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

81–90 of 297 posts

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#81

Post by llampx »

onion2k wrote: post #10
jstanley wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why is it that the iPhone example looks much better than every webcam in exactly the same lighting conditions?

iPhone cameras aren't particularly great. They're good, but the thing that makes iPhone pictures really good is the iPhone's computational photography software. If webcams started including powerful CPUs, GPUs, AI chips, and OSs that can turn average pictures in to amazing pictures then webcams would be good. They'd also be quite a lot more expensive.

A webcam upgrading from a 50 cent ISP (Image Signal Processor) to a $2.00 one and a $3 lens instead of a $2 one (numbers based on conjecture from the average selling price of a low-end USB webcam) doesn't mean you need to build in a battery, a cellular antenna, a Wi-Fi radio, a desktop-grade CPU and GPU, give it a sturdy all-glass design and add speakers to it.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#82

Post by llampx »

lhnz wrote: post #57
llampx wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It hasn't done so so far.

Yes, that's what's strange to me. Either laptop manufacturers are missing a trick that would help them compete, or people don't really care about picture quality in remote video calls.

I think its more that laptop manufacturers don't care because no other OEM has made a selling point of it. Its a virtuous circle - some people care about a specific feature, some OEM makes it a selling point, more people start talking about it, OEM B calls an emergency meeting and asks for the feature to be in their new laptop line, they spend advertising $$ promoting it, more people get to know about it and ask for it, more OEMs start including it.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#83

Post by llampx »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #40

How big is the market for "good webcams"? If 99% of the people just need a "good enough" (to recognise your face) webcam, that they turn off after the initial "hello!" (so noone notices they have no pants on if they have to stand up), does that really make it worth it to develop new tech for the 1%? ...compared to phone cameras, where people actually want (and are willing to pay more) for a good camera, especially fo…

On the flip side, with my phone I'm usually calling friends and family in my pajamas. With my laptop I'm calling serious people for serious business, sometimes as a group. It makes more sense for the laptop to have a better camera.

I think until recently enterprise IT hasn't cared about laptop camera quality because the understanding was that proper video conferencing would be done from a conference room with a $2k camera setup. The pandemic has flipped that on its head.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#85

Post by nunez »

onion2k wrote: post #2

Literally all webcam 'problems' come down to expecting your webcam to perform well in conditions that even a $5000 dSLR wouldn't do a particularly good job in. Buy a light and all of the issues from the article will magically disappear.

This is the truth. Even the Logitech C270, which is a basic, fixed-depth $20 camera, performs really well once you get a ring light. (I landed up getting a BRIO, which is a really nice webcam with the ability to swap out cables, which is handy for travelling.)

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#86

Post by EForEndeavour »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #38
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.

On the flip side, you can get some decent cameras in the "nose up position" these days.

Higher resolution at exactly the wrong angle? Wonderful!

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#87

Post by floatingatoll »

llampx wrote: post #47
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.

I also thought about this but then look at the iPad and iPhone Facetime cameras. They offer much better image quality than Macbook webcams. There are a few ways to offer "rear camera" quality on Macbooks, like having a little bump sticking out from the back. I don't think that's what people are asking for though. They just want a webcam that's as good as the webcam in their phone. Also this doesn't answer the questio…

That improvement in image quality requires Apple Cortex CPUs due to Apple’s implementation strategies for cameras. I expect Apple will update the cameras in future laptop models as Apple Silicon arrives fully across their product lines, likely using the same package from their phones.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#88

Post by clairity »

front-facing cameras (i.e., webcams) are unnecessary on a laptop, tablet, or phone. manufacturers should remove them in favor of better supporting dedicated equipment, since they'll never be 'good enough' when video quality actually matters.

video calls have been part of the futurism canon for at least 100 years, but they still have little utility beyond a simple phone call (or even text messages in many cases). they just waste bandwidth and add anxiety and frustration (nevermind encouraging narcissism).

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#89

Post by bluGill »

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.

0. People who don't want a web cam on their computer at all.

I know a lot of people who have put tape over their webcam. In fact that is the policy of several departments where I work. Some people use their web cams, but a large number of people I work with never use theirs.

By using a cheap web cam manufactures can cover 1 without having to make a model without a webcam for those who don't want it - this would be more expensive than shipping a piece of tape to cover it just because they would need to design a second case and have a new part number.

Re: Why webcams aren’t good enough

#90

Post by djrogers »

llampx wrote: post #79
solarkraft wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those devices are significantly thicker that a MacBook display. I could imagine a bump towards the front that would sink into the body when closed, but doing it in a way that looks and feels good also seems rather hard - but also harder to avoid should they want to implement things such as face id.

I guess we'll never know until we have the front camera assemblies from both sitting side by side.

Fortunately this is the Internet. You can see those parts plenty of places - like ifixit for example. Yes, the front facing cameras on iPhones are thicker than what would fit in a current MacBook display.

Honestly though, I think the real reason webcams on laptops suck is that until recently 95% of people didn't use them 99% of the time.

Post reply on HN