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

271–280 of 610 posts

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#271

Post by eknkc »

masklinn wrote: post #175
davidmurdoch wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bump would go towards the keyboard, I'd think.

There's very little clearance in that direction, and the clearance which there is is necessary for the screen / lens not to touch the keyboard / case and get scratched. So if you have a bump on the inner side, you also need to have a notch in the topcase. And unless you move the webcam something weird (an edge or below the screen), you need to have that notch through or below right below trackpad, which is less than…

I have an Apple studio display. That thing is pretty new, thick and has an A something chip running iOS inside.

The camera quality is shit. Just garbage.

I don’t understand how they manage to do it. I understand your comment about laptop screens and it makes sense however none of the third party external webcams and even a non space constrained Apple webcam performs ok.

It’s weird.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#272

Post by ip26 »

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 think mics and webcams suffer a simple problem: the person who enjoys the benefit of higher quality is not the operator. Indeed, the operator may never experience how they look or sound.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#273

Post by ajmurmann »

michaelt wrote: post #62
ramraj07 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know how much time you spend on zoom calls but if both sides have genuinely good connections and you have a good camera and lighting, you can get fairly high def video across. And it makes a big difference, especially if you’re 1-1 and want to make a proper connection and read their expression.

In a small call with 2-4 participants, sure. But a work meeting with 6 people and a presentation? Every participant's video will be shrunk to the size of a postage stamp.

Depends on so many factors. How large is the screen? Is use of multiple screens enabled in zoom? Is speaker mode enabled?

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#274

Post by Retric »

wholinator2 wrote: post #230
logifail wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Furthermore, if you live in northern latitudes you get very little sunlight during the winter so a "window" is not a sufficient solution Perhaps I wasn't clear: a North-facing window never gets direct sunlight, but doesn't matter because we're after neutral, even light . Certainly not "direct light", not even "lots of light". Just neutral, even light. It's worked for artists for centuries.

What they're saying is that if you live north enough, you're likely to be working during a time when there _is no sunlight_. A window does nothing when it's dark outside by the time your 4p.m. meeting comes around

It’s still easy to add indirect lighting at night, but you need to cover up southern faction windows in the daytime.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#275

Post by Retric »

chownie wrote: post #215
logifail wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Furthermore, if you live in northern latitudes you get very little sunlight during the winter so a "window" is not a sufficient solution Perhaps I wasn't clear: a North-facing window never gets direct sunlight, but doesn't matter because we're after neutral, even light . Certainly not "direct light", not even "lots of light". Just neutral, even light. It's worked for artists for centuries.

At my latitude I'll lose sunlight at 2pm in the middle of winter. I can fix the webcam, I can't fix how much sunlight is available in my locale.

You don’t need sunlight for even indirect lighting.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#276

Post by ajmurmann »

brandoncarl wrote: post #266

I use Camo (lifetime $79 license) and an iPhone SE I picked up on eBay for $200. I've had dozens of people comment how clear my camera is. Many now purchased a similar setup. I used OBS for a long time since it was free, but the quality wasn't close. If you're in a line of work that requires you to stream it's a worthwhile investment by a great company that just keeps getting better.

I used to use this setup but got tired of turning on the phone for meetings and doing that while it's in its stand or messing up the camera angle a bit. Camo also sometimes wouldn't connect right away which is especially annoying when I'm already running late. Did you find a way to mitigate those issues?

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#277

Post by feet »

Dma54rhs wrote: post #217
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.

The simple math tells me the volume of material is not double.m when you make the lid thicker. Not sure what you're about, it doesn't make sense.

I don't think people in this thread have ever worked with or weighed pieces of aluminum, it would explain the bizarre perspective

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#279

Post by theelous3 »

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…

> that would be like if Apple stopped releasing new phones after the iPhone 4S (launched 2012), and it remained the bestselling phone through now.

If I can be a bit cheeky - this sounds like exactly the kind of frankly ridiculous comparison a founder would make about their product alright.

The reality is - nobody really cares that much. Whatever image you record is going to be gigga-smashed by whatever application you squeeze it through. I switch between the rubbish builtin on my laptop over wifi, and a gopro tuned to the highest res and framerate the cable will take, with colour and exposure tuning etc.

Not once person has ever mentioned webcam quality in either case. As long as you can vaguely see _most_ of someone's face in _somewhat_ balanced light - that's good enough. For 99% of people in 99% of cases. Even job interviews where image is everything, it's irrelevant.

The problem that needs solving is audio. That actually matters.

I tried ping.gg recently which boasts high quality video and audio feeds (for a high price) and even then - meh. Video was entirely unimportant.

The only people who really care about live video feed quality are content creators with high powered static systems, like streamers. Even then, they can just hook up a dslr and smash it out of the park with little to no effort.

I don't see this as a real problem anyone bar a select few care about - and that select few has already solved the problem anyway.

> and think we can achieve a quality level between an iPhone and a DSLR

Good luck, but I think you're filling a spectrum nobody is concerned about.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#280

Post by xfitm3 »

paulgerhardt wrote: post #78
krono wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not entirely sure if this was meant as satire, but in case it wasn't: If I wanted to be judged on my physical looks or the quality in which those are presented to others over the wire, I would have been working in the film industry.

Genuinely believe a loss in fidelity moves us from acceptable telepresence to uncanny valley. Landlines had exceptional fidelity and let one pick up the nuance of a person's emotional state. Today's cellular connections not so much. Thankfully things like Apple Facetime (audio only) recapture some of that. Likewise with a high quality webcam I think it's important to treat your coworkers with respect by giving them t…

I intentionally scale down my video as I don't want to be seen. Being on video requires a lot of cognitive effort, which I'd rather conserve to do actual work.
Post reply on HN