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

351–360 of 610 posts

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#351

Post by kylecordes »

adrusi wrote: post #344
modeless wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#352

Post by skavish »

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 bought lumina last september, still has not received it yet. only emails about delayed shipments

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#353

Post by atombender »

dharma1 wrote: post #343
modeless wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 expect mobile phone cameras to kill webcams. All the innovation happens there and when people already have something getting closer to dSLR quality each year, why invest in a specialised webcam? Apple just needs to bake webcam sharing/remote camera control into iOS and come up with a nice attachment for the phone that works with MacBooks and displays so you don’t have to look at the camera at a weird angle. Maybe s…

I frequently use my phone while in a meeting. I can't see how using your phone as a webcam would be productive. Using a phone, like an old iPhone model you have upgraded from, would be neat, though. But there are a bunch of apps that let you do this today, I believe.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#354

Post by Macha »

logifail wrote: post #191
bjourne wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the article is that even a shitty old cell phone handily beats a "mid-range" C920 webcam. Yes, lighting conditions are important to photography, but, as the author demonstrates, cell phone cameras are better even in those scenarios. Furthermore, if you live in northern latitudes you get very little sunlight during the winter so a "window" is not a sufficient solution.

> Furthermore, if you live in northern latitudes you get very little sunlight during the winter so a "window" is not a sufficient solution Perhaps I wasn't clear: a North-facing window never gets direct sunlight, but doesn't matter because we're after neutral, even light . Certainly not "direct light", not even "lots of light". Just neutral, even light. It's worked for artists for centuries.

My window faces onto a neighbour's house. They have painted this area white.

On my webcam, the window is behind me and it picks up this area outside the window and assumes the picture is overexposed because it doesn't expect to pick up large areas of basically #ffffff, and tries to dim the rest of the picture and darkens everything inside. Too much in fact, so it looks like I'm in a really dark room. The Logitech software does not support adjusting this behaviour, only adjusting the picture after the fact like the brightness sliders in your favourite image editor, so boosting them to compensate for the underexposed feed the webcam is providing the computer just results in a super washed out picture with still awful contrast.

I could rotate my office setup but then that introduces other issues, like glare on computer monitors or poor legroom due to radiator or insufficient space for a desk due to the neighbouring en suite cutout. I could close the curtains on the window and then just rely on electric light.

But these are all solutions worse than the problem of my webcam feed being underexposed, so they're not happening.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#355

Post by atombender »

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…

You're commenting about an article that is literally about video quality. Everyone here is talking about video quality.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#356

Post by Tempest1981 »

berny222 wrote: post #339
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…

Could you explain what you mean by 'hardware is viewed as hard'?

Hardware requires manufacturing ($, and slow change cycles), and prices are cut-throat.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#357

Post by kimburgess »

There are good USB cameras, just not a the price point reviewed here. For personal use (sitting in front of a normal display at a desk), I strongly recommend and use https://www.huddly.com/conference-cameras/one/.

It's a device you likely use every day. Spend the money, get setup once, and move on.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#358

Post by dang »

feet wrote: post #84
nojito wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What the actual fuck are they thinking just use a decent cam in the laptop It will actually almost double the weight of the overall laptop if they added the same camera as they do on iPhone.

Quoted post unavailable.

Could you please review the site guidelines and stick to them when posting here? You've unfortunately been breaking them quite a bit, such as with snark, flamebait, and ideological battle.

What we're hoping for on this site is curious conversation that remains thoughtful across differences. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#359

Post by woojoo666 »

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-…

What if you're working on the go, eg at a park or one of those coworking spaces. Can't really control the lighting there

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#360

Post by selectodude »

lxe wrote: post #304
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 have the Lumina! I think the hardware has been pretty good from the very start when I got it about a year ago. The software originally was... not very good, but you guys have improved it by leaps and bounds over time. I still have to manually adjust the exposure (which is fine), and fiddle with settings to get the colors right, but it works better than any webcam I have so far. Keep up the good work.

>I still have to manually adjust the exposure (which is fine), and fiddle with settings to get the colors right

Yikes, seriously? That’s the best you’ve used?

Post reply on HN