrote: post #79

The quality aspect is obviously important but I'd suggest that the location of the lens is also vital if you don't want to have meetings where everyone seems to be not looking at you. I cannot wait until cameras work behind the screen and can be positioned right in the center but for now, the only option I found was something called Center Cam that mounts a small lense on a skinny support that can be positioned over…

As someone that puts a cover on their camera since I am in various states of compromise in front of it I'm not looking forward to a camera I can not cover.

I imagine a hardware switch on the back of the monitor would still be possible [and, indeed, necessary]

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#314

Post by martin8412 »

munificent wrote: post #182
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…

I've got a very nice mirrorless camera and glass and eventually came to the same conclusion: It's just not worth the hassle even for the improvement in image quality. However, I have found that it's absolutely worth it to upgrade to a better microphone . Just about anything is better than the mic built into most computers and better voice quality will give you more presence and make it significantly more enjoyable fo…

I use a Shure SM58 for voice chats. It works great. I have less trouble with my USB XLR interface than the people using Bluetooth

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#315

Post by manmal »

almog wrote: post #273

If you are going that route (I have), keep in mind that streaming from your mirrorless/DSLR HDMI port usually means h.264 live encoding, which might not work smoothly with older machine, there are very few HDMI to USB capture cards that perform the encoding. Since I'm still mostly using my old Macbook (late 2014) and a Sony A7II + (Sony FE 55mm f/1.8), I soon realized that with a basic USB capture device (a UVC devic…

The Magewell capture card costs almost 300 bucks, finding it for 80 is quite lucky I‘d say. I‘ve just seen it for €260 in used condition where I live.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#316

Post by bradlys »

stingraycharles wrote: post #312
bradlys wrote: post #305

I hate to say this but it’s almost entirely not worth it. The image quality only shows up here because they’re uploading images that they took from the camera locally. Trying doing it with Zoom. The compression is absolutely terrible. You’re gonna find that you spent a lot of time and money only to see a decent quality image on your side . Everyone else is gonna see the same muddy mess that they always saw. The image…

Is this true? I know that Zoom can stream in HD, I can’t imagine the extra detail getting lost in those resolutions?

Bandwidth requirements for Group HD video

Standard HD (720p)

- 1-on-1 video calls: 1.2Mbps (up/down)

- Group video calls: 2.6Mbps / 1.8Mbps (up/down)

Full HD (1080p)

- 1:1 video calls:

-- Receiving 1080p HD video requires a minimum of 3.0Mbps.

-- Sending 1080p video requires a minimum of 3.8Mbps.

Group video calls:

- Receiving 1080p HD video requires a minimum of 3.0Mbps.

- Sending 1080p video requires a minimum of 3.8Mbps.

https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/207347086-Using-Gr...

I know it says "minimum" there but it's likely going around that rate most of the time or lower. I've worked in environments where they pay tens of thousands of dollars per room to set them up with professional cameras, high end plans, etc. Compression ruins it all. May as well be a $10 webcam. There are other requirements as to how you interact with other members. You won't even get high quality unless you full screen + make it to where you can only see one member at a time.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#317

Post by outworlder »

npteljes wrote: post #209
lumost wrote: post #171

Why can’t laptops just get smartphone cameras? Is the BOM impact of a phone camera from 2018 really that high?

Because the sauce is not in the camera, but in the software. I recommend the following article, if not even for reading, just to appreciate how much processing magic is going on: https://vas3k.com/blog/computational_photography/

That can't be... the full picture.

Laptops have a decent amount of compute power available.

If you look at laptop webcams, they are much smaller(and thinner) and have way crappier optics than an iphone camera. And nowhere near the same amount of optics.

Look at this ancient iPhone 6 exploded camera view. Does it look like it's even close to laptop webcams? Let's not even go into the "huge" (in smartphone terms) lenses modern phones have.

https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/iPhone-2...

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#318

Post by ajsnigrutin »

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.

We've had a few video meetings at the beginning of this whole plage situation, but after a few weeks, cameras were left turned on just for the initial "hi!"s and "hello!"s, and after that, everyone turned their camera off, because everyboy was watching the shared screen, and probably because noone was wearing pants anymore. Now, we don't even turn them on in the first place.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#319

Post by tgtweak »

Just a note - I had a Nokia D90 dslr that would overheat if left in video mode for too long (over 5 minutes). Check for any "max video recording length" mentions on the camera's spec sheet as a early sign that this might be the case.

A "yesteryear" smartphone that is collecting dust is also an excellent alternative, as they have surprisingly high quality cameras and lenses (on the rear side, anyway). I use a cracked-screen-not-worth-repairing Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (about 5 years old now) placed in an amazon ring light (that conveniently has a phone-sized clamp-style mount in the middle). There is an android app that turns the phone into a network-accessible webcam, and a windows app to receive it and map it as a system camera input.

Quality (resolution, field-of-view, focus and light levels even with very bright background) is miles ahead of my logitech brio 4k webcam - to the point I resold the brio after only a few days. I can actually stream in 2160p from the device at a pretty respectable framerate.

Probably not on par with a modern DSLR but for something that most people I think have laying around - highly worth trying first.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#320

Post by tjpd »

bradlys wrote: post #305

I hate to say this but it’s almost entirely not worth it. The image quality only shows up here because they’re uploading images that they took from the camera locally. Trying doing it with Zoom. The compression is absolutely terrible. You’re gonna find that you spent a lot of time and money only to see a decent quality image on your side . Everyone else is gonna see the same muddy mess that they always saw. The image…

Respectfully, I have to disagree. I have a similar setup to the one in the article (Sony A6400 + Simga 30mm f1.4) and the difference in image quality is dramatic _even over Zoom_. It is such an improvement that, in my experience, almost every first meeting that I have with someone over Zoom the other participant will remark on how good my picture is. The perception of "quality" has little to do with resolution issues or compression artifacts and far more to do with good framing/focal length, focus depth and bokeh all of which a good camera setup has in spades and all of which webcams lack.
Post reply on HN