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

481–490 of 610 posts

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#481

Post by kenneth »

thayne wrote: post #469
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.

At $500 you're approaching the price point of low end mirrorless cameras, which will probably have higher quality than a small, old smartphone camera.

A low end mirrorless camera is a fantastic webcam -- the only problem is it's clunky to set up that way especially on the software end. If you made one that's plug and play I would buy it.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#482

Post by Aeolun »

IshKebab wrote: post #198
kcb wrote: post #2

Webcams are good enough for their purpose which is video conferencing and calls. In the end your video is likely going to be encoded in like 360p low bitrate. I personally prefer not being in razor sharp detail on calls anyway. Anyway this is the one I've been using. https://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Webcam-Built-Stereo-Micropho... I like the integrated shutter better than the cover thing for the c920.

Yeah I kind of agree. We're years away from when most people's videoconferencing quality is close to C920 quality. Audio is much more important. The C920's is pretty crap. You can easily buy better mics, but unfortunately most people just don't care about the quality of their own output. I think part of the problem is that it's quite difficult to know your audio/video sounds/looks crap to other people. For most users…

Audio is very important, but I have no idea what would make a good microphone, everyone seems to have a different opinion on what constitutes ‘great’.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#483

Post by numpad0 »

jrockway wrote: post #303
ip26 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think mics and webcams suffer a simple problem: the person who enjoys the benefit of higher quality is not the operator. Indeed, the operator may never experience how they look or sound.

That might be true, but your reputation is at stake as well. For the same reason that you might wear a suit to an important meeting, you might also take steps to ensure that your video and audio quality are presentable when you're having an important meeting virtually. (Of course, once you've paid the cost for that, you can just do a good job for all meetings. Much easier than a trip to the dry cleaners.)

Hard to notice that hoodie is your problem and not your coding style without ever being pointed out.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#484

Post by kenhwang »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #417
lexx wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done exactly the same with a canon dslr. Everybody asks me if I am a streamer Many are jealous, i think. It's hard to understand through their poor webcams haha

That's a good idea actually, especially older DSLRs are quite cheap on the used market. The problem is I'm more of a Nikon guy and I don't own any Canon lenses. But my Nikon body is an ancient D50 which doesn't have any of this fancy webcammy stuff. Or even video recording for that matter. And I don't know if newer Nikons have webcam features. But thanks for the tip, I'll investigate. Even that cam would provide exce…

Nikon[1] and Sony[2] also released software during the pandemic that turns any of their video recording DSLR/MILCs into webcams. I think a D50 might be a bit too old though since it doesn't have video recording.

1: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/webcam-utility...

2: https://imagingedge.sony.net/en-us/ie-webcam.html

> DSLR/MILC

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#485

Post by Spooky23 »

modeless wrote: post #269
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…

> 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…

Agreed. Optics aren’t that hard. If you put a good sensor in something with a form factor similar to the old iSight camera, seems to me like it would be a winner.

People seem to have embraced those stupid circle lights everywhere, why is a decent camera a bridge too far?

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#486

Post by numpad0 »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #417
lexx wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done exactly the same with a canon dslr. Everybody asks me if I am a streamer Many are jealous, i think. It's hard to understand through their poor webcams haha

That's a good idea actually, especially older DSLRs are quite cheap on the used market. The problem is I'm more of a Nikon guy and I don't own any Canon lenses. But my Nikon body is an ancient D50 which doesn't have any of this fancy webcammy stuff. Or even video recording for that matter. And I don't know if newer Nikons have webcam features. But thanks for the tip, I'll investigate. Even that cam would provide exce…

If you have, like, 1960s Ai Nikkor 50mm F1.4 with a "crab nail", and if you don't need autofocus or program-auto aperture, they can be put onto basically any cameras by means of a passive adapter.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#487

Post by animesh »

kcb wrote: post #2

Webcams are good enough for their purpose which is video conferencing and calls. In the end your video is likely going to be encoded in like 360p low bitrate. I personally prefer not being in razor sharp detail on calls anyway. Anyway this is the one I've been using. https://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Webcam-Built-Stereo-Micropho... I like the integrated shutter better than the cover thing for the c920.

Another +1. I got a HP w100 480P 30 FPS for this purpose. It serves my purpose best which is interviews and screen shares with friends. I can be seen and recognized and save on bandwich.

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#488

Post by swyx »

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 had to abandon my review issue of Lumina because the constant refocusing every time i moved my head was far too distracting for work. could you please give us an option to turn that off?

Re: Webcams aren't good enough

#489

Post by swyx »

system2 wrote: post #281
navanchauhan wrote: post #12

You can use you phone's camera as a webcam with Reincubate's Camo App. This required a wired connection iirc. You can also use OBS Studio along with a virtual camera plugin to use any device which can output directly to your computer. But most of these solutions do not work on Safari or FaceTime unless you manually modify the app. Now, Apple is going to soon introduce their "It Just Works" solution with the next rele…

Sound is easy. Slap a nice Yeti microphone and 2 sound blocking foams on the walls, you are good to go.

https://dontbuyayeti.com/ empathizing with this recently
Post reply on HN