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

351–360 of 499 posts

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#351

Post by cogman10 »

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…

Strong disagree.

Video streaming someone's work station is about as ideal as you can imagine for most codecs. There is VERY little movement, everything is consistent and stable. Change from frame to frame is ultimately what determines how good a picture looks at a given bitrate. Little change means the codecs can spend more bits on fine details.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#352

Post by almog »

manmal wrote: post #315
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.

I found it just after many of the covid restriction were lifted, which resulted in businesses, schools and even churches getting rid of streaming gear on ebay. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but I found quite a few at that were sold around that price (I just checked my ebay account and it was $75).

Just checked and the price for new one where I live (Tel Aviv) is around $450, so I guess I was lucky, at least in that sense.

Still, I do not know of any cheaper option to get 1080p video with older machines. I'm assuming that OBS on a 2022 Macbook would be able to deal with live encoding, but back in 2021 I was still seeing posts on OBS forums detailing streaming issues with M1 macs, and since most of them describe issues with streaming on Twitch, I could only assume it must be for video conferencing.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#353

Post by MoonSwell »

bradlys wrote: post #341
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lens and sensor makes the biggest difference here - paints a completely different picture due to capturing light in the way were used to seeing in tv and film.

> The lens and sensor makes the biggest difference here - paints a completely different picture due to capturing light in the way were used to seeing in tv and film. Not really true. It's often editing + lighting that really has the strongest effect. $100k cameras can take dogshit videos and photos when you don't know how to edit them properly or know how to light the shot.

Let's all just be honest with each other. It's an equal mix of everything. An appropriate lens, lighting, and post-production.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#354

Post by anonred »

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…

Sorry, but have you actually compared the two? As another point of anecdata, I immediately noticed that my new coworker was using a proper camera during our first 1:1. The depth of field and crispness really stands out from your typical MacBook Pro webcam.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#355

Post by tomxor »

spicybright wrote: post #350
randomdata wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Disagree. You still get a ton from a low res image of a person vs a static image. Same way how you get a lot from talking face to face vs talking on the phone. Why would my coworkers need to see the individual pores on my nose anyways?

Agreed.

However one thing I have noticed is mic quality matters... up to a point.

I'm not even talking mic booms and super expensive setups, the difference between some omnidirectional mic on the bottom of a laptop or the side of one of those bluetooth headphones and pretty much any headset with a mic pointed at your actual face is night and day. It doesn't need to be expensive, but it does need to be within reasonable proximity to your mouth, and preferably not over a questionably compressed bluetooth stream.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#356

Post by alx__ »

Hamcha wrote: post #75

Only tangentially related but if you already have a popular Logitech webcam (like the C920) chances are you can find a kit to mount C/CS/D-mount lenses on it, like with this one: https://www.kurokesu.com/shop/C920_REWORK_KIT2 C/CS/D mounts are for CCTV camera so you can find new and used lens for cheap. They will not fix a cheap/bad sensor, but they will definitely get you extra flexibility in what kind of framing/sh…

If I understand that correctly, it's a mount to allow you to use a normal camera lens? That are a specific screw-thread type?

Similar to how you can get mounts for phones to improve the shot options?

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#357

Post by unicornporn »

tomatocracy wrote: post #293
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 recordin…

> 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.

That's for recording to memory card, not for the HDMI feed.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#358

Post by danielodievich »

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…

My setup is: Older Nikon D71000 DSLR here with 17-55mm on wall-mount Elgato Cam 4k dongle mentioned in the article two good lights with nice diffusers to the left and right of my monitor facing the wall, for reflected light HyperX glowy red mike with physical mute, love that thing

This gear works 100% of the time, all the time, in Zoom, Google Meet, Teams, Webex, you name it.

Bootup is definitely does some things, turning on two lights, camera on/off switch, and a small button on back of it to shift to the 1080p output. But at this point it is just seconds, muscle memory.

I get a lot of compliments on quality, clearness, and the natural optical effect of out of focus blurred background.

And I definitely notice other people's poor lightning, bad quality picture, artifacting of cheapo webcams or got forbid native built in laptop cameras.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#360

Post by protomyth »

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.

Most cameras have a lens cover. Also, if you hook it to a device to hook to your computer, you can turn it off.
Post reply on HN