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

Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

tratt.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 499 posts

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#371

Post by FeistySkink »

raesene9 wrote: post #78
ldayley wrote: post #42

One thing that I’ve been trying to educate my colleagues about (including the A/V folks!) is that one can bypass the need to fiddle with drivers by using a generic hardware HDMI -> USB video conversion stick utilizing the mirrorless/DSLR’s HDMI output. It’ll mount as a generic video input that Zoom/Teams/OBS can use. You can find these for $40-$100 and it allows one to switch out hardware brands at will without insta…

This is the method I use, in conjunction with the Sony ZV-1 which gets a mention in the article. It also bypasses the problem mentioned in the article about turning up as a mass storage device. What I've found is that by USB charging and using HDMI out, it's good for ~2.5 hours of streaming, which I've only ever hit once as a limit. there's a newer Sony in the same line (the ZV-E10) but it moved the ports to the othe…

I've been using ZV-1 with Cam Link for almost 2 years now. It can be powered indefinitely with a good micro USB cable and a reliable 2A+ power supply. I often have all day back-to-back meetings so I don't bother to turn it off. Otherwise a dummy battery is an option.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#372

Post by Saris »

ldayley wrote: post #42

One thing that I’ve been trying to educate my colleagues about (including the A/V folks!) is that one can bypass the need to fiddle with drivers by using a generic hardware HDMI -> USB video conversion stick utilizing the mirrorless/DSLR’s HDMI output. It’ll mount as a generic video input that Zoom/Teams/OBS can use. You can find these for $40-$100 and it allows one to switch out hardware brands at will without insta…

Panasonic has a webcam driver via USB, so you don't even need the HDMI capture device.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#373

Post by krallja »

waddlesworth wrote: post #246

I have a pretty full on setup, with a condenser microphone on a boom, studio lights and softboxes pointed at me, with a full frame mirrorless camera and a high frame rate capture card. I tried doing meetings with it, but ended up getting a lot of inane comments about it, particularly as the microphone is in frame. Personally, I don't want to draw attention to myself in a meeting, so I've ended up going back to using…

I always get asked “do you do a lot of podcasts?” the first time I meet somebody

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#375

Post by gsich »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #366
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #137

If you go this route, please make sure your system is robust and ready to go before meetings. We had to ask one employee to go back to his reliable built-in webcam because every other meeting started with 2 minutes of him getting his camera turned on, messing with audio inputs, getting his microphone boom in place, and fighting other quirks. He also had a tendency to drop out of long meetings when his camera overheat…

>He also had a tendency to drop out of long meetings when his camera overheated, Also make sure your digital SLR or whatever expensive camera you're using as a webcam doesn't have a 30m video limit, which some do. This is one of the most recommended pieces of advice on /r/videoediting (non-professional) for new streamers. https://www.reddit.com/r/VideoEditing/ For most people, if you want better video quality for Zoo…

Doesn't apply since you are not recording.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#376

Post by Lammy »

Manuel_D wrote: post #20
flipflipper wrote: post #3

Another reason to not use a DSLR is that many (all?) have timeouts (<30min) in their video mode due to some import tax reason, even when hooked up to a computer. Atleast this is what I found when I tried a canon DSLR with canons webcam software.

This changed in 2019 IIRC. The EU changed its regulation and the 30 minute record limit no longer applies. Furthermore, it was always possible to install custom firmware on many cameras that bypassed this limit. Record limits due to temperature and overheating, though, is a different story.

> This changed in 2019 IIRC. The EU changed its regulation and the 30 minute record limit no longer applies.

The categories are still defined the same way: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:... (Ctrl+F "8525 80 30")

"Digital cameras that are only capable of recording still images remain classified in this subheading. Cameras of this subheading may also have video-capture capability to record continuous periods of video. However, when such apparatus are capable, using the maximum storage capacity, of capturing video in a quality of 800 x 600 pixels (or higher) at 23 frames per second (or higher) for a continuous period of at least 30 minutes (regardless of the fact that the captured video images may be recorded in separate files of a duration of less than 30 minutes) they are always to be classified in subheadings 8525 80 91 or 8525 80 99."

…but the duty was reduced from 2.5% to 1.6% for "video cameras" (8525 80 91), and from 3.5% to 0% for "camcorders" (8525 80 99): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#377

Post by npunt »

waddlesworth wrote: post #246

I have a pretty full on setup, with a condenser microphone on a boom, studio lights and softboxes pointed at me, with a full frame mirrorless camera and a high frame rate capture card. I tried doing meetings with it, but ended up getting a lot of inane comments about it, particularly as the microphone is in frame. Personally, I don't want to draw attention to myself in a meeting, so I've ended up going back to using…

Visible microphones really take away from the naturalness that you get from a fancy camera, and they make workspaces feel cluttered to boot.

Recommend getting a shotgun mic (AudioTechnica AT875R) and mounted it atop the camera, as these sit out of frame and still have great sound. Worth trying!

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#378

Post by tristor »

klodolph wrote: post #214

For video, I think this is a waste of time and money. Audio is a different story. The quality of your audio has an impact both on the intelligibility of what you're saying and on listener's subconscious evaluations of you. Audio software and hardware is also cheaper and much, much easier to deal with than video--I've had no problems with essentially the same setup across Mac, Linux, and Windows. The cost of entry is…

This is very true. I have what most people would consider a "pretty advanced" setup for work, and all of my money has gone into audio and lighting. I use the built-in webcam on my work MBP, and I constantly get positive comments from colleagues and customers about my audio and video quality. For video quality, /lighting/ is actually far more important than the camera itself. Even a many thousand dollars camera will not fix bad lighting in a room.

Everything you said about audio is spot-on. I will say the cheap booms suck, and it's worth spending money on a proper boom. Heil makes a boom that's relatively cheap and actually good, but most people at work who ask me how to get started I say to either buy a Blue or Rode setup, with their kit that includes the boom and shock mount.

For audio software on Mac, Rogue Amoeba makes the best stuff, bar none.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#379

Post by sbarre »

NamTaf wrote: post #160

Protip: if your goal is to use your smartphone as a webcam, check out this: https://vdo.ninja Written by some guy named Steve, it’s an incredible piece of web software that uses WebRTC to stream phone audio and video as an OBS input. OBS then features a virtual webcam capability to take that stream and make it a webcam. I can then also use OBS to do whatever processing I want, e.g. making my webcam also contain a scr…

Another more turnkey (but commercial) option is EpocCam by Logitech.

It's a free driver download for MacOS and Windows and then a paid app for your phone (6 dollars I think) and you can use your phone as a webcam, either over wifi or USB.

It works with OBS, Zoom, Meet, and other stuff (maybe not FaceTime though? I don't use it on my Mac but I know Apple is picky about what cameras can work with FaceTime) and just shows up as a regular webcam on your system.

If you have an older or spare phone, the camera in it is likely waaaay better than a webcam.

Re: Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

#380

Post by httpsterio »

jakebasile wrote: post #288
phantomread wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amateur photographer looking to learn more here. My initial impression is that a 35mm focal length on a full-frame/35mm film equivalent sensor would have a relatively _wide_ field of view (FOV). Or do I have that backwards? My other thought is that the suggested lens can stop down to f1.8, which would give a nice narrow depth of field (DOF) and add a pleasant background blur, but it would also be harder to stay in fo…

Most modern cameras have the ability to do constant autofocus in video mode, to varying degrees of quality and success. Usually they will try to follow anything that looks like a human face, or at least the brightest object in the field of view. That said, even the greatest autofocus isn't going to be able to keep up with a person who moves around a lot at f/1.8 - so it's reasonable to stop down a bit if that's the c…

it's also dependent on the lens used.
Post reply on HN