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

251–260 of 610 posts

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#251

Post by nojito »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #169
nojito wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simple math. To hold the camera housing of an iPhone camera the thickness has to go up which means the entire top lid needs to become thicker. This will easily double the weight of the laptop.

Only if that means using twice as much metal - I would expect instead it'd mean adding a thin strip of metal around the circumference of the lid. That would add a few grams, I'm sure, but hardly doubling.

Nope. They need to ensure the same rigidity across the entire lid.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#252

Post by onetokeoverthe »

logifail wrote: post #124
jrk wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

No post body was provided.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#253

Post by goosedragons »

andrepew wrote: post #210
chrisweekly wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the business model / viability of dedicated webcams. Software like Elgato Epoccam or OBS is free or cheap, and the % of people who would benefit from a decent webcam and who don't own a modern smartphone is literally 0.

People who have video calls throughout the day constantly. I don't want to have to mess around setting up my phone on a stand and getting it connected every time I need to do a meeting.

Buy an actual camera and use that instead? Basically every camera that has video out is pretty easy to get working as a webcam these days.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#254

Post by masklinn »

jacquesm wrote: post #231
masklinn wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They naturally are because there's just not much there, it's just an LCD. Making them thicker means you're making them heavier and less rigid and full of nothing for 99% of their volume, making the entire laptop less wieldy (as it gets much thicker). It also means the hinge can't go as far back as the lid is now in the way (forget laptops which sit open flush). Or you have to design a completely novel (and much more…

Hm. Interesting: you could put the battery in the screen making it quite a bit thicker, and then have the base thinner, that would change the balance though and it might not be as stable when sitting open on a desk. It'd be great to have a 20 hour life laptop though.

> that would change the balance though and it might not be as stable when sitting open on a desk

Iirc that was one of the SB’s issues which the hinge had to manage.

And things would probably be worse for a lid filled with battery.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#255

Post by na85 »

chrisweekly wrote: post #203
rlei wrote: post #171

I'm the cofounder at Lumina - we're building a modern webcam designed to solve some of these problems. There's really been a lack of innovation in the entire home office space, with the webcam being particularly bad. It sucks that a decade-old product (Logitech C920) is still the bestselling product today -- that would be like if Apple stopped releasing new phones after the iPhone 4S (launched 2012), and it remained…

I don't understand the business model / viability of dedicated webcams. Software like Elgato Epoccam or OBS is free or cheap, and the % of people who would benefit from a decent webcam and who don't own a modern smartphone is literally 0.

>literally 0

Well it's at least 1 because I bought a "decent webcam" and while I own a smartphone I don't want to use that for long zoom meetings.

I bought one of those Instagram influencer light rings so I actually look normal on camera instead of like a corpse, and the camera lives on top of my USB C monitor.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#256

Post by oittaa »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #145

Lighting and audio are more important than raw image quality. Getting an expensive camera to send heavily compressed 320p low bandwidth video doesn’t really improve a whole lot. Honestly the #1 improvement most people need to work on is speaking clearly and loud enough. #2 would be having literally any light source in front of them rather than being purely backlit.

> Lighting and audio are more important than raw image quality.

Exactly! A decent USB microphone costs something like $100 and will improve your calls more than anything. I can tolerate if your image is a bit dark and blurry, but it's super hard to pay attention if you sound like you're calling from a two square metre tiled bathroom through a 1950s telephone system.

The selection process doesn't have to be super complicated that satisfies every audiophile. Just google what streamers on Youtube and Twitch use and choose something that fits your budget. For example Blue Yeti and Audio-Technica AT2020USB are popular, relatively cheap, and super simple to use.

And as mentioned the best thing you can do to image quality is just to improve your lighting.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#257

Post by [deleted] »

goosedragons wrote: post #253
andrepew wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who have video calls throughout the day constantly. I don't want to have to mess around setting up my phone on a stand and getting it connected every time I need to do a meeting.

Buy an actual camera and use that instead? Basically every camera that has video out is pretty easy to get working as a webcam these days.

[deleted]

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#258

Post by 1123581321 »

goosedragons wrote: post #253
andrepew wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who have video calls throughout the day constantly. I don't want to have to mess around setting up my phone on a stand and getting it connected every time I need to do a meeting.

Buy an actual camera and use that instead? Basically every camera that has video out is pretty easy to get working as a webcam these days.

Those cost more. It doesn’t make sense to spend more than needed on something you’re only going to use as a webcam. Webcams don’t have to spend on holdability or physical durability or any viewfinding.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#260

Post by pridkett »

vorpalhex wrote: post #237
Terretta wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I like what Lumina is trying to do. I pre-ordered, and since receiving the first batch, have been, and will keep, buying them. However, caveat emptor. Right now, buyers should support Lumina to support innovation in this space, but be prepared to pay a quality price while they work on it. Several ideas didn’t work out, and they’re trying to correct. Each software release is better, but I worry the hardware sen…

Is there a Mac/Linux equivalent of Xsplit Vcam? Preferably without a subscription? (One time purchase is fine)

OBS can manage that for you.
Post reply on HN