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

601–610 of 610 posts

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#601

Post by chrisweekly »

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.

Replying to self (too late to edit), yeah I posted in haste; YMMV and clearly many people prefer a dedicated webcam per se.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#602

Post by nojito »

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.

Crack open a macbook air lid and see for yourself. The amount of material required to maintain its rigidity is more than what most people assume.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#603

Post by shados »

dx034 wrote: post #480
shados wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the vast majority of people using these web cams don't have nearly enough lighting. When there isn't enough, the software cranks up the ISO to ridiculous level which gives that distinctive "webcam grain" look thats awful.

And working under insufficient light conditions is also likely worse for your eyes. So people would do themselves a favor working in brighter environments and also wouldn't have to worry as much from their webcam setup. For me, in bright and evenly lit rooms (so no sunshine but artificial light), most dedicated webcams tend to produce pretty good images.

But I'm a l33t haxxor working in the dark because I'm edgy!

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#604

Post by aquajet »

eimrine wrote: post #563
aquajet wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up just as landlines were giving way to cell phones. How did high fidelity let us pick up on emotional state?

I grew up in similar times. What am I noticing is that only one model of cellphone (no adv) can give me a decent sound of my companion. But I did not have that mis-experience using very old phones.

Interesting, I'm curious, what phone/carrier was that? If you were able to get a decent sound on one phone, it sounds like then there's nothing intrinsically/insurmountably wrong with cell phones.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#605

Post by smaudet »

vjerancrnjak wrote: post #388
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.

I always wondered how IMX377EQH5 sucked in some devices and was incredible in others (Nexus 5X has really good video/picture quality). Some devices use it for 4K video and it looks like upscaled 480p. Yet 1080p on Nexus 5X looks very sharp.

Welcome to what camera makers realized a long time ago - film doesn't matter, the processing does.

It's why DSLR was (is?) a thing - if you ever do research on one, you realize they factor in quantum mechanical effects to make your picture better...(in addition to the 20 or so simultaneous images they take in order to parallel process image).

I haven't kept up as much but - the flat sensor craze was all about how we didn't need DSLR anymore and could just get away with large pixel counts and better processing, and yet the processing still matters...far more than the pixel count. I think that was mainly because 100+ mirror systems are a bit expensive compared to a single flat sensor.

But when you think about them as 100+ parallel processing sensors peforming low-power auto-computation _for-free_, well.

That's another thing entirely.

I do wonder why some DSLRs suck at video - I suspect it has to do with whethey the manufacture cheaped out on the compression circuitry or not - some cameras can/could should shoot HD video, a lot did not, leaving that the pricier models.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#606

Post by smaudet »

prmoustache wrote: post #512
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.

Nobody wants to spend that amount of money on a webcam. People would buy second hand Sony RX0 for that kind of thing if that was the case.

Depends on who you are. "Nobody" would spend 1k+ on a desk mic, except unless you are upping e.g. your podcasting game.

I suspect a lot of vloggers, or at least wannabe, can and would easily shell out a measly 500$ for a webcam.

I agree, for a lot of people who just want to webcam mom that's going to be overkill, but if you have money, or do it professionally (I don't mean a remote work job) to the point where you are putting on makeup, investing time, often to the tune of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, its a no-brainer.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#607

Post by smaudet »

xeromal wrote: post #188
hgomersall wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to compare lumina too, but you don't support Linux so I'll have to accept a crap webcam over a non functioning one.

I can probably count the number of people on linux who will buy this webcam on my two hands.

In attempt to disabuse this notion that "nobody uses linux"...

Spoken like someone who only eats from fast food restaurants.

Fast food, for the most part, is horrid, disgusting, greasy, bad for your general health. Sometimes, I'm out and about, and I eat from a fast food website.

I also cook. Lest you think I'm in some minority, the cooking business is a billion dollar industry, with multiple "trendy" startups (hellofresh, blue apron, etc.) selling pricey services. I've even used some of them.

Yes, some people only eat fast food. Some people know no better. Yes, eating non-fast food can be incovenient, but its incredibly good for you... and just because we do good things doesn't mean we are all starving artists or paupers.

But no, we are probably not sitting 400lbs overweight surrounded by burger king wrappers filled with xenophobia at anything that's not "like us".

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#608

Post by smaudet »

awill wrote: post #502
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 agree with all the replies to this. 1. If you're saying that it's mostly software, then you shouldn't have created hardware. You should release and sell software to run in tandem with existing cheap webcams. Not a low-quality webcam with some magic software. 2. Saying the iPhone is proof that you can make good, small cameras is bunk. The iPhone has an enormous amount of horsepower at its disposal. And an enormous t…

The iPhone has a high-res display, hi-capacity battery, associated regulator hardware, multiple SoCs, cost of supporting a software/firmware engineering team for the OS/drivers, app developers, UX/Design experts, company markup....

Not cheap. I don't buy this argument - they have a nice image processor, sure, there's nothing special about their image processing. Sure, its not going to be cheap, I think you are vastly overestimating the quality... for a price point of 1K per phone, even at scale, you are talking maybe a 5th operating costs (200$) going towards supporting that.

Remember Apple makes its money from app commissions, more than the hardware, and AFAIK they don't operate selling hardware at a loss.

You will need a SoC team, yes, you are looking at a multimillion dollar company, doable with VC I'd imagine. Or a team of brilliant-yet-bootstrapping individuals, willing to work for less.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#609

Post by bborud »

1123581321 wrote: post #466
bborud wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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.

Resolution is just one factor. What processing you do to an image can easily make a lower resolution image look better than a high resolution image with horrible colors, bad contrast, poor tone curves etc. I'd describe the output on Macs as "unoffensive". It isn't great, but it also isn't bad.

Most people who dabble in photography and shoot raw will have some idea of this. The (untreated) images that come out of my professional DSLR don't look as pleasant as those that come out of my iPhone. Even if they have 4 times the pixels, and each pixel has much more dynamic range. How the raw sensor input is interpreted, influenced by intent, and then rendered, can be the difference between something you would hang on your wall and something you'd delete.

I have half a dozen macs with cameras, including the 16" notched M1 Mac Pro. None of them produce a great image, but they won't stand out as bad in a video conference. My $1000 camera does stand out because of its poor image processing, especially in low light conditions. It is a bit sharper, but the colors look distinctly off.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#610

Post by feet »

nojito wrote: post #602
Dma54rhs wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Crack open a macbook air lid and see for yourself. The amount of material required to maintain its rigidity is more than what most people assume.

Its ALUMINUM BRO
Post reply on HN