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

321–330 of 499 posts

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#321

Post by randomdata »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #225
nunez wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. No, he was using an HDMI capture card and trying to do things with OBS. > Startup takes me, like, 30 seconds: turn key and fill lights on, turn camera on, press hotkey to start OBS, Krisp and Zoom, turn on video. Which is all great and fine if you've got it perfected and you'…

If you don’t need a “pro” setup for the Zoom call, you don’t need video at all. Nobody cares to see your low resolution, grainy face.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#322

Post by someweirdperson »

zrail wrote: post #301
tzs wrote: post #188

We had a surprising result using a "proper" camera instead of a webcam for a task. We needed to take a picture of a particular thing every 15 seconds over a weekend. Our first though was to get a cheap webcam that has some reasonable interface to retrieve static images. Then someone remembered that the owner of the company was doing some personal projects that involved photography and he had a bunch of cameras in his…

> We then bought an under $100 Logitech webcam that ran a web server on its ethernet interface Wait hold up. Logitech webcams run web servers and have ethernet interfaces?

Maybe confused with Logilink?

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#323

Post by outworlder »

klodolph wrote: post #299
outworlder wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Thanks for the great response.

I care enough to want to upgrade my work-issued Plantronics headset. Not enough to spend $500 doing so. $250? Possibly since it's a one-time investment, as long as there's a significant upgrade that can still be perceived in low bandwidth online meetings.

One thing I would like to avoid is the 'youtuber' setup. Ideally I'd like the microphone to be able to pick up my voice without it itself being in the camera view.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#325

Post by sorenjan »

tgtweak wrote: post #319

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-…

What's the latency like?

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#326

Post by dvtrn »

mkr-hn wrote: post #283
jtvjan wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's just end the simulacra and embrace the absurd, take a video of yourself walking into the room, acting surprised that someone's on a call and awkwardly backing out of the room, if your platform supports animated backgrounds, use it.

Take anyone who notices and asks if you have a previously undisclosed twin-sibling out to dinner for being observant.

Bonus points if you wear the same clothes as your video self to really mess with someone's head

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#327

Post by coryfklein »

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…

Uhh Zoom is not going to erase the improved color balance and bokeh. Although I'll agree with you when it comes to the author's claim about fine-grained facial details being improved by the camera; those you'll almost certainly lose over Zoom compression.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#328

Post by aeturnum »

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…

I think you are mostly right, but I'd rank it like this (from best to worst combo of quality for time + cost):

1) "high end" webcam (~$200)

2) DSLR + capture card you already own

3) Any Webcam

[...]

10) Buying a DSLR and capture card only for this

You miss out on most of the benefits of a nice still camera when you use it this way - 90% of people will have less trouble and cost by just buying a better dedicated webcam. That said, some people need a nice webcam and need to produce video content - they SHOULD use this setup (or at least try it). Purpose-made webcams are "bad" as general purpose cameras but good at what they are sold to do - deliver good enough video that you expect to get murdered by compression.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#329

Post by DreamFlasher »

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…

And if you don't go that route, please make sure to turn off your camera.

From what I've seen people being late is more often a problem of the people and not the hardware.

And if after three years of remote work, you weren't capable of getting a working microphone, camera and stable internet connection, I'd con that as a people problem, too. Working meaning you can actually hear the other person and not only their fan.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#330

Post by thinkmassive »

htgb wrote: post #272
dekhn wrote: post #134

I have an alternative approach that I discovered recently while building a microscope with a webcam driven by linux. Nearly all modern cheap webcams are UVC-compatible and they work with linux. Different models expose different functionalities, but I ended up with this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07R489K8L It does 1600x1200 25FPS YUYV (as well as a wide range of other resolutions and FPS) uses the C/CS-mount lens sta…

I looked at similar cameras a while ago (Mokose brand), but never got around to it because I was unsure of the lens. Especially field of view (is it wide enough angle?), but also overall quality. I saw a sample somewhere with a dark ring along the edges of the final image. Did you have any issues with that? Do you have a rough approximation of what zoom setting you're using and what FOV it gives? I'd love to get a be…

I use a Mokose 4k USB webcam with a 5-50mm zoom lens that cost under $100 for the set.

I experimented with a huge variety of mounting options before settling on a SmallRig adjustable arm clamped to the top of my monitor mount, so it peeks over the top of my monitor, basically where a built-in webcam would be.

To me it’s the best compromise between control, quality, and price. Having physical control of zoom, focus, and exposure is amazing. Meetings start up instantly, no software to mess with.

To be fair I spent another $150ish trying various mounting options, but those are shared between the camera, mic (Rode NT-USB), and lighting. Eventually I gave up on the camera light and fixed my room lighting. A more frugal person could get a similar setup for $250 all in.

Post reply on HN