Using a "proper" camera as a webcam • Hacker News Board

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#361

Post by phantomread » Tue, May 17, 2022, 10:54 PM UTC

randerson wrote: post #279

phantomread wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, not enough coffee - got my DOF and FOV mixed up. In any case I find if you sit close to your camera, 35mm is a good FOV that will fit in your head and shoulders. The background blur for f/1.8 works well if you enable Servo Autofocus with Face Detect. It will momentarily get confused if you step out of the frame and back in again, but it can track a face pretty well after that.

Just checked using a camera and you're right; a person right around "conversation distance" from the camera focusing at 35mm looks pretty natural in frame for a video call. It sounds like I underestimated modern continuous autofocus. Great info from you and the sibling comments, thanks.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#362

Post by SeasonalEnnui » Tue, May 17, 2022, 10:56 PM UTC

usrn wrote: post #296

Sunspark wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess you’re shocked then. Seeing lips is essential for me, even works in poor quality streams.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#363

Post by chiefgeek » Tue, May 17, 2022, 10:59 PM UTC

Use Camo and your iPhone FTW!

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#364

Post by ihuman » Tue, May 17, 2022, 11:03 PM UTC

Graffur wrote: post #294

Unfortunately I can't use my Sony A6000 or GoPro as webcams because they need software installed and it's blocked on my work laptop

If you use an HDMI-to-USB capture card like the one linked in the article, then you don't need to install anything to use them. The adapter acts like a USB webcam, so you don't have to fiddle with any settings to use it.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#365

Post by wintermutestwin » Tue, May 17, 2022, 11:07 PM UTC

E4YomzYIN5YEBKe wrote: post #117

extinctpotato wrote: post #16

Could somebody do an ELI5 on why some phones have very good cameras but for some reason there's no standalone USB version of them?

That appears to be what the Opal C1 is doing. https://opalcamera.com/

Software is subscription! Ridiculous!

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#366

Post by SkyMarshal » Tue, May 17, 2022, 11:10 PM UTC

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 also had a tendency to drop out of long meetings when his camera overheated,

Also make sure your digital SLR or whatever expensive camera you're using as a webcam doesn't have a 30m video limit, which some do. This is one of the most recommended pieces of advice on /r/videoediting (non-professional) for new streamers.

https://www.reddit.com/r/VideoEditing/

For most people, if you want better video quality for Zoom meetings or teaching Yoga online or similar, then a relatively recent smartphone camera + better lighting and microphone is more than sufficient.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#367

Post by philjohn » Tue, May 17, 2022, 11:16 PM UTC

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 got a highish quality webcam (the Dell one with no mic, I use airpods) for this reason. It looks MUCH better than a built in webcam, not up to the level of a mirrorless camera, but not that you can really tell on a compressed stream.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#368

Post by LegitShady » Tue, May 17, 2022, 11:17 PM UTC

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?

internal meetings I don't unless there's someone new.

meetings with external contacts are always with camera.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#369

Post by papandada » Tue, May 17, 2022, 11:18 PM UTC

Lume cube edge desk light (x2). Logitech brio. Røde NT1 mic into an audio interface. Amazing for video calls, and interviews. I feel very professional.

I had the desire to get a Sony mirrorless but all the local Kijiji sellers were flaky. Saved me a couple thousand anyway. No need for it unless I was recording videos (and maybe not even then).

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#370

Post by digitallyfree » Tue, May 17, 2022, 11:19 PM UTC

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…

A decent dynamic mic handles background noise well by design, as opposed to using software to attempt to process the dirty signal coming from a tiny ECM. I can comfortably take a call on my setup while people are talking next to me and with the TV on. If you want to go further there are ENG mics which can handle even noisier environments - think an interview in the middle of Times Square.

A mixer or interface also allows you to monitor the microphone signal in your headphones or speakers. It keeps your tone and volume more consistent and you'll immediately notice if you accidentally back away from the mic (as opposed to the other side complaining they can't hear).