Live data from Hacker News

Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

tratt.net

391–400 of 499 posts

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#391
post #301
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 he means ip camera.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 it…

Fair. I'd prefer to call it the "Johnny Carson" setup, though! Microphone placement is a massive subject by itself. The basic idea is that you make the signal loud by moving the microphone reasonably close to your voice and point it at your mouth, and simultaneously, the part that people forget, you put the microphone far away from noise sources and pointing away from them. This second part is what built-in laptop mi…

Outstanding. Thank you.

I'm almost convinced to get a real microphone(probably with a stand, for the time being). Doing some research on models now. The Johnny Carson setup may not be a big deal if most of the time the camera is off, but audio is important. And even then I might be able to keep it off frame. We'll see :)

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#393

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…

Random rant, maybe not the right place and certainly not targeted at you but: I hate nothing more than trying to accomplish productive work on a video call. Virtual meetings would work better so much better for me like this:

1. As low latency on the audio as possible, so people can lightly talk over each other like in meatspace.

2. If you really want to be able to gauge people's reactions as you're talking, or whatever reason people like to see each others faces, you get Tom Goes to the Mayor-style avatars which animate slowly (once per second?) in response to the user's movements. No need to send a full video feed over the wire.

The experience of tiled window panes with our heads floating in front of blurry living rooms and nobody looking anywhere near the same place just sucks.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#394

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 think the problem is that the people who are prone to do this are also prone to fiddle and over-complicate things. For the last 18 months, I've been using a wild-overkill mirrorless camera through an HDMI->USB adapter dongle thing (not the El Gato, it's one that uses a standard UVC driver so works with Linux with zero fuss). The adapter limits it to 1080p resolution, but that's plenty for webcam work, and all I do to use it is flip the power switch on the camera.

The advantage in my case is huge: I have a bright window to my side (and I refuse to close the curtains and work in the dark) and a white background. My c920 would expose for the average brightness level, and made me look like I was in the witness protection program. With the mirrorless, it has more dynamic range, and also I can set the exposure manually so I always look fine and the background gets a bit blown out.

I agree with people saying that better lighting (I look better when I use the Key Light as a fill light on the opposite side of the window) and a better microphone (Rode USB mic on a boom arm that I keep positioned just under what's visible in-frame -- still close enough to my mouth to get good sound without the "hey, don't forget to like and subscribe" effect) are more important, but doing a better camera is better, too.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#395

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?

If you’re in consulting this brings a lot more professionalism to the table if your video and audio are higher quality. For normal coworkers, yea probably not worth it though a good quality mic + boom will be greatly appreciated.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#396

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?

> Disagree. You still get a ton from a low res image of a person vs a static image.

Like what? Having worked from home since the time when (affordable) connections were too slow for anything but text, it's questionable if audio even brings any value. I never watch any video streams that may be present on calls. They are, while a fun novelty, useless.

> Why would my coworkers need to see the individual pores on my nose anyways?

Your coworkers wouldn't need to see you at all under normal circumstances, but if video is your product then doing it right is worthwhile. There's good reason why movies aren't filmed on first generation iPhones.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#397
It's been mentioned in this thread already but the Canon EOS webcam software is kind of cool and it allows you to use fairly high end SLR cameras as a web cam. I bought a battery adapter and tried it with a Canon 5DmIV not too long ago and it worked pretty well.

If I were doing some serious webcamming I'd probably go with something smaller and less expensive, there are whole youtube series on what best cameras to use when streaming or recording. I forget which one seemed to lead the pack. A panasonic maybe?

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#398
post #301
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?

This was sometime around 2005. I think it was Logitech, but it might have been another brand.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#400
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'…

> No, he was using an HDMI capture card and trying to do things with OBS.

There’s definitely a lot of variables and points of failure here but this isn’t my experience using an elgato cam link and a Sony camera. Granted it was a desktop so it’s quite a bit more powerful than a laptop but once setup I had no such issues with overheating or random drop outs (tested for 3-4 hrs at times).

Adjusting the mic should also not take much time, put it in front of your face.

I’m far from an expert in such setups as well so it sounds like your coworker either had bad hardware or less than optimal config.

I agree with you though, if you’re going to use this setup make sure it’s solid before you rely on it.

Post reply on HN