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

101–110 of 610 posts

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#101

Post by davidmurdoch »

dewey wrote: post #85
feet wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay? So change it? Are the gods of thin devices stopping engineers from doing something different?

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that it's not a "just" drop-in replacement that you can do from one day to the next. Don't you think they would've done that instead of engineering some ugly phone holder solution for the new Continuity camera?

Apple is always searching for ways to get consumers to buy more of their hardware, so this does seem like a great way of entrenching users a little bit more.

What I didn't think about in my original comment is that their new solution makes use of two of the phones cameras (face view and the keyboard view)... I'm not sure consumers would be okay with THAT much hardware real estate being taken up by the addition of a wide angle lens (which is a really cool feature, albeit a bit is a gimmick for most). Though I'm sure Apple marketing could still make it generally desirable if they wanted to.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#102

Post by traviswt »

_boffin_ wrote: post #46

Here's a question: why do people care so much about what they look like or how the camera displays them? Personally, I care more about the content being delivered than what someone (including the scene) looks like.

I can’t speak for everyone obviously, but for me, lower quality setups are distracting and make it hard to focus on the material. Good setups “disappear” and let the content shine.

I think we only notice quality setup on video calls now because that one person that cares stands out.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#103

Post by tapland »

I used to be able to set the exposure manually on my webcams in windows (more granular than the 7 levels I'm offered now). That option just disappeared a few content updates ago on win 10, so now I can't even fix my own lighting. I think it was mjpg support that was just removed?

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#104

Post by moralestapia »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #92
logifail wrote: post #48

There is a reason that for hundreds of years painters and (later) photographers have preferred working in spaces with North-facing windows[0], and that is because it's a simple way of ensuring neutral, even light. My home office is (by design) in a room with one North-facing window. I use a Logitech C920. Many people have told me how good my webcam feed is. I don't think it's that the C920 is particularly brilliant,…

It blows people’s minds how much a few good practice suggestions change their image. I come from a film background and get requests for help by colleagues and friends constantly. I almost always just reposition their camera and move a lamp nearby to use as a key if they have no window, or as a kicker if they do. It’s really easy to teach yourself this stuff, it’s not magic. Most people just assume their gear is eithe…

Care to share some quick tips?

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#106

Post by masklinn »

davidmurdoch wrote: post #88
jacquesm wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laptop screens are much thinner than phones are thick so a phone actually has more space for the camera in the dimension that is most restricted.

Phones have camera bumps. And screens could be thicker where needed.

> Phones have camera bumps.

And that’s pretty annoying, a computer lid bump would snag into everything.

> And screens could be thicker where needed.

My phone’s thrice the thickness of my laptop’s lid.

This would increase the laptop’s thickness by a lot, and mostly by voids.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#107

Post by feet »

Jcowell wrote: post #99
feet wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I think he means in order to fit a camera you need to increase the thickness of the laptops lid. Whether or not this leads to double the weight , idk but there is definitely a weight increase to fit the camera.

If they did mean it that way it still doesn't make sense to me. Where is the extra mass coming from? Are they just thickening the whole lid and fill it with solid lead? Mass comes from matter, if there isn't matter than there isn't mass. Adding a tiny camera, even if they did have to increase thickness a tiny bit of the entire lid it still wouldn't even come close to doubling the mass of the whole thing on an aluminum body laptop

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#108

Post by robonerd »

logifail wrote: post #48

There is a reason that for hundreds of years painters and (later) photographers have preferred working in spaces with North-facing windows[0], and that is because it's a simple way of ensuring neutral, even light. My home office is (by design) in a room with one North-facing window. I use a Logitech C920. Many people have told me how good my webcam feed is. I don't think it's that the C920 is particularly brilliant,…

I prefer to sit with my back facing a southern window. Washing out my webcam is my little petty protest against the use of video chat.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#109

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

logifail wrote: post #48

There is a reason that for hundreds of years painters and (later) photographers have preferred working in spaces with North-facing windows[0], and that is because it's a simple way of ensuring neutral, even light. My home office is (by design) in a room with one North-facing window. I use a Logitech C920. Many people have told me how good my webcam feed is. I don't think it's that the C920 is particularly brilliant,…

> I use a Logitech C920. Many people have told me how good my webcam feed is.

What's your secret for overcoming the C920's shitty color reproduction where the auto white balance makes everything extremely blue? I hate mine and am thinking about returning it as defective.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#110

Post by Forgeties79 »

moralestapia wrote: post #104
Forgeties79 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It blows people’s minds how much a few good practice suggestions change their image. I come from a film background and get requests for help by colleagues and friends constantly. I almost always just reposition their camera and move a lamp nearby to use as a key if they have no window, or as a kicker if they do. It’s really easy to teach yourself this stuff, it’s not magic. Most people just assume their gear is eithe…

Care to share some quick tips?

Sure!

1) Avoid fluorescent lighting like the plague. You’ll look sickly.

2) Find a nice warm (tungsten/more orange) lamp if your lighting is inadequate. It can be small it doesn’t matter. Place it diagonally from you at eye level.

3) Camera at eye level.

4) If you want to get fancy, get another lamp higher above you (several feet) and place it opposite your main lamp for a backlight. So if your main light is front right, this one is back left. It needs to be weaker than your main light source. This is called an “edge” or a backlight. It gives your hair a soft glow up top that separates you from the background.

Post reply on HN