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

Why webcams aren’t good enough

reincubate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 297 posts

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#161

Post by NationalPark »

guenthert wrote: post #111

Hmmh, I couldn't care less about webcams. I'm not that pretty and not all that eager to share the interior of my dwelling. I do however care about sound quality. With my accent and mumbling I need all the help I can get. Others reported that the camera in their phone beats most webcams, but what about the microphone(-array)? The sound quality of phablets hasn't quite won me over. Is there anything better available, s…

I think it's pretty important for professional conversations. We communicate an enormous amount of information through our facial expressions and body language and seeing the person who is speaking is important for understanding their tone correctly. Have you ever been in a video call where one person isn't on camera? It's really weird and awkward.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#162

Post by Animats »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #44
corysama wrote: post #15

Different article from a month ago “Why can’t you buy a good web cam?” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504771 Lots of points. Big one being that the market is bifurcated into: 1. People who just want the minimum as cheap as possible. 2. People willing to pay enough to buy a mirrorless photo camera and plug it in as a web cam when they need it.

I see this pattern everywhere - the market bifurcating into a) race-to-the-bottom garbage products that are barely crossing the legal threshold of fit for purpose, and are essentially a huge waste of natural resources, and b) quality goods sold to specialists or companies, usually severely overpriced (to cover low volume of sales, and/or just because the market will bear it). Does it have a name in economics? Are the…

Sears.

Sears' niche was in the middle. Everything was good, but not great, quality. Products were durable, came with good warranties, and "We Service What We Sell". Sears sold to the middle class, with middle prices. They went bankrupt with that model.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#163

Post by masklinn »

mfkp wrote: post #154
redisman wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good optics need physical space that a super flat screen doesn't have (in depth). My Macbook screen is like 1/4th of the depth of my iPhone

If people don't mind a bulge in their phone, I doubt they'd mind a camera bulge sticking out the back of their laptop.

> I doubt they'd mind a camera bulge sticking out the back of their laptop.

A bulge at the back of the laptop would be way more problematic e.g. way more likely to catch on bags, or otherwise be damaged.

What I doubt most people would mind is the screen side being slightly thicker.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#164

Post by masklinn »

ourcat wrote: post #157
justwalt wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like something Apple would never do. Though I might have said the same thing about the camera notch on the iPhone.

I've always been amazed that Apple did the camera bulge. I'm quite sure that an iPhone not being able to lay flat on a table without wobbling would have caused Steve Jobs to throw it at whoever designed it.

> I've always been amazed that Apple did the camera bulge.

At this point I can only assume they simply never managed to find a way to significantly improve the module while keeping things flush.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#165

Post by surfearth »

smnrchrds wrote: post #104
josephg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even Apple would seemingly rather shave 50 cents off the BOM by speccing a 720p Facetime camera in their $3000 Macbook Pros The reason I've heard is that the macbook display assembly simply doesn't have the depth to house a decent camera. The camera bump in phones exists for a reason - and phones are already way fatter than macbook displays. I have no idea if thats true though.

Is the image quality any better on iMac? At the very least on expensive iMac Pro? If not, the issue is not physical limitations of Macbook, it's most likely cost.

Yes. The new iMac 27" and iMacPro both use a 1080p webcam and also use the T2 chip for image processing. I recently upgraded from a 2015 iMac 27" to the 2020 iMac 27" and the webcam is better although still not great.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#166

Post by masklinn »

corysama wrote: post #15

Different article from a month ago “Why can’t you buy a good web cam?” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504771 Lots of points. Big one being that the market is bifurcated into: 1. People who just want the minimum as cheap as possible. 2. People willing to pay enough to buy a mirrorless photo camera and plug it in as a web cam when they need it.

> 1. People who just want the minimum as cheap as possible.

The webcams tested in TFA go up to $200 though, that's well into low-end smartphone.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#167

Post by mikestew »

defanor wrote: post #153
mikestew wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an amateur musician with a USB audio interface, several hundred dollars worth of microphones (though for office work, it's just the Shure SM27 condenser), and wired set of good headphones. And it is glorious. Until everyone got used to it, I got consistent compliments on the sound quality. You'll sound like a radio DJ. Because everything is wired, latency is minimal and a lot less of "okay, go head. No, go ahead.…

I was under the impression that dynamic microphones are much more suitable for non-studio settings, where echoes and other noises happen, as well as for regular speech, not music (and that they are actually used on radio stations). And XLR dynamic ones can be connected to a computer even with just an XLR-to-TRRS cable, not requiring phantom power. Or a proper audio interface if one wishes to, not something built into…

The only reason that I use the condenser is precisely because it will pick up my voice without having to shove my face into the mic. Yeah, it picks up my dog barking in the other room. I only used that as an example of what I've got in my office, not as a recommendation. There are a ton of different condenser mics with different patterns, etc., too. But remember, I'm overloading music stuff for MS Teams meetings. I make no claim that it's optimal, just easy for what I've got plugged into the desk.

But yeah, for most folks a dynamic is fine, cheaper, and more sturdy. Or a Blue Yeti USB mic. My point wasn't to drill into the details and offer a recommendation, though, other than "wire your stuff, and you'll be loads ahead". What is on the other end of those wires is a separate discussion. And I'm probably not the one to lead that discussion. (I'm a musician, not an orator.)

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#168

Post by [deleted] »

masklinn wrote: post #163
mfkp wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people don't mind a bulge in their phone, I doubt they'd mind a camera bulge sticking out the back of their laptop.

> I doubt they'd mind a camera bulge sticking out the back of their laptop. A bulge at the back of the laptop would be way more problematic e.g. way more likely to catch on bags, or otherwise be damaged. What I doubt most people would mind is the screen side being slightly thicker.

[deleted]

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#169

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

defanor wrote: post #153
mikestew wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an amateur musician with a USB audio interface, several hundred dollars worth of microphones (though for office work, it's just the Shure SM27 condenser), and wired set of good headphones. And it is glorious. Until everyone got used to it, I got consistent compliments on the sound quality. You'll sound like a radio DJ. Because everything is wired, latency is minimal and a lot less of "okay, go head. No, go ahead.…

I was under the impression that dynamic microphones are much more suitable for non-studio settings, where echoes and other noises happen, as well as for regular speech, not music (and that they are actually used on radio stations). And XLR dynamic ones can be connected to a computer even with just an XLR-to-TRRS cable, not requiring phantom power. Or a proper audio interface if one wishes to, not something built into…

You need a mic preamp somewhere in the signal chain.

Sadly, many manufacturers have been pushing "USB mics", which bundle the preamp and an analog->digital converter into the mic body, and they've been very successful at marketing/selling these devices.

I say sadly because these devices violate rule #1 of digital audio: there should only be 1 sample clock. The moment you start using these mics in combination with any other digital audio stream (e.g. playback via the builtin or some other audio interface), there are now at least 2 sample clocks, creating the requirement that some software layer does resampling to keep things in sync.

Much better to just get a cheap "proper" audio interface, skip the USB mic option, and use a "real" (analog) mic.

I leave the condenser/dynamic question for someone else.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#170

Post by warkdarrior »

clairity wrote: post #135
ska wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but they still have little utility beyond a simple phone call We've collectively been running a huge experiment for the last year that has pretty conclusively proven this hypothesis false.

an unsupported assertion is not conclusive proof. we’ve seen that people have been trying to substitute in-person meetings with video calls, but that doesn’t prove any additional utility beyond a conference call. even in educational or therapy/coaching situations, a recorded instructional video accompanied by a phone checkin likely has better outcomes than video chats.

> even in educational or therapy/coaching situations, a recorded instructional video accompanied by a phone checkin likely has better outcomes than video chats.

This just screams "citation needed." Video chat is hugely useful whenever there is any kind of discussion, debate, or negotiation. With video chat you can read facial expressions, cut down on overlapping speech and interruptions, etc.

Post reply on HN