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

121–130 of 610 posts

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#121

Post by dagmx »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #29

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…

For what it's worth, with the new macOS 13 and iOS 16 releases, you don't need Camo as it's built into the OS.

Of course the rest of your points still stand. The article does hinge on the user having an iPhone, and the comparison isn't entirely fair.

However I think the point of the article is to say that many people have devices on hand that will give better results than splurging on webcams which won't provide much gain

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#122

Post by ChildOfChaos »

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…

Camo now works with Safari and facetime since an update last month

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#123

Post by nickjj »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #109
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.

> What's your secret for overcoming the C920's shitty color reproduction where the auto white balance makes everything extremely blue?

You can disable all automatic settings and then you can manually configure things however you want based on your environment. The only issue is every time you reboot it tends to get reset.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#124

Post by logifail »

jrk wrote: post #117
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,…

Lighting and composition can do a lot to compensate for a weak camera, but read the post: this isn’t saying “Zoom video looks bad [potentially because of bad lighting and composition],” it’s saying “even high-end webcams are enormously worse than even old, low-end/front-facing cell phone cameras in the same conditions, and it’s not getting better.” So yes, all things being equal, better lighting helps. But this post…

> So yes, all things being equal, better lighting helps

$63 on a C920, add one window (typically ships free with your house/apartment) plus access to one truly special light source which although it's 93 million miles away you were lucky enough to get a free lifetime subscription to when you arrived on this planet.

Why spent time worrying about what a cell phone camera can achieve in poor or uneven lighting if a bog-standard webcam can do a really good job if you just fix the damned lighting?

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#125

Post by dagmx »

_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.

Humans care in general, even if they think they don't. We respond better to higher quality rendition of facial expressions.

Google search has degraded so I can't find it, but I remember a couple years ago that a study showed people subconsciously associate image quality and lighting to status. People with better lighting look richer and of higher status.

It's unfortunate, but it's unsurprising.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#126

Post by jotm »

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,…

Indeed, if people cared enough, they'd be able to get amazing results out of any hardware.

I also have a window that faces North, I use the rule of thirds to better place myself in front of the camera, I only do video calls during the day, and I have a cat that can distract people at key moments.

People always say my video looks brilliant.

I only use my Panasonic X2000 as a webcam.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#127

Post by Fnoord »

robonerd wrote: post #108
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.

I mean, if I was working from home and if I were to have to use such I'd need to use one of my kid's rooms.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#129

Post by LegitShady »

thecybernerd wrote: post #16

When will 4K HDR video conferencing or even 1080p SDR become the norm? 3 years out? 5 years?

What's the financial incentive? Everyone who needs 4k streams is making money off them, and spends money on fancier camera gear. Most people just don't need it, so there's no money to be had.

It's hard finding a 60fps 1080p webcam that has a deep in focus region to minimize focus hunting and that isn't bad image quality, and that's way more useful.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#130

Post by wwilim »

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,…

My home office faces north and I do look alright on a webcam (T470 and now some kind of Thinkbook equivalent), but the dim light all day gives me SAD. I'm on the lookout for a few 4k lumen LED panels
Post reply on HN