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

491–500 of 610 posts

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#491

Post by kenneth »

theelous3 wrote: post #279
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 y…

The amount of comments I got on my video quality once I set up my mirrorless with proper lights is insane. Nobody cares until they see someone with production quality video and they notice right away. It makes a difference. It's like if nobody cares if you wear a tee and a hoodie, but the second you break the norm and dress a bit nicer people do notice.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#492

Post by Zetaphor »

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…

Your product looks intriguing, does it support Linux at all?

One concern I have to a "smart camera" as a Linux user is that I won't get the simple plug and play experience I've come to expect from Logitech's products, as there's often a required software component/driver to get some or all of the devices functionality.

I know I represent a small part of the market, but I figured it doesn't hurt to ask.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#493

Post by Zetaphor »

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…

Lifelong user of Logitech trackball mice, now using the MX Ergo. I also used a Logitech keyboard for many years, and am still using a Logitech webcam. I've had an equally pleasant experience of reliable hardware with good Linux support.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#495

Post by nextlevelwizard »

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-…

>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?

You are just being purposefully an ass. What about on a cloudly day, how does your sun help you then? What about at night? Not to mention most people don't have the luxury to arrange their home to optimize for picture quality on a fucking Zoom call.

Yes, you can help a shitty camera with lights, but we could just have good cameras. You can still fiddle with your lights until heat death of universe, but rest of us just want cameras that work even if we have to pay a little bit more.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#497

Post by acd »

Alternative: Elgato camlink hdmi capture interface with a used Sony A6000 system camera is one way to het better quality. Its about sensor size and optics. A mirrorless system camera has for example APS-C sensor which captures much more light than a typical web cam sensor.

Gphoto2 camera to webcam capture tool if you are runnning Linux. Then you can turn system cameras into webcam given the right camera model.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#498

Post by Guest19023892 »

modeless wrote: post #269
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…

> Size isn't everything. As the iPhone shows, you can get very good image quality from a tiny sensor and lens if you have the right tech supporting it. (At Lumina, most of our eng effort is on the software layer) This is my problem with all the webcam startups. So what if you can mask some of the problems of small sensors and lenses using machine learning that adds a whole new set of problems? You could have done tha…

I agree. It's a little strange to complain about a lack of progress in webcams the past decade, and then ship similar quality hardware to decade old webcams.

Why does everyone focus on a small form factor for webcams? Look at the size of microphones being sold today. The Blue Yeti is one of the most popular microphones and it's almost 30cm (12") in height. You might say, if you don't mind a large form factor, then go buy a DSLR or mirrorless camera. The problem there is they're not designed to be webcams. I watched one of the Lumina videos, and they were complaining the $2,000 Sony camera took forever to setup and configure for their demo. That's a problem. Someone solve it. Give me a large high quality camera that is designed to be a webcam first. I have lots of room on my desk, it doesn't need to fit in my pocket.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#499

Post by june11 »

Groxx wrote: post #412
kylecordes wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

Actually I tried to do exactly this. Except the gopro webcam software straight up doesn't work and they don't plan on fixing it. Its depressing really.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#500

Post by chipotle_coyote »

sephamorr wrote: post #391
kylecordes wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ironically, the Apple Studio Display has a A13 processor inside it for camera and other processing. Misses your $500 price point by a long way though!

The Studio Display does have a 27" 5K P3-color monitor attached to it, which drives up the price a bit...

Seriously, though, in the context of webcams, the Studio Display is kind of a counterpoint to "just rip a camera module out of a few-year-old smartphone and it'll be terrific". That's pretty much what Apple did here, and it's rather notoriously, ah, not great. (I have one, and I think it's better than some people give it credit for, but I know I'm comparing it to Apple's laptop webcams, which have historically been pretty terrible.)

Post reply on HN