4 ms·

for the love of [deity] some startup please sell the networks a high quality webcam solution on a private network with low latency/lag and multi-path routing to

by ck2 7y ago

for the love of [deity] some startup please sell the networks a high quality webcam solution on a private network with low latency/lag and multi-path routing to keep it online because I cannot stand to watch broadcasts anymore, it's total amateur hour all these reporters are using potato cams with some highly filtered high latency public streaming service and it might as well be some kid in his basement - speaking of which why do you not even have a backdrop, we don't want to see your ugly bookcase or oddly posh kitchen

notafraudster 7y ago
I would think that the backdrop thing is mostly performative (look at me, I'm producing this under suboptimal conditions), but I am really surprised that these broadcasts aren't being produced asynchronously. Both audio and video would be much better if the person was doing a local recording of their side of the call, and afterwards both local recordings were stitched together instead of using the over-the-internet version. Doesn't work for live stuff, but most correspondent stuff is scheduled in advance and could accommodate this kind of thing.
lostapathy 7y ago
The bigger issue with webcam quality is lighting, not the camera itself. Once the camera has to start making trade-offs due to lack of light, quality goes downhill fast, even on great cameras.
- ghaff 7y ago
  I agree with that. The biggest problem I see is people backlit by a window. Personally, I have a higher-end webcam but the biggest difference I see is people who have good front lighting and the webcam at a reasonable angle versus those in obviously dim rooms, backlit, and webcams looking up at the ceiling.
- ck2 7y ago
  hodge-podge background is distracting as heck in a professional broadcast also these journalists are using wifi to connect to their router and when someone in the house uses a microwave, etc. the connection goes out or dramatically loses quality from poor signal someone needs to make a "professional webcam kit" with a pulldown rear greenscreen, a wired connection and a private network service to transmit with error-correction and time-sync back to the broadcaster - enhance the video and sound would be a big plus

by ck2 7y ago

notafraudster 7y ago

I would think that the backdrop thing is mostly performative (look at me, I'm producing this under suboptimal conditions), but I am really surprised that these broadcasts aren't being produced asynchronously. Both audio and video would be much better if the person was doing a local recording of their side of the call, and afterwards both local recordings were stitched together instead of using the over-the-internet version. Doesn't work for live stuff, but most correspondent stuff is scheduled in advance and could accommodate this kind of thing.

lostapathy 7y ago

The bigger issue with webcam quality is lighting, not the camera itself. Once the camera has to start making trade-offs due to lack of light, quality goes downhill fast, even on great cameras.

ghaff 7y ago
I agree with that. The biggest problem I see is people backlit by a window. Personally, I have a higher-end webcam but the biggest difference I see is people who have good front lighting and the webcam at a reasonable angle versus those in obviously dim rooms, backlit, and webcams looking up at the ceiling.
ck2 7y ago
hodge-podge background is distracting as heck in a professional broadcast also these journalists are using wifi to connect to their router and when someone in the house uses a microwave, etc. the connection goes out or dramatically loses quality from poor signal someone needs to make a "professional webcam kit" with a pulldown rear greenscreen, a wired connection and a private network service to transmit with error-correction and time-sync back to the broadcaster - enhance the video and sound would be a big plus