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

461–470 of 610 posts

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#461

Post by yardstick »

codetrotter wrote: post #426
Groxx wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that price point you're competing with a GoPro, which is likely as good or better at a lower price. All (or most?) current GoPros can be used as a webcam.

GoPro is too clunky to carry around for use with a laptop. Meanwhile, sensor and lens from a smartphone camera can fit in a small enough form factor that it makes sense to carry it around alongside your laptop.

Almost all laptops have a camera already, crappy as they may be, they still work. I don’t think laptop users are a big market for webcams? Isn’t it more for desktops where you have the luxury of space and bulk?

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#462

Post by corytheboyd »

I would pay good money for a solid dedicated camera for video calls. I know I can just use my phone, but I'm one of those weird people who only has one iPhone and it's really annoying to have to undo my camera rig every time I need a 2FA code. I would happily spend hundreds of dollars if the product was good.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#463

Post by toomuchtodo »

jonahhorowitz wrote: post #440
toomuchtodo wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have to pick from a smaller list of known-good setups. Any recommendations for the cheapest second hand SLR one can buy to have streamer quality webcam feeds?

Grab an old Panasonic GH3 and the 20mm f1.8 lens. It looks great. This is a pretty decent list: https://www.elgato.com/en/cam-link/camera-check

Thank you!

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#464

Post by nthnclrk »

corytheboyd wrote: post #462

I would pay good money for a solid dedicated camera for video calls. I know I can just use my phone, but I'm one of those weird people who only has one iPhone and it's really annoying to have to undo my camera rig every time I need a 2FA code. I would happily spend hundreds of dollars if the product was good.

Opal C1

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#465

Post by ncmncm »

wyager wrote: post #307
ncmncm wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other guy said literally the opposite. Maybe you two fight it out, and report the outcome?

Easy solution; use Fujifilm. We both agree they don't overheat. Incidentally, I think they are also much better cameras for most use cases.

But he said anything Fuji won't work.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#466

Post by 1123581321 »

bborud wrote: post #377
newsclues wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The physics of optics are still a hard problem and laptop screens have less room which is why the suck.

...and yet, my macbook pro camera produces a better image than my external webcam even though it is lower resolution.

You probably have a 1080p which required a notch in the screen to make room. The 720p Mac webcams do not look as good as a Logitech 920 or 922.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#467

Post by ncmncm »

eropple wrote: post #332
ncmncm wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sucks most is that Logitech, which used to be a proud name (back when "Feels good / Feels better") has gone totally to shit. Even their mice are designed to fail in a year. (Spill on the desk, the mouse that only got damp on the bottom is dead, dead, dead. That can't be accidental.) A full article on what went wrong at Logitech corporate could be enlightening, if not helpful.

Maybe I'm lucky, but I've got half a dozen Logitech wireless mice/keyboard-and-trackpad media keyboards in regular use, plus the MX Ergo trackball, plus a couple of G Pro keyboards, and I haven't been able to kill any of them even through pretty rough use on the mice particularly (they tend to get bounced around in the living room when the dog jumps on the couch, etc.). "Can't be accidental" reads as conspiracy-huffi…

You talk like you have never heard of Planned Obsolescence. But it has been in business school textbooks since probably before you were born.

Whirlpool refrigerators have a "light control" circuit board to make the dome light come on slowly when the door opens. It has two resistors carefully underspecified to fail after warranty end, requiring a $150 replacement board. (Lots of pics online.) Good for them, bad for us. A $2 transformer and diode would last forever.

Whirlpool washing machines have a Motor Control Unit board carefully designed so parts on it literally explode shortly after warranty end, requiring a $300 replacement. (Lots of pics with exploded parts online.) There is of course no need for the parts to explode, and commercial washers from the same manufacturer do not share this failure mode.

There is literally no legitimate reason why moisture on the bottom surface of an optical mouse should possibly have any effect on its operation or longevity.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#468

Post by sudosysgen »

bborud wrote: post #377
newsclues wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The physics of optics are still a hard problem and laptop screens have less room which is why the suck.

...and yet, my macbook pro camera produces a better image than my external webcam even though it is lower resolution.

Doesn't it have a notch?

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#469

Post by thayne »

kylecordes wrote: post #351
adrusi wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smartphone cameras are small and far better sensors than what you get in webcams. They rely on software to produce images of the quality we're used to seeing, especially with less-than-ideal lighting, but the lenses and sensor are still far better than the Logitech C920. A webcam doesn't need the latest and greatest video hardware. Give it a camera module from a midrange 2017 smartphone and use the latest image proce…

This is the answer. Camera and processor from a several-year-old smart phone, which is now quite cheap. Sell it for $500. So far no one has, there must be a reason no one can.

At $500 you're approaching the price point of low end mirrorless cameras, which will probably have higher quality than a small, old smartphone camera.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#470

Post by thayne »

codetrotter wrote: post #426
Groxx wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that price point you're competing with a GoPro, which is likely as good or better at a lower price. All (or most?) current GoPros can be used as a webcam.

GoPro is too clunky to carry around for use with a laptop. Meanwhile, sensor and lens from a smartphone camera can fit in a small enough form factor that it makes sense to carry it around alongside your laptop.

If I'm paying $500 for a webcam, it's going to be staying on my desk.
Post reply on HN