Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Opal Tadpole – A webcam for laptops

opalcamera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 120 posts

Re: Opal Tadpole – A webcam for laptops

#101

Post by solardev »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #32
sebtron wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I can't tell. Literally: I clicked on the link and all I could see was a white dot blinking on a black background. After about 20 seconds I gave up.

Does it change if you scroll down? I also thought it was broken until I started scrolling and the page decided to show itself to me after all.

Their preloader is kinda screwed up and causes a bunch of JS errors on load. It non-deterministically loads the home page sometimes but not always, depending on whether it thinks you are looking at the tab... maybe a race condition in there somewhere?

Just terrible all around =/

Re: Opal Tadpole – A webcam for laptops

#102

Post by j45 »

LoganDark wrote: post #88
jfim wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 1080p. From the specs > Resolution 48MP binned to 1080P

That's ridiculous. 48MP should be capable of at least 4K video. Are their yields still not high enough at 4K even if they're charging an order of magnitude more than what the components actually cost?

Agreed. I’m running a Logitech Brio (4K) and while it’s not perfect it’s pretty decent to auto adjust for the lighting in most rooms.

Re: Opal Tadpole – A webcam for laptops

#103

Post by j45 »

tw04 wrote: post #90
LoganDark wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ridiculous. 48MP should be capable of at least 4K video. Are their yields still not high enough at 4K even if they're charging an order of magnitude more than what the components actually cost?

They don’t have any yields. This is an off the shelf Sony sensor and they chose the cheaper binned part. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor

I wonder if it could be swapped :)

Re: Opal Tadpole – A webcam for laptops

#104

Post by __mharrison__ »

solardev wrote: post #12
berbec wrote: post #5

What is the market for this product? I can't see their being enough people who a. have a laptop without a camera/need a better camera b. are willing to lug this thing around and c. are willing to pay $200. How is web design this bad acceptable? It's insanely slow, annoying to read and impossible to navigate.

I've actually been looking for a good webcam (with a big DSLR-like sensor) for the last few years, and this seems like the perfect product. Too bad it waited so long to come out... Most laptop webcams are terrible. Heck, most desktop ones are too. Even the high-megapixel ones have an image quality comparable to 10 years ago, and the average smartphone will blow them out of the water (hence Apple adding the iPhone as…

The Insta360 Link does a decent job. Hard to beat a mirrorless camera.

(I use both almost daily for my trainings.)

Re: Opal Tadpole – A webcam for laptops

#105

Post by j45 »

Terretta wrote: post #99

70 degree field of view, equivalent to perhaps 28mm, gives you prominent nose and mouse-face shaped bone structure to look pro, you want maybe 35 degree field of view, equivalent to 70mm or more see: https://s.studiobinder.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Focal-... there's a reason studio newscasters have flat faces, while the people they interview via webex or zoom look like giant nosed clowns, it's the focal length i…

Very informative, thank you! Almost makes me wish for a webcam overlay to achieve this.

Re: Opal Tadpole – A webcam for laptops

#106

Post by j45 »

hypercube33 wrote: post #96
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low-budget streamers or those who end up effectively 'streaming' their web conferences. People who are using Blue Yeti mics and Elgato keylights or (a directly competing product) Elgato Facecam: https://www.elgato.com/us/en/p/facecam which is using a 1/1.8" sensor (8.8mm diagonal) at f/2.4 aperture, and this has a 1/1.2” sensor (13.33 mm diagonal) at f/1.2. In this age of remote work, there are a lot of people who re…

You're probably better off with a cheap Logitech c920 since most conference software junks the video quality down anyway. We have some high end 1in cameras with glass zoom lenses and they look about as good even with dedicated encoding hardware.

It’s a small step up from a dated c92x to a brio which handles color and lighting much better reasonably on its own

Re: Opal Tadpole – A webcam for laptops

#107

Post by j45 »

viraptor wrote: post #9
berbec wrote: post #5

What is the market for this product? I can't see their being enough people who a. have a laptop without a camera/need a better camera b. are willing to lug this thing around and c. are willing to pay $200. How is web design this bad acceptable? It's insanely slow, annoying to read and impossible to navigate.

$200 is within a typical tech budget spend and there's lots of people working remotely these days. I've spent over $100 on a good mic alone (not portable though).

Reasonably expensable too.

Re: Opal Tadpole – A webcam for laptops

#108

Post by jfim »

LoganDark wrote: post #92
tw04 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t have any yields. This is an off the shelf Sony sensor and they chose the cheaper binned part. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor

(Non-mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor ) Ah, so they only care about money. Perfect. Also hilarious that they say it's "binned" to 1080p when they're actually only getting the rejects that weren't good enough for 4K! Way to be technically correct, Opal.

Binning in this context refers to the technique of taking adjacent pixels to get lower noise in readings (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_binning). It has nothing to do with binning in chip making (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning).

It's still pretty surprising to see 48 megapixels binned to basically 2 megapixels.

Re: Opal Tadpole – A webcam for laptops

#109

Post by rainbowzootsuit »

solardev wrote: post #12
berbec wrote: post #5

What is the market for this product? I can't see their being enough people who a. have a laptop without a camera/need a better camera b. are willing to lug this thing around and c. are willing to pay $200. How is web design this bad acceptable? It's insanely slow, annoying to read and impossible to navigate.

I've actually been looking for a good webcam (with a big DSLR-like sensor) for the last few years, and this seems like the perfect product. Too bad it waited so long to come out... Most laptop webcams are terrible. Heck, most desktop ones are too. Even the high-megapixel ones have an image quality comparable to 10 years ago, and the average smartphone will blow them out of the water (hence Apple adding the iPhone as…

You can get a mirrorless camera and set it to webcam mode (1) or get an HDMI (2) or SDI (3)capture card that will show up a USB webcam interface on your computer and use a camera with the appropriate output format.

(1) https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/app/webcam/en/download/

(2) https://www.elgato.com/us/en/p/cam-link-4k

(3) https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicwebprese...

Re: Opal Tadpole – A webcam for laptops

#110

Post by Austizzle »

Terretta wrote: post #99

70 degree field of view, equivalent to perhaps 28mm, gives you prominent nose and mouse-face shaped bone structure to look pro, you want maybe 35 degree field of view, equivalent to 70mm or more see: https://s.studiobinder.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Focal-... there's a reason studio newscasters have flat faces, while the people they interview via webex or zoom look like giant nosed clowns, it's the focal length i…

Former film student here, this is all correct but I wanted to rephrase part of it-

Most of the time, you don't need to worry about focal length ( especially because it's so complicated when you're trying to talk about different sensor sizes)

The real measurement here is distance from the camera. The further you are physically from the camera, the flatter things look. Now, when you're further away, you obviously need to zoom in to make your head fill the frame, but it's way easier to think about it in terms of distance first, and then find a webcam/lens/crop that works.

I use a pro camera as a webcam (with a cheap HDMI/USB stick), and I have it mounted on my desk around 3/4 feet from my face. That seems to work well for my face shape.

Post reply on HN