Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Webcams aren't good enough

reincubate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 610 posts

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#21

Post by bradknowles »

I first saw this article years ago, and I'm glad to see it has been updated with some more modern webcams.

I'm also sad to see that the state of the art in this space hasn't changed much for webcams, especially on the Mac.

I do have an older iPhone 7 that I could put to use like this, but I'm starting to become convinced that maybe I actually do need to buy a somewhat newer iPhone device with multiple lenses, and use that instead -- for the same reason that my iPhone 7 is now obsolete for personal use and has since been replaced by an iPhone 13 Pro Max.

Camo looks nice!

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#22

Post by myself248 »

lucb1e wrote: post #6
kcb wrote: post #2

Webcams are good enough for their purpose which is video conferencing and calls. In the end your video is likely going to be encoded in like 360p low bitrate. I personally prefer not being in razor sharp detail on calls anyway. Anyway this is the one I've been using. https://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Webcam-Built-Stereo-Micropho... I like the integrated shutter better than the cover thing for the c920.

Full ack on that last part. I got a new laptop from my employer a few months ago and the angle is so wide, I have trouble not having something like a drying rack or other unprofessional stuff in the background. It's still on my to-do list to look for a way to crop the image, and manual quality control would also be a welcome feature. That's not to say that I don't see the use-case for good quality. The "360p ought to…

> It's still on my to-do list to look for a way to crop the image, and manual quality control would also be a welcome feature.

OBS with virtual camera. Add the camera as a source, scale and crop to your heart's content, click 'start virtual camera', then launch your videoconferencing software and choose the virtual camera.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#23

Post by jpindar »

lucb1e wrote: post #6
kcb wrote: post #2

Webcams are good enough for their purpose which is video conferencing and calls. In the end your video is likely going to be encoded in like 360p low bitrate. I personally prefer not being in razor sharp detail on calls anyway. Anyway this is the one I've been using. https://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Webcam-Built-Stereo-Micropho... I like the integrated shutter better than the cover thing for the c920.

Full ack on that last part. I got a new laptop from my employer a few months ago and the angle is so wide, I have trouble not having something like a drying rack or other unprofessional stuff in the background. It's still on my to-do list to look for a way to crop the image, and manual quality control would also be a welcome feature. That's not to say that I don't see the use-case for good quality. The "360p ought to…

You could use OBS studio to crop the image. It takes your webcam as an input and creates a virtual cam that works with every conferencing software I've tried. (It can also use your phone camera with the aid of the DroidCam OBS app.)

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#24

Post by asojfdowgh »

So when using the barebones webcam protocol, the webcams look bad, when using custom software for the webcams or iphones, the results are much better.

Why is the conclusion that the hardware is bad, not that the method of using the hardware is bad?

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#25

Post by galad87 »

navanchauhan wrote: post #12

You can use you phone's camera as a webcam with Reincubate's Camo App. This required a wired connection iirc. You can also use OBS Studio along with a virtual camera plugin to use any device which can output directly to your computer. But most of these solutions do not work on Safari or FaceTime unless you manually modify the app. Now, Apple is going to soon introduce their "It Just Works" solution with the next rele…

Apple introduced a new API in macOS 12.3 to create Core Media IO plug-ins that run out-of-process, this kind of new plug-in works in Safari and FaceTime too (Camo already uses the new API).

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#26

Post by kyriakos »

standardUser wrote: post #3

I had a Logitech C920 that died a couple years ago and when I went to find a better replacement I ended up buying a... Logitech C920. I couldn't find anything that seemed significantly better that wasn't a lot more money. I regret the purchase, but I'm glad I didn't just spend 3 times as much on a still-not-that-great webcam. I was thinking of finding a second-hand digital camera on eBay, but maybe instead I'll see i…

Get a cheap used android phone and use the back camera as a webcam. Many times better than any webcam that doesn't cost a fortune.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#27

Post by nextos »

pintxo wrote: post #15

As I had a Canon DSLR lying around during Covid, I have repurposed it to a webcam using Canons webcam driver: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/se... Image quality is top notch and the ability to Zoom in/out using the zoom lense is nice. You also get some nice background blur, depending on your used lens. For power there are modified "batteries" allowing to plug the camera into AC for power.

Would it not overheat after some time?

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#28

Post by draw_down »

nextos wrote: post #27
pintxo wrote: post #15

As I had a Canon DSLR lying around during Covid, I have repurposed it to a webcam using Canons webcam driver: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/se... Image quality is top notch and the ability to Zoom in/out using the zoom lense is nice. You also get some nice background blur, depending on your used lens. For power there are modified "batteries" allowing to plug the camera into AC for power.

Would it not overheat after some time?

Yes, that is only one of the hassles with this approach. When it works it does look great however.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#29

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

This made me laugh.

> Using an iPhone as a webcam is easily the best option without dropping an excess of $1,000 for professional camera gear. Using the iPhone you already own, or a recent hand-me-down, a moderate investment in lighting, and Reincubate Camo, you can get excellent results and none of the frustration and hassle that accompanies standalone webcams.

I don't have an iPhone. So if I want to buy one that is better than any of the webcams reviewed, I'm spending a couple hundred bucks at least. Then I need to spend $50/year or so on their Camo software.

For a couple hundred bucks I can get a used Sony Alpha, OBS is free. And arguably with effort I can make the Sony look much better.

This is a stretch, of course. The average person isn't going to fuck around with OBS.

Let's think of it another way. For twice as good. I have some colleagues who use Camo, happily, but as a viewer in a Zoom meeting, I don't care. They're usually the size of a postage stamp on my screen. Most folks can't even upload full resolution streams of their cheap webcams in real-time.

Camo is cool, it's great that you can use your phone as a webcam, I love it, but "Why $90 webcams aren't as good as a $1000+ iPhone" would be a better title.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#30

Post by ketzo »

feet wrote: post #19
navanchauhan wrote: post #12

You can use you phone's camera as a webcam with Reincubate's Camo App. This required a wired connection iirc. You can also use OBS Studio along with a virtual camera plugin to use any device which can output directly to your computer. But most of these solutions do not work on Safari or FaceTime unless you manually modify the app. Now, Apple is going to soon introduce their "It Just Works" solution with the next rele…

Great, because I never want to use my phone while in a meeting What the actual fuck are they thinking just use a decent cam in the laptop But yea, mic audio is always trash too

> just use a decent cam in the laptop

I mean, phone cameras will literally always be better than laptop cameras. They're just a lot bigger.

Edit: I should clarify this a little. From my understanding, camera quality is pretty overwhelmingly limited by lens quality. Better lenses require a thicker / deeper camera housing, which is hard to stuff into the top lid of a laptop. Phones are "always" (although that might not be true forever!) going to have more space for bigger and better lenses.

Post reply on HN