35 ms·

Why can’t you buy a good webcam?

• dan-robertson 6y ago
  Regarding microphone arrays, is there a good description somewhere online which explains the mathematics of picking out the sound from one place using a mic array?
  • dan-robertson 6y ago
    I didn’t find any reference but the algorithm is approximately this: 1. Assume there is one point source of sound which dominates everything else 2. Input two frames of samples, s and t, and compute cross correlation: a measure of how similar they are for a given delay between samples n(k) := sum(s(i) t(i+k)) / (s•s)(t•t) 3. Find the k which maximises n(k) 4. Do some beamforming to improve the signal to noise ratio. This sounds complicated but basically you just shift t by k samples and average it with s. I’m not really sure how this works if k changes over time, but I guess something could be done to change it in a more continuous way. I also don’t really know how it works with more than two microphones or if you know the geometry of the array.
• 02020202 6y ago
  oh yeah, the webcams suck big time. even the expensive ones. just get a dslr over hdmi. it's 100x better and used dslr is cheap these days. you can even get panasonic gh4/5 which is a real video camera.
  • partiallogic 6y ago
    Can you recommend any dslr models or what to look out for when buying used with the intention of only using it as a webcam?
    • piranha 6y ago
      Canon M200, Panasonic G7, Sony a5100 (oldest but can be bought for cheap and has good autofocus).
    • murkt 6y ago
      You actually want a mirrorless camera, not a DSLR one. If you intend to only use it as a webcam, probably just buy Panasonic G7 or Canon M200 for $500.
    • 02020202 6y ago
      DSLR will be larger than mirorrless. go for MFT mount(panasonic/olympus), they have smaller lenses. like the panasonic gh series. if you get older dslr make sure the hdmi is 1080p, not 720p. since you won't do any recording there is nothing else to worry about. you will be piping the image straight into computer via video capture card. if you would want to use it for video elsewhere, make sure you get "video camera" and not "photo camera" because due to import taxes they have limited recording time for 5-15 minutes. the gh series is a sure bet and cheapest option. gh4 is old but will do the job. used gh5 can be got for cheap and if you want to up it a bit get the gh5s.
• napolux 6y ago
  I use https://www.elgato.com/epoccam https://www.elgato.com/epoccam on my iPhone and for a few dollar is far superior than every webcam I've tried in my life.
  • bzb6 6y ago
    Good way to burn your battery.
  • xalava 6y ago
    Similarly, and multiplatforms, I recommend DroidCam (https://www.dev47apps.com/ https://www.dev47apps.com/). The interface could use some polish but it works well on android/ios phones to Mac/Windows and Linux.
    • Eduard 6y ago
      What's your lag with Droidcam? My experience was a delay of half a second, making it unusable for live conferencing.
      • Kipters 6y ago
        I use DroidCamX too, I don't have any noticeable delay but I have a fairly solid wireless setup (Unifi AP in the same room) and most of the time I just use the USB cable anyway so I can also keep the phone charging
      • slantyyz 6y ago
        I've used it wired via USB to Windows, and it was usable for live conferencing.
  • joosters 6y ago
    Similarly, I've used the 'NeuralCam Live' app that also turns an iphone into a webcam. It's free to use, with extra paid options too. The biggest downside is the lack of microphone support, which seems an odd omission. I think the article is missing the obvious solution: if you can't buy a standalone webcam with as good image/sound quality as a phone, then use/make software that lets you use the phone hardware, there's no need to try to build your own camera.
• denysvitali 6y ago
  Take a modern phone, use an app and connect the phone as a webcam. This way you save money, time and a blog post (:
  • scrollaway 6y ago
    If only you'd read the blog post, you would have saved yourself money, time, and a comment on HN. He talks about phone-connected webcams using an app.
    • D2187645 6y ago
      What article?
  • spand 6y ago
    It is covered in the article
• DangerousPie 6y ago
  I'm pretty happy with my Logitech C920 HD - never had any issues with picture or sound quality.
• bullen 6y ago
  If you have the guts to switch to Raspberry (or follow this guide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fcbP7lEdzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fcbP7lEdzY) the Raspberry HD camera is really good!
• JosephRedfern 6y ago
  A year ago, you could easily buy a good webcam for very little. The Logitech C920 is, to my eyes, superior to the MacBook Pro webcam, and offered at least semi-decent audio quality. Pre-pandemic, it could sometimes be had for £25 (~$35). Post pandemic, however, webcam prices seem to have at least tripled (if not quadrupled). As I type, the C920 is going for £140. I can understand this as a supply/demand thing, but surprised that things haven't started to level out yet.
  • denimnerd42 6y ago
    C920 is still only mediocre IMO. It's ok if you sit completely still but it doesn't handle motion at all.
    • fock 6y ago
      so what, everyone else buys Sony or m4/3 and a capture card. It's not that you need motion in the typical videoconference that much - and even then: what's handling motion about? I don't have a problem with my c900 (or whatever) and the only problem with a very old Quickcam STX seems to be no driver ..
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  • makomk 6y ago
    The Logitech C920 is a design from 9 years ago, with a sensor to match. You're missing out on a lot of sensor improvements over the years that give things like better low light performance - handy when using a camera for video indoors. It's also, unfortunately, close to the best webcam out there. Apple really don't seem to have brought the camera improvements from their iPhone range to their MacBooks, apparently their built-in webcams are as bad as everyone else's.
    • JosephRedfern 6y ago
      Agreed. Sorry, I misread the original post -- I thought they were using current MBP cameras (rather than mics) as a benchmark. C920 is miles ahead of MacBook cameras, but as you say, nowhere near iPhone level of quality.
• jeswin 6y ago
  > So there is a market gap between so-so webcams for $100-200 and a full-blown setup with a mirrorless camera, an external mic and lighting panels that will cost almost a grand or two, if you're so inclined. Nope. You can get a mirrorless camera set up (with mic and lights) for around $500 to $600. There are plenty of 1" compacts as well in that price range.
  • glogla 6y ago
    Can you mention a specific models that would work well in this use case?
    • mschuster91 6y ago
      Sony's A6000 works perfectly well, but I recommend you also grab a NP-FW50 dummy battery as it will drain the battery even when plugged in via USB over time. If you want better sound, grab the A6600 which can also sport the XLR-K2M microphone adapter. Regarding HDMI capture: the Blackmagic DeckLink card series works just fine in a Thunderbolt case (at work I run a 2x A6000 system + external HDMI input).
      • jeswin 6y ago
        > Blackmagic DeckLink And if you wanna save some cash, any $20-25 hdmi to usb capture card will work just fine. It won't give you uncompressed video, but you won't need it for this use case.
        • mschuster91 6y ago
          I've been bitten in my ass lots of times by these things. Random crashes, overheating, dodgy connectors that don't tolerate even the slightest movement... thanks but no thanks, the cheapest DeckLink clocks in at 150$. Downside is you'll also need a Thunderbolt PCIe case, but eh. It Just Works (tm).
  • ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    I am looking for an improvement in convenience over mirrorless, even if it costs the same. A webcam can be more compact because it does not need half the stuff thats in a mirrorless camera
• Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  I think the author lost me when they said that a good webcam has to have "decent sound quality" and uses the MacBook as an example. I have literally never seen anyone suggest using your webcams /laptop mic except as a last resort.
  • piranha 6y ago
    Macbook Pro mic is literally much better than most webcams mics right now.
    • Mauricebranagh 6y ago
      My point for webcam audio you want to use a headset, USB mic or a real sound card and an XLR mic. Using a laptop / web cam mic is the fourth/fifth best option - its a bit like playing Association Football (Soccer) in League Two
  • terramex 6y ago
    Recent MacBook Pros (2020 13" M1 and 2019+ 16" Intel based) have incredible microphones for laptop mics [1]. Older 13" Pros and Airs have decent mics too but not as good as dedicated USB microphone. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=237&v=CmMOJTs7Pu8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=237&v=CmMOJTs7Pu8
• dmitri1981 6y ago
  The trick to great picture quality is to use good lighting and drop the ISO on the video as low as possible. I've been using Reincubate Camo for my iPhone along with Key Light Air Lights. The quality is better than any webcam. Most webcams crank up ISO so they can work in the dark and that is what ruins picture quality.
  • clan 6y ago
    This cannot be overstated. While I agree with many of the camera recommendations in this thread the most important factor is enough light. Even the worst webcams go from absolutely trash to something usable if you add better lighting to you subject. And when people start thinking over lighting you can move away from your window so you do not have that as a powerful backlight. Look out the window and the webcam will have much better results.
    • jcims 6y ago
      I just want something with some depth of field.
      • dmitri1981 6y ago
        Given my limited understanding of photography that is not really possible with small sensor sizes. Phones can achieve that using computational photography, but I don't think it's possible using optics on webcams.
        • jcims 6y ago
          I think you're 100% correct (minus some weird lab-grade setup or software-base DoF)
        • murkt 6y ago
          Yes, optical depth-of-field is only possible with reasonably big sensor sizes and wide-open lens. Reportedly, Huawei P40 Pro has an IMX700 sensor with the 1/1.33" diagonal. I didn't run the numbers for it, but it is big enough that with a bright lens it will produce bokeh.
• konschubert 6y ago
  > It's easy to buy some "random" sensor that was around for years and most certainly has "meh" quality by today's standards, but we need a good one, with good dynamic range, HDR capabilities and low-light performance. So maybe it's a matter of time until these "good" sensors reach the open market, can be bought in smaller quantities and become commoditised. Then, we may see a good upmarket webcam.
  • ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    The sensors have been around for ages, nothing stops you using same sensors that are in phone cameras. But you have to build a chip to control the damn thing over usb. I coupd not find any USB3 webcam except logitech brio
• ThePadawan 6y ago
  I can't say the same about my experience with (other people's) webcams. From all the video calls I had this year, people either used * their notebook's built-in webcam that's complete garbage * any other webcam, and their image is clear as day, or at least video quality is limited by lighting or bandwidth.
  • mvdwoord 6y ago
    Seconded, to a degree. It seems most people's workspaces are just very dimly lit. Of course, modern hypersensitive sensors from DSLRs are immune to this. I use a relatively simple and old Logitech (C720 I believe) as webcam, and when I am in calls, I point my desk light straight at my face from just atop the webcam. This alone increases the image quality by an order of magnitude. If I would do more videoconferencing (currently only an hour or so per day, mostly with my own team) I would probably invest in a better light setup and a microphone, before I would think about upgrading my camera. Most small cheapish sensors do absolutely fine, given enough photons to work with.
    • ThePadawan 6y ago
      Oh lightning is definitely the largest real-life factor. I definitely cut my colleagues some slack here since many literally had to set up a home office out of nowhere. Some had to go to the basement (and CFL lights + webcams = blergh), others just had to cram themselves into whatever corner of the house (thus also badly lit).
      • ghaff 6y ago
        Yeah, and I certainly don't want to hassle anyone who hasn't set up a perfect video studio for calls in their house. On the other hand, after 9 months I do sometimes feel a bit of frustration for the folks who are still perfectly backlit from a window rather than hanging some fabric over it.
  • mkl 6y ago
    I've had compliments about how good my (work) Surface Book 2's camera is. Surface Pro 4 seems pretty good too.
• bayindirh 6y ago
  A high end Logitech with a Zeiss lens and auto focus is superior to any webcam you can buy. It'll also last for a long long time. Of course a bigger sensor and a bigger lens (DSLR, Mirrorless, etc.) is something different.
  • AdrianB1 6y ago
    They are mediocre at best, owners say. I know some people that have one they use as secondary cameras (for multi-angle setups), but they bought it first, got disappointed and bought something else, this is the path.
    • bayindirh 6y ago
      I own an old Pro 9000 and it's still respectable. Only its FPS is a little low but, it was the king of the hill when I bought it. As I've looked now, it seems that they discontinued ones with Zeiss lenses. The ones with Zeiss lenses were both low light and clarity monsters for their size. Their highest model is Brio Pro with 3D sensing it seems. I need to see its performance. However Logi says it has a real glass lens so it shouldn't be a slouch. Nevertheless, it's not fair to compare a lentil sized sensor with a Full 35mm, last gen mirrorless.
  • lupire 6y ago
    Logitech Zeiss is a webcam you buy.
• mattowen_uk 6y ago
  I've also investigated this quite deeply. As I'm sure most of us know, the main problems with 'webcams', either the built-in ones or USB ones that you perch on top of your monitor, are the lens size, and the CCD/CMOS image sensor size. Manufacturers spouting specs like '4k' are deliberately misleading the public if the sensor and/or the lens aren't also upgraded. The only cost-viable methods to get 'broadcast quality' imagery for streaming/recording right now is to buy a second hand DLSR or mirrorless camera that has 'clean' HDMI out that works without the camera auto-shutting down after X amount of time. There are a few sites out there that list the preferable models[1]. I've got a couple of old Canon DSLRs (That don't do clean HDMI) and a load of lenses, so I've been watching Ebay for a newer model Canon DSLR that I can afford. The lowest cost Canon DSLR body I've seen with unrestricted clean HDMI or that can take the Magic Lantern[2] firmware is about £150. However... You also need a HDMI-to-USB dongle. This converts the cameras HDMI output into a standard USB Webcam input. I've already got an Elgato CamLink[3] (bought for a different reason a couple of years ago), but you can get cheap China knockoffs for about £15, I don't know how good they are though. My Camlink cost WAY more than that, so I have my doubts about the knockoff quality. Finally, you need good audio capture that importantly is in sync with the picture. The HDMI to USB conversion adds a tiny delay to the image which can put your audio out of sync if you are using a standard USB microphone. Good software like OBS[4] can correct for this though. --- [1] https://www.elgato.com/en/gaming/cam-link/camera-check https://www.elgato.com/en/gaming/cam-link/camera-check [2] https://magiclantern.fm/ https://magiclantern.fm/ [3] https://www.elgato.com/en/gaming/cam-link-4k https://www.elgato.com/en/gaming/cam-link-4k [4] https://obsproject.com/ https://obsproject.com/
  • denimnerd42 6y ago
    I have a similar setup but don't you find the latency to be bad? At least it's not good enough for video calls IMO. It's fine for streaming to an audience or recording.
    • vetinari 6y ago
      With random chinese knock-off and GoPro 3, I had a latency of 10-11 frames when doing 60 fps stream. It was usable for video calls, but I had problems with reliability (old battery in Gopro, and even if it was permanently connected to power source, it charged only when I turned it on -- which usually was when I wanted to have a call).
• ansgri 6y ago
  Sony recently added support for webcam-over-usb to a lot of their cameras, apparently. And they are known for video quality and good lenses. So that’s $700-800 for a very good camera (new) that also works as webcam. https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/app/webcam/en/download/ https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/app/webcam/en/download/
  • tweetle_beetle 6y ago
    So close, but annoyingly my older ICLE-6000 didn't make the cut. Thanks for the information.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • ansgri 6y ago
      Yes, my 5100 (which is basically a more compact and software-limited 6000) also not included, but it seems to be a hardware limitation -- e.g. live view over USB is also ont supported on these cameras, and live view over wifi is rather crappy.
  • muro 6y ago
    Same for Nikon and Canon, works reasonably well. None of the software supports audio, so you need a different mic (e.g. built into your laptop, external USB or on headphones).
  • jcims 6y ago
    I know they are getting long in the tooth but I wish Sony would do something with the NEX cameras. Latest firmware release was v1.03 released a year or two after they released the camera. Feels like Sony has completely abandoned them.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • ansgri 6y ago
• praptak 6y ago
  My entry-level Canon DSLR (EOS 550D) can stream over USB, although it's not "plug and play", at least not on Linux. To make Chrome detect it as a webcam I need to go through gphoto2 -> ffmpeg -> v4l2loopback pipeline.
  • fock 6y ago
    which means l aaaag
  • D2187645 6y ago
    usb resolution is poorer to start with. older cameras cannot run for 30+ mins before overheating.
  • bozzcl 6y ago
    You can save yourself some trouble by using a HDMI capture device. I use one with my Sony a7ii with good results.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• nailer 6y ago
  Owner of a Logitech Brio 4K here. The quality is terrible just like this article mentions and I would have happily spent the money elsewhere if I had options. I used to have a tiny Canon digital camera in 2003 that had better quality than this.
  • murkt 6y ago
    Brio is retailing at ~$330 in my country.
  • ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    My Brio is fine if you are not sitting in darknesd or exoect pixel perfect 4k
  • shaicoleman 6y ago
    It's terrible out of the box. With a firmware update and bit of tweaking it's not bad. Under Linux, you can use guvcview to play with the settings to your liking. Here's an example command line for Zoom purposes: v4l2-ctl --set-fmt-video=width=1280,height=720,pixelformat=MJPG --set-parm 30 --set-ctrl=contrast=32 --set-ctrl=sharpness=176 --set-ctrl=zoom_absolute=133 --set-ctrl=tilt_absolute=-36000 -d /dev/v4l/by-id/usb-046d_Logitech_BRIO_*-video-index0 For Windows, you can check out the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwXR27wLhoE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwXR27wLhoE For webcams, the only other decent option is the Avermedia PW513, which only came out a month ago.
    • FeistySkink 6y ago
      I've been trying to find PW513, but it doesn't seem to exist anywhere last time I checked. Is it out for sale already?
      • shaicoleman 6y ago
        PW513 is available on US sites (e.g. amazon.com/bestbuy.com), but not globally yet. See also my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25506629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25506629
• napolux 6y ago
  what about camcorders? is there any model that also acts as a webcam? they’re pretty cheap nowadays
• raesene9 6y ago
  The article doesn't really go into a lot of depth about which Logitech cameras they looked at. I've got the Brio (https://www.logitech.com/en-gb/product/brio https://www.logitech.com/en-gb/product/brio) and it seems pretty good to me. If you are looking to use an iPhone camera for streaming/Video conferencing camo (https://reincubate.com/camo/ https://reincubate.com/camo/) works well.
  • murkt 6y ago
    > The article doesn't really go into a lot of depth about which Logitech cameras they looked at. All of them. Brio is better, but still has much worse quality than any top smartphone.
    • raesene9 6y ago
      Depends what you're looking for I guess. The brio's been fine for me for video conferencing and even the odd conference talk.
      • Someone1234 6y ago
        Hard to justify the ($200) price. You can literally buy an entire smartphone with two cameras for the cost of a Brio. It is pretty clear that there's no competition in the webcam market, and that the offerings have stagnated for years.
        • raesene9 6y ago
          The Brio's price isn't purely on the camera quality, a decent chunk of that price was the integration with Windows Hello. Now, of course, that doesn't matter if you're not using Windows, but the market it seems designed to cater to , is Windows users.
• wodenokoto 6y ago
  Reading this article actually got me sold on the idea of a phone-holder+software in lieu of a good web cam. I, like many people have an old smartphone lying around. My Samsung S7 has better camera (front and back) and better mic than any webcam I’ve owned. Getting a nice holder and a reliable app that could spit webcam picture out of that phone would be great.
  • soylentcola 6y ago
    I have used phones with obs.ninja to stream the camera output to OBS over the local network and then send that to conference applications with OBS's virtual camera plugin. It sounds janky (and it kinda is) but compared to some of the client/server app pairs I'd messed with earlier, it works more reliably. One plus is that I don't need to install anything on my phone since it just uses WebRTC in the browser to send the cam/mic feeds to OBS. Of course, even once you get it set up on a tripod and pointed at your face, you will want to turn down screen brightness and keep it plugged in. It works and it works well, but your phone may get warm and drain some battery if you are using it for hours at a time. In the end I consider it a good backup option (used it when I forgot my webcam at another location) but I prefer the ease of a dedicated camera if I have the option.
• pembrook 6y ago
  The reason you can’t buy a good webcam is the same reason you can’t buy a high quality monitor outside of LG’s unreliable apple collab. The lazy conglomerates who sell these peripherals often don’t actually produce the parts in them. They simply rebrand commodity cameras and IPS panels in a crap plastic housing and slap their logo on it. Then they give the product a hilariously user-hostile product name, like “PQS GRT46782-WT” as an extra f-you to the user. They don’t care about you because they have no ongoing relationship with you, and their executives mistakenly see their own products as commodities. Combine this with the fact that most home users don’t care about good quality or even know what it is, and you have the current situation. A friend once described the peripheral market as “Assholes selling crap to idiots.”
  • baxtr 6y ago
    Ahh the LG monitor from the Apple collaboration. It’s so great. So different than other monitors. Stable, reliable, solid. A great product. You can literally see how Apple forced their product tenets on LG. Sadly, it’s not available anymore. I have one in my office but needed another one for home. Ended up buying an LG with the funny name of something 27UKi6716263 that looked similar on amazon. It’s so different... what a shame EDIT: it’a not available in Germany
    • tonyedgecombe 6y ago
      I don't think Apple have dropped it, it's still listed in the UK and here: https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HMUB2LL/A/lg-ultrafine-5k-display https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HMUB2LL/A/lg-ultrafine-5k... I've got one and really like it although it doesn't seem to support HDCP.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    • ahelwer 6y ago
      I thought it was the exact same as the LG 24UD58-B except with lightning connectors instead of display port and hdmi? That (the non-lightning model) is the monitor I have, it's the smallest (24") 4k monitor I could find - I wanted high DPI, and I got it.
• lmilcin 6y ago
  If you are looking here to improve your webcam because you started to do remote work, don't. First try to improve lighting and audio. Any camera will look bad in bad lighting. It is always better to first improve your lighting before you invest in a new camera. Use high CRI lightbulbs and ensure even source color temperature in your room (ie. all lightbulbs should be emitting same color temperature). Audio is also very important. It is processed by different parts of brain and we don't put so much attention to it but the quality will influence the other person, subconsciously. Also, audio is how the information is being passed.
  • murkt 6y ago
    It seems I needed to include a couple of shots - one is from my laptop webcam, and the other is from my phone. What "bad lighting" is changes very much based on the camera capabilities (lens, sensor, post-processing).
    • masklinn 6y ago
      Yes and no. A better camera will be able to better compensate for bad lighting, but that doesn’t make the lighting good, and good lighting will improve the results of both. That’s why pro mage capturers (photogs and camera crews) spend a lot of time on getting the lighting as good as possible.
      • lmilcin 6y ago
        To be sure I don't tell it is worthless to buy a better camera. I just say you may want to improve your lighting first. Most webcams including the ones in laptop can provide decent quality image if there is ample amount of good light on the subject.
    • llampx 6y ago
      There's even a severe difference in different models by the same manufacturer. Apple for example, puts much better webcams in their iPhones and iPads than in their Macbooks.
    • 6y ago
• jimktrains2 6y ago
  This is a little off-topic, but a little tangential. Why do so many people insist on doing video chats? Regardless of camera quality, you're going to come in as a blocky and stuttery mess to most people anyway. Audio-only has worked really well for my team for a few years now (my team is all remote all thr time), so it's always jaring when interfacing with the rest of the company and having people pop up with video.
  • BlargMcLarg 6y ago
    They want to mimic the office as much as possible, that's really all the argument tends to boil down to. Some will claim it is for charisma --> sorry, no amount of charisma is going to fix a bad cam and bad audio. Some will claim it is more productive --> I really only need to hear your words or see your screenshare, your face moving in front of my screen is distracting. Some will claim it is more natural --> Try looking at a whiteboard while everyone stares at you from the front. That's about what happens when you use videochat in important meetings. I don't think that's the way people used to have meetings. Some will claim it is to read body language --> Don't depend on body language and stop assuming things from audio alone. We're adults. People will tell you when something is up. The only argument I can't go against is bonding. But if you don't want to bond with your team past business-only, that argument is voided. And I haven't named the cons yet. One of my pet peeves being people will start calling you over every single thing, make you repeat yourself often, misunderstand or even forget what was said in 10 minutes. You don't have that problem with asynchronous communication, and it also yanks the callee away from their flow.
  • dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Why do so many people insist on doing video chats? Control. They want to make sure the silent people in the meeting aren't doing something else or not actually present. It's probably why it's particularly common with managers who run meetings that are neither effectively timeboxed, limited to the essential personnel as required, nor planned well to handle an agenda that requires a meeting rather than an email or exchange of emails to handle effectively.
• _wldu 6y ago
  I recently found that old smart phones make better dash cams than the purpose built dash cams sold in stores. I turned a two year old Samsung J3 into a dash cam. The phone cost 90 bucks two years ago when it was new. The dash cam app was 4.99 and the windshield mount was 6 bucks. The video is way better quality and there are more options/settings to play with.
• ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
  This nails the issue with creating any kind of hardware. I’ve worked for hardware developers for most of my career, and have seen these types of challenges play out. Frankly, hardware problems are hard. The laws of physics are non-negotiable, and doing what we assume to be simple tasks at scale can be crazy difficult. Solving a problem in a lab is not the same as making it at scale. That’s why you keep reading these stories about major lab discoveries that never seem to actually materialize in product. Us software developers get used to being able to write some code, or license a library, and the problem is solved. Scale isn’t really an issue for us. If we can do it on our laptop, then we can push out our product to millions, almost overnight. Hardware is quite a different world. We need to tool up factories, train assemblers, set up suppliers and transportation networks, negotiate dozens of contracts; even for simple projects, resolve regulatory issues (which can be quite intimidating, depending on the industry and market), establish distribution channels and create packaging. Some of these are reflected in the software world, but at a much easier-to-manage level. Also, with software, failure usually doesn’t cost as much as it does with hardware. It’s a lot easier to pick ourselves up, dust off our lapels, and try again. Iteration is relatively easy. One of my favorite scenes: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM
• salutonmundo 6y ago
  > you also can buy a great XLR microphone for $100, but then you’ll need an external sound card with phantom power supply. this is only true if you buy a condenser microphone. a dynamic microphone will work reasonably fine with your onboard soundcard if you have an xlr-->1/8" trs cable.
  • bserge 6y ago
    But with a dynamic mic, you will likely need a preamp - the inbuilt ones on laptops and most devices aren't enough. You can get battery powered condenser mics, though, and output unbalanced XLR to 3.5mm, works fine.
• amelius 6y ago
  Perhaps buy a tripod for a phone instead?
• Noxmiles 6y ago
  Absolutly! Also, Webcams are almost not developing. e.g. the Logitech C270 is 10 years old and is still selling for 30-40€, I think almost the same price since 2010. Imagine the phones or cameras in the year 2010. I really think the webcam industrie is a cartel (not to say mafia).
• Bad_CRC 6y ago
  I finally ended buying a cheap (15€) hdmi-usb capture for my dslr and the quality is abysmal. Sure canon released an usb support for it, but all the usb cameras I've tried end up using a lot of cpu. With the capture card 0 problems.
  • kennywinker 6y ago
    Do you mean “abysmal”? Your first sentence says that a capture device was a bad solution, while the next paragraph seems to imply that it was a good solution.
• import 6y ago
  I used Logitech C922. The image quality was really bad. Now using Sony A6000 + Elgato HD60 S plus. It's an expensive setup but works great.
• milesvp 6y ago
  This article sort of glosses over the actual cost of designing the hardware. You should be able to get 500 units made working through a factory. Though minimum qty for parts can be as high as 5000, usually factories can find most components in smaller qty for 2-5x the price, especially since they already have relationships with suppliers. At $25-$35 bill of materials for something retailing at $250-$300 you're only looking at maybe $15k capital costs for the electronics and maybe another $15k for the molds (less if you can use one of the cheaper processes). $30k is pretty cheap from a capital expense if you're just talking about testing a market. The bigger cost is going to be all the engineering that goes into a product like this. It would be easy to spend $100k in billable hours to bring something as complicated as a webcam to market. You've got component selection and schematic work, board layout, industrial design work, firmware. If you're lucky you can slap together the equivalent of an arduino with an attached camera for initial prototypes but that'll only get you so far, and can still take weeks of development just to have a proof of concept. Hardware development is not for the faint of heart. , and if you don't already have expertise in the webcam world, there's a good chance your product isn't going to actually be very good.
  • murkt 6y ago
    > Though minimum qty for parts can be as high as 5000 It can be as high as 100 000. No stock anywhere. > $30k is pretty cheap from a capital expense if you're just talking about testing a market. Yep. That's what I thought before contacting SoC vendors. > It would be easy to spend $100k in billable hours to bring something as complicated as a webcam to market. I'm not in the USA, engineering hours are much cheaper in my country.
    • varjag 6y ago
      > It can be as high as 100 000. No stock anywhere. There is always a way to obtain engineering samples/devkits. That's how the products in these 100,000 runs get to be. > That's what I thought before contacting SoC vendors. You don't buy from SoC vendors directly unless you're an enormous operation. Farnell, Mouser, DigiKey, Elfa.
      • 6y ago
• knazarov 6y ago
  There is actually a good webcam now. It's AverMedia PW513. It has a Sony Exmor 4K sensor, and generally favorable reviews.
  • rasz 6y ago
    Review with actual footage made with this webcam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5MfenW7EqA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5MfenW7EqA Wow, it sure does look like quality webcam, the only thing someone might miss is custom lens with fancy bokeh. Edit: Watched to the end, it does fake 1080@60 by upscaling 720 :( So still a good choice if 1 you dont need 60Hz 2 dont mind being scammed by a Taiwanese company.
  • Eric_WVGG 6y ago
    Also so-called “gamer” hardware. Like GPUs for scientific computing and high quality, actively cooled WiFi routers, it’s a weird and kind of tedious world to navigate but quality hardware is there if you know where to look. https://www.razer.com/streaming-cameras/razer-kiyo/RZ19-02320100-R3M1 https://www.razer.com/streaming-cameras/razer-kiyo/RZ19-0232...
    • rasz 6y ago
      >1080 resolution at 30fps lens the size of needle tip and example images looking like ass
  • omegote 6y ago
    Wow it's been many years since I last heard about AverMedia. I used to have an AverMedia AverTV capture card back in WinXP times, and it worked really well with composite video input from my Handycam lol.
  • shaicoleman 6y ago
    Hardware looks good, but the software/firmware might not be great. In this review, there are issues with the colours and the auto exposure. https://youtu.be/wO-H3tChhQ4?t=210 https://youtu.be/wO-H3tChhQ4?t=210 Also it is unknown how well it works on Linux.
• codethief 6y ago
  > The simplest thing is to sit in a room so the window is in front of you and the Sun isn’t shining into a lens from behind your shoulder. Unfortunately, this is a rather bad idea from workplace security point of view. You really don't wanna be looking at a screen that's in front of a window (i.e. parallel to the window), unless you like excessive eye strain.
• buro9 6y ago
  Light is the reason good webcams are not built-in. With still pictures you can expose for longer and/or use multiple low quality sensors to build up enough information for software to construct a higher quality image. With video you cannot expose for longer, and software building a picture would need to be near real-time. So problem #1 is light... you need to get a lot more light into the sensor, but the laptop is thin and optics are large (and as glass and light, they cannot be made much smaller). I have a good set up, but the thing I tell people who want to replicate it: Buy lights before you buy a camera... your built-in cam may be sufficient if you are well lit. Or even cheaper, if you have a desk facing a wall... there's no light source, so turn it around or face a window. Failing improved lighting fixing it... you need a good sensor and a lens that lets in a lot of light, especially if you are going to be in a poorly lit space. Sony produced the absolutely perfect form factor for this... https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-qx1-body-kit https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/interchangeable-lens-came... It's basically a sensor in a minimal body that you can mount a standard lens on and then place on a tripod (which opens up any mount / arm thing). Why then is it not popular? It came too early, and wasn't quite ready for always streaming video... both the software in this older revision and the hardware have issues (cooling the sensor for constant video is the problem here as it wasn't anticipated to be used to stream for 10+ hours per day and struggles beyond 30 minutes as I understand). Additionally it only has a micro-USB connection, no HDMI or USB-C... and it really needs a single USB-C that can both power and handle the video. Things it doesn't need: battery or flash - but I guess keeping them means it plausibly could be a stills camera if needed. If that format included the equivalent of the Elgato CamLink HDMI to USB-C device and priced around $300 then I think it would be a wild success. The BOM suggests this is possible. Sony already have a lot of the pro-streaming market along with Panasonic, but if Sony made a specialist product for home streaming then I would buy it instantly... as it would liberate my a7rii from the job.
• roland35 6y ago
  If you have a Canon DSLR camera, you can download their webcam utility to plug it in via USB cable. This is handy because you don't need an HDMI capture card! The only problem I have now is I need an A/C adapter for my camera, as the battery only lasts about 1.5 hours. I found that using my standard zoom lens is fine, the 50mm portrait lens looks better for pictures but that is overkill for a Zoom meeting! Any DSLR camera will blow a webcam out of the water even in low lighting.
  • EsotericAlgo 6y ago
    As a note, for older Canon DSLRs that aren't supported you can pick up a cheap capture card on ebay for $15 and an AC adapter for a similar price. Using Magic Lantern you can get clean HDMI out and do any cropping needed in a tool like OBS. Works wonders. So much so I'm told my video is too clear at least once a week.
• hbbio 6y ago
  The M1 Macbooks have a decent webcam, if you can stand machine learning "interference" in your video stream that is. Beyond that, the best is to use a stand for a recent phone rear camera (you can use a separate account and invite the phone to your meeting).
• INTPenis 6y ago
  I'm not AV geek but isn't it also because HD transfer is too high bandwidth for USB? You'd need a HDMI capture card instead of a USB controller.
• jimmies 6y ago
  > So there is a market gap between so-so webcams for $100-200 and a full-blown setup with a mirrorless camera... Don't know where you can buy a readymade one. However, if you don't mind DIY, try our free software project showmewebcam. It uses a Pi and its HQ sensor and some software glue to make a USB webcam [1]. You'll have a wide selection of affordable lenses [2] and cases [3] that people cook up for their personal use. It's so much fun experimenting with them for different use cases. Last time I commented here, there have been criticisms about the quality of the lens that the Pi foundation offer. We have discovered many other decent alternative lenses that help remedy the quality and distortion issue of the stock lenses. An example of a good accumulation of knowledge as we have more users and people paying more attention is the commonlands lens guide [4]. The software is very actively developed and we have a pretty supportive developers community. We try our best to have good software engineering practices so we can maintain this project in the long run. The software is designed to be modularized. It is easy to understand, build, and improve upon. I have a lot of fun building it - in fact I just finished a 5 hours coding session to address comments on the Pull Requests that I started earlier. I hope eventually it's not just another pi project for fun, the firmware has the potential to make this solution more powerful than the best webcam that money can buy, just like how openwrt is for routers. I still have yet to record a decent demo video to demonstrate the power of the Picam but there is just too many things and too little time to get it done. Oh well... 1. https://github.com/showmewebcam/showmewebcam https://github.com/showmewebcam/showmewebcam 2. https://github.com/showmewebcam/showmewebcam/wiki/Lenses https://github.com/showmewebcam/showmewebcam/wiki/Lenses 3. https://github.com/showmewebcam/showmewebcam/wiki/Cases https://github.com/showmewebcam/showmewebcam/wiki/Cases 4. https://commonlands.com/blogs/camera-engineering/raspi-video-conferencing https://commonlands.com/blogs/camera-engineering/raspi-video...
  • arc-in-space 6y ago
    For a few weeks now I've been doing something similar, using a Pi + v2 camera module instead of the HQ¹. This gives me an affordable(and hackable, to boot) webcam of a surprisingly decent quality with 60fps at 720p, which most consumer webcams can't do at all, since apparently no one cares about framerates(I have niche reasons for caring). ¹ It's also over a network with uv4l because the v2 720p 60fps mode isn't supported by the uvc gadget stuff. It's a bit of a shame, but I haven't had problems with the network transfer. The biggest issue with all this is that my Zero will occasionally overheat and the video will start freezing up, and I don't have much of a solution besides "don't put it in any kind of case".
• muro 6y ago
  Some friends use ipads as their webcams, I've switched to a Nest something hub. It's nice to make video calls on a different device, as my laptop doesn't run its fans at crazy speeds and noise. The video and audio quality from the nest hub max whatsizname is great.
• gaudat 6y ago
  I wonder why it is so hard to find a webcam with USB 3.0 interface that can do something better than 1080p 30fps YUV. I understand in video call applications the video stream is compressed to hell anyways, but I am just trying to make my computer able to take photos better than a 20 years old point and shoot. Now I am using a HDMI capture card with my mirrorless camera. It may seem overkill but the picture quality definitely blows any "webcam" out of the water.
• jayonsoftware 6y ago
  My understanding is BRIO ULTRA HD PRO BUSINESS WEBCAM is the best webcam in the market which I got, if you want to move up Sony ZV-1. Any one thing other way please let me know before I buy Sony ZV-1 :)
• kohlerm 6y ago
  What about using an action cam? Picture quality is quite good these days even for the cheaper chinese ones. Audio might not be too bad either. As others have said not sure whether audio with the webcam is so important. It will we relatively far away, which might not be ideal for sound quality .
• roel_v 6y ago
  The premise of this article is nonsense. Get a Logitech Brio and a Blue Yeti boom mic and you'll be so far ahead of the average Zoomer that people will make comments on how good your picture looks and sound sounds. If you want to take it up a notch still, mix it all through OBS and use a stream deck to control screen share transitions. You'll look like a wizard after some practise.
  • SomeHacker44 6y ago
    This is what I do (Brio and Blue Yeti USB mic) and I am happy with it. My company locks down laptops so I use no non Windows software but the approved and centrally managed Teams and Zoom. I also have an $80 variable warmth panel light mounted to a desk stand about 8" behind, above and slightly to the side of the web cam. Useful as the lighting changes throughout the day. I like the mute button directly on the mic.
• mkl 6y ago
  You can. I did: a Logitech BRIO 4k. I used it mainly as a document camera to deliver lectures from home. I should now probably avoid using fingerprint reader unlock systems, as you could probably pretty easily get my fingerprints from frames in the video (Mythbusters demonstrated even a printout can work). That will be a good enough webcam for years to come, though I expect my next DSLR upgrade to provide a whole other class of option at some point. Relying on the mics built into a webcam seems pretty silly, though.
• ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Overall, this is a pretty good article, and I always found the supply chain difficulties and sourcing as a bit of a black art. My only criticist is, if anyone is going to do this, please just focus om the camera. Forget some neural processing chip or microphones - just get the video right. A 4K webcam that does nothing but video has value in and of itself, but if you dont nail that, all the bells and whistles don't matter. 'camera with an ugly protruding lens as a thickest part of the phone' Never understood this attitude, give me a decent camera, I don't care how much it protrudes unless it stabs people.
• tomaszs 6y ago
  I had the same exact problem when starting Summon The JSON project. The best comment I read was it is the most niche project he ever heard of. And in reality it is a rather small market for it. Moreover, the price has to be higher than what normally card games cost. Because when you don't order millions of decks, it is more expensive to manufacture, and moreover basic costs are also split into a smaller number of orders. It makes very hard for any innovation to go to the market. It really depends on if you will find a way to manufacture it in small quantity (what increases the cost) and if you will have market for it. Fortunately I have found an ambitious manufacturer that prints on demand. But it is a card deck. Hopefully there will be more manufacturers of electronic part willing to support startups with small order numbers. It blocks the market we don't have them enought
• numpad0 6y ago
  For me the most immediately noticeable difference between a webcam and a dSLR setup is FOV. Every webcam use lenses with dSLR equivalent focal distance of 24mm to 12mm, which fits the user's upper torso naturally when placed atop a display, but lens that wide technically isn't suited for portraits. Portraits are usually taken from a distance with lenses with narrower FOV[1], typically 50 to 90mm in 135 equivalents or 45 to 25 degrees in FOV diagonally. So to make a "good" webcam, the first step is to give it a "longer" lens if I'm going to do it. Trying a cheap clip-on "macro zoom" lens on a existing webcam, etc. 1: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-addresses-the-nation-from-the-oval-news-photo/1206667595 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-dona...
• nt2h9uh238h 6y ago
  @Apple MacBook Pro
• KingOfCoders 6y ago
  Bought a Logitech C922 - what a image quality disaster. So much worse than my iMac Pro. I now use a Sony ZV1 as a webcam.
• tobiasbischoff 6y ago
  Zoom should be the Company that builds this product. Also, the Camera you tried to build pretty much exists http://www.marshall-usa.com/cameras/CV503-U3/ http://www.marshall-usa.com/cameras/CV503-U3/
• jayonsoftware 6y ago
  Considering the iPhone has a good camera, has any one used https://www.elgato.com/en/epoccam https://www.elgato.com/en/epoccam ?
• nickjj 6y ago
  I don't think it's fair to put high quality sound as a requirement for a webcam. A webcam sitting 2-3 feet from you is not going to sound good, especially not with a dinky microphone that has to fit in a device that's 3 inches wide. Even $2,000 cameras have poor sound quality and pretty much everyone who does semi-serious recording (Youtube, etc.) will use an external microphone. Honestly, the classic Logitech c920 is pretty good and it's $60-90 depending on current demand. You can record at 1080p at 30 fps and as long as you have a decent light source ($20 worth of LED lights) the picture quality is quite good.
  • bserge 6y ago
    Sound is really important (more important than video tbh). Fortunately, good microphones are aplenty, even a cheap Boya PVM1000 for like $50 works great (takes batteries, connects directly to a 3.5mm jack). Or you can go for a Zoom Hx, those work via USB, great inbuilt mics, too.
• Syncbo 6y ago
  And here i was thinking , you'd actually build one. Great article though
  • murkt 6y ago
    I too wanted the article to be a luring into my Kickstarter. Won't happen, though
• xn 6y ago
  I've been happy with the quality of the Logitech 4K Pro sold by Apple. Works great out of the box with linux.
• dsr_ 6y ago
  In the typical videoconference meeting everything would work better if each participant is represented by a nicely-chosen photograph. The client software can light up the borders to designate which audio streams are active and pop an icon of a hand when someone wants to get attention. Save the video for chatting with your friends and family.
  • toyg 6y ago
    Webex does this. It’s alright, although there is always a bit of a feeling that non-camming participants have something to hide - be it a messy living-room, a pyjama, or a side-gig as property developer. This said, forcing webcam usage feels impolite here (UK), particularly (I’m told) for women, so it seems like, in moderately large companies, everyone just defaults to audio-only 99% of the time.
• Markoff 6y ago
  you most likely have pretty good webcam, it's the thing called smartphone on your desk, just hook it up to computer
• daneel_w 6y ago
  I use a 10 year old iPhone 4S with OBS Studio and a $15 app to enable streaming from the phone's camera. It cost me not much in used condition, and has excellent image quality.
• rasz 6y ago
  Webcams suck because until recently video calls sucked. > but his camera can't output a live stream into HDMI Buy different camera. Sony a6000/Sigma 1.4 16mm lens plus Camlink looks like this: https://twitter.com/feliciaday/status/1268379532823683072 https://twitter.com/feliciaday/status/1268379532823683072 https://www.twitch.tv/videos/834329198?t=00h09m50s https://www.twitch.tv/videos/834329198?t=00h09m50s Pretty much every time new person streams/zooms with Felicia they ask about the setup to replicate it :)
  • murkt 6y ago
    >> but his camera can't output a live stream into HDMI > Buy different camera. He did :)
  • aaron695 6y ago
    > until recently video calls sucked. As far as I can tell your answer is the only one that makes sense of all the comments. Most grandparents would pay $ to be able to remote well with grandkids. Most employees would pay $$ to look professional. But buying a good webcam wouldn't solve their broadband issues.
• goldcd 6y ago
  www.kurokesu.com is quite interesting. Sells sensors or kits to convert existing Logitech cameras, and filters/lenses you can add to them. It's niche - but sits between an off the shelf webcam, and lashing a 'proper' camera to a USB socket.
• ComodoHacker 6y ago
  >Even if I think that 4k is not needed, I’m pretty sure it’s really a requirement to have in an upmarket webcam, as it will be really hard to sell a pricey webcam that can only do 1080p. 4K is absolutely not needed. You won't be streaming 4K from your home or average office space anyway. Our pipes are just not that fat yet in upstream direction.
  • murkt 6y ago
    Would you buy a webcam with 1080p only (I promise it's good though!) for $250-$300?
    • ComodoHacker 6y ago
      With all features described, yes, I would. And please, can I add another one for $50? I can easily connect it to my decent-hardware-but-shitty-camera midrange smartphone and use instead of built-in camera.
      • murkt 6y ago
        Well, Android site says that it supports UVC cameras over USB, so presumably you get this feature for free!
    • Guest19023892 6y ago
      Assuming it's good, why not? Even 720p video from a DSLR will look far better than 4K video from a Logitech Brio. Resolution is almost meaningless when doing video calls. Most people are in environments with poor lighting, so they need bigger sensors and improved lighting long before 4K or even 1080p resolutions.
• bambax 6y ago
  > A lot of what makes a picture great comes from lighting the scene in a correct way. IDK why the author thinks a "good" webcam should be able to do 4k, just to show one's face?? But yes, lightning is paramount. I installed custom lightning in front of my desk and with a cheap Logitech webcam I get very good image quality. Basic photographic lightning kits are cheap; I paid $80 7 years ago for 2 x (stand+light+bulb+umbrella) and it's still working perfectly.
  • murkt 6y ago
    > IDK why the author thinks a "good" webcam should be able to do 4k, just to show one's face?? I don't think it's very useful. I think it will be very problematic to sell a webcam for $250-300 that can't do 4k.
• SergeAx 6y ago
  When this pandemic fuss was at the beginning in January, I've decided to buy a webcam just in case I got sick and have to work from home. It was Logitech C310 HD[0] for like $40 including delivery. When we became full WFH in april, people in working chats started asking me what kind of that super nice camera do I have. Our company is issuing MacBooks for workers. Turned out that internal webcam of MacBook is so crappy that even cheap 720p Logitech looks "HD" compared to it. Logi also has quite nice mic. Another thing was that I made my workplace in the erker, facing windows, so I got plenty of light in the summer. I noticed that I got the best picture in the morning and on the sunset, when light is abundant. So, the takeout is: get yourself not a great but just a decent webcam, figure out the lighting. And for god's sake, do not buy this clown looking mic to hang in front of you, you don't need it at all. [0] https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/webcams/c310-hd-webcam.960-000585.html https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/webcams/c310-hd-webc...
  • altcognito 6y ago
    Im seconding that Logitech has a pretty darn good lineup. I have a c910 and it is quite good, even in fairly low light. I would complain more that webcams don’t generally give you fine grain control over exposure, sharpness and resolution. Logitech did, until they decided to update their software to be more “friendly”. The camera is still solid, but it’s frustrating to see companies do this to themselves.
  • jablan 6y ago
    Now that camera costs ~$100[0]. [0] https://www.amazon.de/Logitech-C310-720Pixel-Schwarz-Webcam/dp/B003R1P8WY https://www.amazon.de/Logitech-C310-720Pixel-Schwarz-Webcam/...
    • SergeAx 6y ago
      That's strange. Maybe local high-demand/low-supply peak? It's still $42 in Russia: https://market.yandex.ru/product--veb-kamera-logitech-hd-webcam-c310/6355311/offers?how=aprice https://market.yandex.ru/product--veb-kamera-logitech-hd-web...
  • Const-me 6y ago
• camillomiller 6y ago
  The author mentions a Fuji X-T1 and the fact that you can't use it as a webcam, but fails to mention that it's quite old (2014) and that it's the only X-Tx model not supported by Fuji's new X Webcam software, which turns your not-so-old camera into an actual high quality webcam.
• JansjoFromIkea 6y ago
  One I've been using recently is a Kinect v2; the image is a decent 1080p but with OBS I'm able to give a way better green screen effect than the one built into Zoom. Has the added bonuses of being a 3D scanner, and semi-functional full body tracker for VR. Cost £70 including the PC cable, which seems to be the going rate. A Pi Zero with the high def camera module is probably a decent shout too, although I've not used it.
  • soylentcola 6y ago
    Hmm...I only have a v1 from the days of playing around with interactive projection stuff. For a while it seemed like the v2 was expensive and/or hard to get with the cable. Also have an early Intel RealSense camera around somewhere but I don't know how well supported it would be. I know OBS has specific Kinect functionality built in so that sounds like it would be interesting to mess with.
    • JansjoFromIkea 6y ago
      100% just got it to mess around with. Cable for V2 seems to be about £20 nowadays (mine was official but most seem to not be, doubt it makes a difference), most stuff online seems to talk about it being multiples of that. The step up in tracking ability and image quality from Kinect V1 is absolutely gigantic. However, you can very easily get a v1 plus adapter for under £20 in total and it probably covers most of what people would want to play with. Dunno about built in functionality, I used a plugin. MaxMSP has Kinect functionality via a plugin too, which I haven't dabbled in but looks pretty fun. There's a node library for v2 as well I believe.
• Too 6y ago
  What about a Gopro? They are quite sensitive to good light conditions but otherwise lens and resolution is very good, not DSLR grade but lots better than webcam/phone. Fisheye can be disabled. Audio is also decent, maybe not studio-grade indoors but when moving in the wind outdoors it's a lot better than phones or other non-professional gear. Lots of avilable mounting-gadgets and tripods available. Price is just above 300€ for last years 8-black model or sub 200€ for used or older models. Then you can use it for other fun stuff as well.
• dirtyid 6y ago
  Do we need good webcams anymore? Take a few selfies with phone -> reasonable deep fake avatar that commodity 720p sensors can animate. Bonus massive bandwidth savings. I think there was a 2m paper on such research. Isn't Apple already redirecting eye gaze to mimic staring at webcam when staring at screen. Also get a tripod and use app that turn phone into webcam, feature should be baked into OS.
• ratsimihah 6y ago
  Got a Sony hybrid camera that's basically plug and play after you install some software. It does 4k and event though most video conf tools only allow 720p, the image comes out stunning.
• 12ian34 6y ago
  This doesn't seem particularly insightful. The author managed to get in a couple of completely irrelevant adverts for his startup and his brother's twitch channel. Save yourself some time - the titular question is answered (with the obvious, unsurprising answer) in the penultimate sentence: "you can't buy a good webcam because existing players seemingly don't think it's a good opportunity, and for newcomers the market is hard to enter."
• harha 6y ago
  I've got the Brio and I'm not impressed by the quality, but then again, it works pretty well out of the box for video calls or general recordings, so I guess it's ok. Not sure if I could have gone much cheaper and still had something that's better than the built-in camera of my laptop. My first choice would have been a real camera (my mirrorless is a bit too old for 4k and being usable as a web cam over USB) and a real microphone (this was a good investment) and adding an extra EUR 200+ to such a setup would be nicer than the Brio, but when I travel more I'll be happy to have it.
• bipson 6y ago
  A good webcam, in my opinion, is a device that provides a decent sound quality (from the article). Ehm, sure about that metric? Should a webcam not primarily offer good video? And why not having good audio by means of an external microphone in addition to a decent camera? If that's the primary metric, the rest of the article is flawed. IMHO the best setup has a dedicated camera and at least one dedicated microphone (Most people streaming use microphones or headsets, don't they? Same for radio-show/podcast hosts.). Doesn't mean that a webcam can't have a decent microphone, but if you are going the custom route...
  • rozab 6y ago
    Anyone not using headphones is going to have echoing and feedback anyway. May as well just use a headset.
• Mediary 6y ago
  Honestly, the Logitech c920 is still the 'good enough' option. It's cheap and produces a decent image. However, the raw video can sometimes be a bit unflattering. I would recommend using OBS as an intermediary between the webcam and other applications like Zoom or Skype. OBS has a virtual camera feature so that the output looks like just another webcam. The reason you would do this is because OBS has powerful video filters you can overlay on top of the video feed, so that you can apply color correction and alter the brightness before sending it out. Even small changes can have a large impact on the quality of the video image quality. I found this much more preferable to messing around with Logitech's unwieldy software.
  • soylentcola 6y ago
    This is what I do for both work-related (and as of this year, recreational) video conferences. At the start of the pandemic, I only had an older webcam which maxed out at 1280x720, didn't have much in the way of onboard hardware processing capability, and looked generally cruddy. Set up OBS initially so I could use the basic color correction and then moved on to playing around with chromakey backgrounds (sure beats the software chroma in Zoom and Webex). Once C920 came back in stock (at non-scalper prices) I did pick one up and it was a modest improvement. Overall performance is just better across the board. Only real annoyance is how I have to reconfigure the video options every time I start OBS since the cam likes to revert back to auto white balance/focus/exposure. Still, it takes less than a minute to set it back to where I want it. For lighting, I have a couple of those clamp-on utility lights that are sold at just about any hardware store. Each one has a sheet of kitchen parchment paper clipped to the housing to act as a basic diffuser. Between whatever desk lamp or sunlight I have coming in, the two clamp lights let me set up a reasonable 3-point lighting and avoid any weird shadows. For audio, I have an old Tascam USB audio interface with 1/4" and XLR inputs along with headphone monitor out. Hooked up an old Shure vocal mic on a stand and I get quality and a pickup pattern I just couldn't touch with a headset or desktop condenser mic. A lot of this was only affordable because I had some of the stuff (mic, USB interface) laying around already, but that was sort of the takeaway. Make use of the best stuff you already own, consider what hacky solutions you might use to fill in some gaps, and only then spend more money on a better camera, lights, etc.
• ape4 6y ago
  Might help if there was a standard webcam physical attachment (same idea as the camera screw for a tripod). Then each monitor could have it. So adding a new webcam would not add bunch of clutter to your desktop. And would avoid the expense of buying a webcam holder.
• unnouinceput 6y ago
  Wasn't here on HN like a month ago an article how to setup a Raspberry Pi as an USB camera? With everything in it (software on github, BoM, wiring/PCB. Can't find it now. The price would be around $200 sans good audio, not that it matter anyway since in a conference I always ask for headsets. Also the setup was so good that the RPi would've been recognized as an USB camera by another RPi directly - plug'n'play.
• eddhead 6y ago
  I'd start with a cheap camera focused Android phone, they start at £200. Plenty of apps to turn them into IP webcams too.
• raspyberr 6y ago
  I know the market for it is very small but it's practically impossible to find a webcam without a microphone.
• macintux 6y ago
  At my workplace, I’ve had effectively zero video calls since the pandemic began. We’re just using audio (occasionally someone will leave their camera on, but it’s uncommon). Are video calls in other companies mandatory? More common than audio-only calls? Even at my previous job at a small tech startup, where the entire company was remote from day one, video chats were rare.
  • Phelinofist 6y ago
    Same here, working from home since February, had exactly one video call, everything else was audio only. Company size: ~1.2k employees, ~500-600 of those are developers
  • joegahona 6y ago
    Video chats are more personal. We communicate a lot via body language.
• alteriority 6y ago
  My solution: Download DroidCam, use your phone's camera as a webcam. Night and day difference versus awful built-in laptop cameras, only takes a few minutes to pair the first time. Granted, the positioning is a bit annoying. If I did it more often, I'd get a tripod.
  • kaielvin 6y ago
    There a significant added lag though, with audio and lips out of sync.
  • joegahona 6y ago
    I do this with Camo. Same idea. An old SE 1st-Gen and Velcro on the back of one of my monitors solves the positioning issue.
  • FeistySkink 6y ago
    I've got DroidCam X and it's very flaky with random freezes and disconnects, where I have to relaunch the PC-side app.
• julianozen 6y ago
  Has anyone investigated buying a top tier android phone from like 2015 or so and then just making that a permanent webcam? Surely that would be relatively cheap and high quality.
  • apocalyptic0n3 6y ago
    I've seen that a few times on /r/battlestations recently. Most of the posters say the quality can't be beat but it's a pain to get set up initially and building a good enough mount for it can be difficult as well.
• PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  The real reason is buried in the article: You can’t buy a good webcam because the number of people willing to pay a lot of money for a high end webcam is very small. At the lower end, people are satisfied with their built in laptop parts or a cheap webcam that sits on top of their monitor. At the high end, people go down the rabbit hole of buying a do-everything mirrorless camera that they can use for so much more than just a webcam. A high end webcam would have to be cheap enough that the first group doesn’t mind spending a bit more, but not so expensive that the enthusiast target audience just decides to buy a full-featured mirror less camera instead. Granted, there is a lot of room for improvement in that budgetary middle ground, but how many people actually care? Common webcams actually perform decently when given proper lighting conditions. We’re not streaming high-bitrate 1080p H.265 on our 5-person Zoom calls. After compression and denoising the extra sharpness and low noise of a high end camera doesn’t add much benefit. Enthusiasts are a difficult group to market to because they have extremely high expectations. They’d also rather spend weeks scouring the Internet for the perfect deal on a used mirrorless camera than to spend a dollar more than necessary to buy a high-end webcam.
  • dota_fanatic 6y ago
    > We’re not streaming high-bitrate 1080p H.265 on our 5-person Zoom calls. After compression and denoising the extra sharpness and low noise of a high end camera doesn’t add much benefit. This was my experience exactly after testing different setups. I still use my Lumix GX8 for photography and home videos, but it wasn't even close to worth the trouble of maintaining the setup compared to a ~$100 Logitech option that I leave on top the monitor with good lighting and plug in via usb hub as needed.
    • piranha 6y ago
      This is plainly wrong. I use Sony a5100 (cheapest camera you can hook up as webcam) and in zoom meetings the difference between my image and others (even though some tried to use their phones) is just night and day. Disclaimer: I am that brother referred in the article. :)
    • centimeter 6y ago
• Foivos 6y ago
  I can not understand why I can not use an iPhone, as a webcam for a MacBook without third party tools (eg. epocCam), that require installation of drivers. To me this is an obvious thing to do since Apple is so proud of its ecosystem. Especially in the time of corona when all the dslr / mirrorless camera manufacturers are releasing software to do just that.
• xaduha 6y ago
  PS3 Eye was a good webcam and there are plenty of them out there. Too bad nobody wrote good drivers for them.
• simonebrunozzi 6y ago
  I'm surprised that Apple in 2020 still ships magnificent M1-powered Macbooks with crappy webcams.
• tyingq 6y ago
  I'm no expert, but there do seem to be cameras in this space. The Logitech Brio and Aluratek Live Pro 4K in the $200 range, for example. The article doesn't "name names", so I can't tell if these are the models the author didn't like.
• joseph_grobbles 6y ago
  The real, real reason you can't buy good webcams is because the market isn't a meritocracy. Make the best webcam in existence and there just isn't a robust, or honest, review community to let it shine. Instead there are a billion "here's a list of things that we can get affiliate dollars for from Amazon, and we'll pretend we reviewed them" listings. This problem has hit a lot of markets. Without a financial support for capable, credible, honest reviewers, the backbone of an industry falls apart. It becomes all about gimmicks. So if you want a webcam the real options now are an SLR (many of them support that use) or even a video camera. In those markets there remains an extreme qualitative review system, so that new Nikon, Canon or Sony SLR or video camera had to shine.
  • jldugger 6y ago
    > Make the best webcam in existence and there just isn't a robust, or honest, review community to let it shine. Instead there are a billion "here's a list of things that we can get affiliate dollars for from Amazon, and we'll pretend we reviewed them" listings. Wirecutter?
    • lupire 6y ago
      Wirecutter just buys a popular brand name and says they like it. They don't do any careful tests or write up details.
      • jumelles 6y ago
        Have you ever read one of their reviews? That's exactly what they do.
• skohan 6y ago
  Does anyone remember iSight? For the time the quality was great, and it was also really nice looking on top of a monitor. It may have been a high-water-mark.
  • yboris 6y ago
    The quality was great for the time: 640×480-pixel VGA resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISight
• tzury 6y ago
  sounds to me the question is why can't you buy an _high-end_ streaming camera with integrated microphone for an _affordable price_. I use Logitech BRIO Ultra HD Webcam[1] along with Headphones and very very happy for all my needs. From calls to recording training sessions and demos. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Logitech-BRIO-Conferencing-Recording-Streaming/dp/B01N5UOYC4 https://www.amazon.com/Logitech-BRIO-Conferencing-Recording-...
  • murkt 6y ago
    Brio is better than most webcams, still worse than all top smartphones.
• ttunguz 6y ago
  There's a software solution to this: https://reincubate.com/camo/ https://reincubate.com/camo/ Use an old phone for your webcam. The quality is terrific, up to 4k. You just need a phone stand.
  • joemaller1 6y ago
    This is a phenomenal product, I've been using an old iPhone 6s and the quality is very good. The license subscription is more than I'd prefer to pay, but considering every passable webcam has been sold out since April, it's much cheaper than some disposable USB webcam with horrible quality.
  • deckar01 6y ago
    I have tried to use use modern phones as dedicated webcams. The power consumption of constant video capture, compression, and streaming is greater than the phone's ability to charge. Once the battery is depleted the phone can't operate directly off of the charger and shuts off. And that's only if it didn't already shut off due to overheating first.
• yholio 6y ago
  Seems like what we are all after is a good software mod that turns your phone into a good quality, USB-connected camera. I have tried some but they create a cumbersome webstreaming service that ads delay and compression overhead. The sound would not be great, granted, but that can be easily fixed with a separate microphone connected to the PC or the phone itself, a lavalier microphone with Bluetooth etc.
• hourislate 6y ago
  This seems like a good opportunity for Wyze. They have some great experience with Cameras and have sold quite a few.
• dharma1 6y ago
  1) you can use your dSLR as a webcam 2) you can use your mobile phone as a webcam Not sure why you would want to buy a webcam
• EwanToo 6y ago
  This article does seem to skirt around the obvious, that you _can_ buy a decent webcam, if you pay Logitech the money they want. Given how often they've been sold out this year, people are buying them. Both the C920[1] and the StreamCam[2] work well. 1 - https://www.logitech.com/en-gb/products/webcams/c920-pro-hd-webcam.960-001055.html https://www.logitech.com/en-gb/products/webcams/c920-pro-hd-... 2 - https://www.logitech.com/en-gb/products/webcams/streamcam.960-001281.html https://www.logitech.com/en-gb/products/webcams/streamcam.96...
  • murkt 6y ago
    C920 is literally 8 years old.
• Waterluvian 6y ago
  A used GoPro is probably fine for people who want more than a junk camera but less than some pro level stuff. I wonder how easy it is to get OS to treat a GoPro as a webcam?
• JimA 6y ago
  This camera seems to check all of the boxes for what he was looking for. https://thorbroadcast.com/product/4k-hdmi-and-usb-e-ptz-compact-camera-maximus4kfly.html https://thorbroadcast.com/product/4k-hdmi-and-usb-e-ptz-comp...
• save_ferris 6y ago
  Tangent: I really wish that Apple would make it easier to use the iPhone camera as a webcam when using a Mac. It would be a killer feature since so many people are in the ecosystem and iPhone cameras completely outperform webcams these days. I tired EpocCam but I wasn't completely satisfied with it. This seems like a missed opportunity for Apple, given their seamless integration experience mantra.
  • ed25519FUUU 6y ago
    There’s an app called EpocCam that lets you turn the iPhone into a webcam. I was disappointed with the results. The colors get washed out easily, especially in strong direct light. It’s nothing like the image quality you get when taking a video (which was what I expected).
    • save_ferris 6y ago
      Same, I tried it and was disappointed in the results. Nobody is better-positioned to wirelessly integrate the iPhone camera and a Mac better than Apple is, and it would encourage folks to stay in the Apple ecosystem.
      • inickt 6y ago
        Check out Camo (https://reincubate.com/camo/ https://reincubate.com/camo/). I also had problems with EpocCam and switched earlier this year with an old iPhone 6 and have been really happy. $40/yr isn't super cheap but its easier and higher quality than me buying a webcam.
• dekhn 6y ago
  I've been very happy with this model: https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/webcams/c930e-business-webcam.960-000971.html https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/webcams/c930e-busine... It has excellent optics, and a piezo zoom. Worth every cent.
• hrydgard 6y ago
  Logitech Streamcam is pretty good.
• kangaroozach 6y ago
  Even Facebook Portal TV sucks. Slow, low res, awe full tracking, even worse UX. And it sees the reflections from the TV in my art on the wall and tries to track it. So maybe start there.
• Tepix 6y ago
  I ended up using my Micro FourThirds mirrorless camera. At first I used a Panasonic DMC-GH3. There is no official way to stream the image to a PC so I ended up using a HDMI capture box (costs around $50). The image quality with a nice prime lens is fantastic. You get a blurry background and some nice bokeh, something no Logitech camera can give you and it looks great. The camera and the capture box support up to FullHD. I recently bought a better camera, the Panasonic DC-G9. Panasonic offers a (beta) webcam software for this camera so you can use it as a 1280x720 webcam via USB 3.0. It also looks fantastic. The resolution is high enough! There is no audio though. For now i use a separate microphone. If you care about your webcam's image quality, here's my main advice: - Put the camera at eye height (using a small tripod)! This alone makes a big difference - Put some light sources behind the camera and not behind the user - If you want to use the virtual background feature of Zoom etc, use a real greenscreen behind you. They are very cheap and the quality of the virtual background with chroma keying is just so much better!
• marvion 6y ago
  Bought a Logitech Brio 4k Streaming before Covid, because I wanted to try out YouTube and using my DSLR was a pain. Its 200€(pre lockdown) and is just a webcam on steroids. Now I'm glad I didn't sold it. Almost anyone comments on the image quality - especially when I turned on my 4000lm daylight Phillip's Tornado
• analog31 6y ago
  I'm not sure you can't, but you might be looking in the wrong market space. There's an entire industry of "machine vision" that has very high end video cameras and lenses. And then there's even a step beyond that level, to "scientific" imaging components. You can choose your interface: USB, firewire, etc. Many of these cameras come with API's so you can write your own software for them.
• crazypython 6y ago
  Maybe the cause is wealth inequality: The person in question doesn't have the money needed to implement his plan. Some people have the millions or hundreds of millions of dollars needed to do something like this, but they spend it on very dumb stuff. If more wealth was redistributed, then he could take this risk. Instead we have clueless VCs investing their money and founders spending excessive time convincing VCs and risking their money. There's no more skin in the game.
• koiz 6y ago
  I bought a DSLR with the plan of using it as a webcam most of the time. It's worked out well, but I am sick of the zoom wave, cant wait till it dies down.
• s0rce 6y ago
  I'm really frustrated with the enormous field of view of most webcams. Many are 90+ degrees. My old 2012 Logitech C310 is 60 degrees. I want to show myself in the view, not my entire room/house. I finally found a cheap AUSDOM AW635 which is 60 degrees on eBay. Image quality is acceptable for $20 and its manual focus which took a moment to dial in but is ncie since the focus doesn't jump around during a call. I'd buy a higher end webcam if they had adjustable FOV (without software, since the software doesn't work across all OS/programs).
• neartheplain 6y ago
  I encountered this problem in college when I worked on some custom motion-capture systems. My priority then was not sound, light, or necessarily video quality, but speed. Every prosumer webcam I tested from Best Buy or Amazon had horrible motion blur. My solution was to buy a bunch of used Playstation Eye cameras, developed by Sony for Kinect-like games on the PS3. Sony had designed it from the ground up for low-latency motion-capture, and it performed remarkably well in this application. The PS3 Eye is still popular today with DIY mocap systems [0]. [0] http://ipisoft.com/support/ http://ipisoft.com/support/
• hellisothers 6y ago
  I’m surprised nobody has mentioned that a huge hurdle to wanting a nicer webcam is recording at higher quality doesn’t matter. Zoom is limited to 1080p and even then you’ll rarely actually get it due to various limitations. Zoom for our (large) company limits streaming to around 640x320
  • markild 6y ago
    You will very much see the difference between high quality and low quality optics/sensors, even at fairly low resolution.
• GekkePrutser 6y ago
  I really wish a webcam could be embedded inside the screen (like the under-display front cams that are just appearing on mobiles). Being able to actually look someone in the eye instead of staring down would be great. I was even thinking of making something like a teleprompter with a semi mirror but it becomes too bulky :)
• unixhero 6y ago
  Which webcam can this crowd recommend? bonus question: Why do you recommend that particular model?
• WouterZ 6y ago
  Test
• talkingtab 6y ago
  every smart phone has a pretty-good-camera. Shouldn't there be an easy way to use an iPhone or Android phone as a webcam?
• jtdev 6y ago
  People are addicted to cheap garbage from China.
• sinfulprogeny 6y ago
  > you also can buy a great XLR microphone for $100, but then you’ll need an external sound card with phantom power supply XLR does not imply need for phantom power. Some XLR microphones do, some don't. There are XLR equipped audio cards for as little as $80.
• ucha 6y ago
  The same way there is a protuberance to fit large lenses on the back of phones, there should be one on top of laptop monitors. The exterior of the laptop wouldn't change but we would be able to get a smartphone-like camera in a laptop. Add in features such as an led strip to improve lighting, market the product to people who use their laptop mostly for video conferencing and that surely would be a hit.
• NDizzle 6y ago
  I thought I'd mention that you can convert a Wyze cam to a webcam with this firmware update. https://wyzelabs.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360041605111-Webcam-Firmware-Instructions https://wyzelabs.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360041605111-...
• ashtonkem 6y ago
  If you want really good sound quality, you should be using separate audio gear. No on-camera mic is going to perform well due to various cost and physics based limitations. Look to what podcasters use, and buy that for the audio half. You can put a better mic into a webcam, but it'll always have background noise issues compared to a mic that's closer to your mouth.
• SkyPuncher 6y ago
  If you're looking for better lighting, I recommend this lamp (or similar design): https://www.amazon.com/PHIVE-Architect-Bright-Drafting-Brightness/dp/B07MHH9Q7B/ https://www.amazon.com/PHIVE-Architect-Bright-Drafting-Brigh... I have it placed directly above my web cam. Since it's a line of LEDs, it doesn't cast hard shadows.
• krkoch 6y ago
  Shameless plug: We're making good software defined cameras at huddly.com. "Plain" uvc, so it works on your favorite os.
• chromaton 6y ago
  This is a crowd funded deluxe webcam from earlier this year: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/obsbot-tiny-ai-powered-ptz-webcam https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/obsbot-tiny-ai-powered-pt...
• tlrobinson 6y ago
  There is software that lets you use your DSLR or mirrorless digital camera as a webcam (though I haven’t been able to get it to work with certain video conferencing programs): Cascable Pro Webcam (works with many brands) https://cascable.se/pro-webcam/ https://cascable.se/pro-webcam/ Canon EOS Webcam Utility https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/self-help-center/eos-webcam-utility https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/se... Nikon Webcam Utility https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/webcam-utility.page https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/webcam-utility...
• cbanek 6y ago
  As for the design constraint that webcams have to be small to fit into the lids, I find the lid to be one of those places where I get the worst angle (both for lighting, and just in general), which is under your chin. I have to sit back a foot or two to make it look right. Instead, what if there was a detachable part that was in the base that contained the webcam? Then you could hang it on the top lid (like normal place) or maybe set it on a table or higher up at any angle. I guess the next issue becomes powering it and getting the data there, but maybe just have a USB cable and solve both of them. I guess this would end up to be more like a go pro in the end though. I have had some pretty good webcams in the past (the 1080p logitechs were pretty good), but they were about $100 then. But I think there won't be something that good in a laptop because the cost will just never be worth it. I wouldn't pay for it, I'd rather spend that money on a camera that won't turn useless in a few years.
  • lupire 6y ago
    You are describing a normal external webcam.
• CivBase 6y ago
  > Why can't you buy a good webcam? Why can't you buy a good frozen dinner? Because frozen dinners are designed to be simple and affordable meals, just like how webcams are designed to be simple and affordable image capture devices. If you're willing to spend more for a good alternative to a webcam, buy a captured card and a camera with support for live video output. You could even use the primary camera on a smartphone.
• jordhy 6y ago
  Buy a Canon M50 and use it as a web cam. You can use this guide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eISFCeuiCik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eISFCeuiCik What we need in high technology is a website to manifest our needs and let companies know about underserved use cases. Yes, it's pathetic that Logitech and Apple don't have compelling products in this field but, sadly, it is what it is.
• ChildOfChaos 6y ago
  A lot of people use iPads or phones for this which have better cameras. If you are using a computer or laptop you can just install an app and use your phone as a webcam.
• ummonk 6y ago
  I assumed everyone would be using a GoPro or something similar as their webcam if they needed a good webcam?
• aksss 6y ago
  You can do wonders with a modern sub-$400 camcorder that can do manual white balance, aperture priority, and provide clean hdmi output. Add a $20 tripod, a capture device, and you’ve got a webcam better than anything sold as such. Camcorders can have some inherent latency in their feeds and that’s an under-examined differentiator in camcorder reviews these days. As to accessory webcams - there is definitely a market for high end webcams. The Logitech 920s or c or whatever was very highly rated and one of the first to disappear from shelves last spring along with their 4K model. I’m not saying it was objectively great equipment, just using it to illustrate that a webcam with high ratings will sell for a premium no problem. I don’t know about the margins for OEMs but I suspect there’s some room there when a $250 webcam is only marginally better than a $90 version. I would easily pay $400-$700 for a “usb webcam” if it approached my iPhone camera’s quality and allowed me the control and capability of a cheap camcorder (think what a $250 Vixia comes with - manual white balance, optical zoom, adjustable frame rate, physical powered lens cover, IR remote control, tripod mountable, integrated confidence display - especially if you could leverage the USB connection to make the confidence display function as a teleprompter too). No question there’s a market for such a product. It would sell wildly in today’s market.
  • claudeganon 6y ago
    You can use your iPhone as a webcam with apps like Camo. I don’t like the $40 a year subscription fee, but it does most of the things you’re asking: https://www.macworld.com/article/3568492/camo-review.html https://www.macworld.com/article/3568492/camo-review.html
• supernova87a 6y ago
  My simple tip is to buy a $15-20 wired lapel/lavalier mic from Amazon and use it instead of whatever crappy audio your laptop or monitor or webcam offers. It pics up your voice so much clearer and makes a world of difference. You can still use the speaker outputs or whatever you prefer, but the mic takes it to a better level of quality for people listening to you speak.
• hadlock 6y ago
  It's interesting that he calls out Fuji explicitly not allowing webcams, as Fuji did add webcam features for both their X-T3 and X-T4 models for both windows and mac back in September of 2020: https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/support/download/software/x-webcam/ https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/support/download/software/x-web... The reason they did not back port it to the X-T1 and X-T2, my guess, is that the T1 and T2 use much older (circa 2014) cpu/software, whereas the T3/T4 use the same family of ~2018-2020 CPU/software/sensor and were already rolling out a new major firmware update for the X-T3.
• Pxtl 6y ago
  Probably the best midrange webcam you could get would be a good mount for your smartphone and some decent software. I use my phone and a headset for zoom meetings - I use software to add the phone as a soft webcam to my PC.
• hatsunearu 6y ago
  Or you know, get a used sony a6000, a capture card, and a microphone.
• rusk 6y ago
  Cameras are expensive. The low-end to mid-tier ones that we are used to in our devices are subsidised. Just like they cut the price of meat and bread to below cost to get you into the supermarket. So it’s not a linear price scale because it is distorted at the lower end. There is no motivation for our benefactors to subsidise cameras beyond a certain quality so once you go beyond that you are paying full whack and the economics fall apart. This principle applies pretty much right across the smart tech ecosystem. The nice thing is though, that the stuff they are using to subsidise the expensive stuff is dirt cheap so if you’ve a little bit of smarts you can build your own gear for about a 10th of the price, but you will have to sacrifice some of the doo-dahs and bells and whistles but if what you’re going for is something that’s purely functional you will be fine. Use the money saved to buy an expensive streaming cam set up. Do the subsidising yourself.
• troupe 6y ago
  This sounds very much like the market that Webex Desk Camera is targeting, but I don't know the pricing has been announced. (https://www.webex.com/desk-camera-sign-up.html https://www.webex.com/desk-camera-sign-up.html)
• notjtrig 6y ago
  A software solution to use your phone's camera and mic as a webcam is ManyCam, it's a great desktop and phone app for streaming.
• OOPMan 6y ago
  You could just use a piece of software like IVCam in conjunction with a very good camera you already own...the one on your phone. Sure, you'll need to rig up some kind of stand (like maybe a hands-free mount?) but once you do that you'll have a webcam with a pretty decent camera (Since you can use the rear camera)
• crazygringo 6y ago
  I don't understand the desire here. The classic Logitech C920 ($80) is an excellent true 1080p webcam. [1] It's been around for years. Who needs better than 1080p from a webcam? You can manually adjust focus, exposure, color temperature, shutter speed, zoom, everything you need. Once you've got that, everything else is lighting. Most people drastically underestimate how much of photo/video quality is actually about lighting, as opposed to the camera or lens. As for audio, if you're investing in the higher quality of an external webcam anyways, then you'll never want a microphone in the webcam. The placement is inherently bad. You'll want either a lapel mic for normal interviews or meetings, or a podcasting mic on a desk tripod for more serious stuff. A mounted shotgun mic is a kind of in-between option too if you don't want it visible. [1] https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/webcams/c920-pro-hd-webcam.960-000764.html?crid=34 https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/webcams/c920-pro-hd-...
• beached_whale 6y ago
  I use a USB HDMI capture device and my iPhone over the Apple lightning/hdmi adaptor(the knockoff I tried first didn't work well). This along with Filmic Pro and the quality is amazing.
• dathinab 6y ago
  This is the mid-range webcam you might be looking for: https://www.amazon.com/AVerMedia-Streamer-Wide-Angle-Webcam-PW513/dp/B08LZVCCGZ/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=Avermedia&qid=1608669880&sr=8-6 https://www.amazon.com/AVerMedia-Streamer-Wide-Angle-Webcam-... Following some independent YouTube review this seems currently the best webcam for streaming you can get. Through it's focused on the streaming use-case and has some design decisions which are quite good for that use-case but make it sub-par (for the price) if used for some other use-cases. EDIT: And like other people mentioned sub-optimal lighting is often a major problem, so investing in any more expensive webcame doesn't make that much sense if you don't also invest in improving the light situation.
  • dathinab 6y ago
    It seems there are some problems with this camera. I read/saw some positive reviews including at least one which I don't think was buyable. Which opens interesting questions, like if the review sample isn't the same as the normally sold version or if I misjudged that person :-(
• caturopath 6y ago
  Similarly, why can't you buy a good speakerphone? It seems like all of the professional quality stuff is not amenable to just plugging in at home. I have a Jabra speakermic thing that's passable, but not as good as something in a real conference room. I, unfortunately, cannot wear something on or in my ears all day, or a high-quality audio setup would be easy.
• ajarmst 6y ago
  I suddenly needed several reasonably good quality webcams (had to instrument my home lab for teaching electronics remotely, and wanted multiple views in some cases. NDI and OBS plus my pre-existing pile of old iPhones (a largish extended family's worth) have proven an admirable resource, especially since the screen lets me tell at a glance what the frame is. Even set up a jig to use an iPhone with my optical microscope.
• xwowsersx 6y ago
  This is precisely why I have been using my Pixel 4 together with Iriun. Works great and the picture quality is better than everyone else on video calls who are using either Logitech webcams or the built-in MBP camera.
• graiz 6y ago
  I went down this rabbit hole at the start of the pandemic and it's more complex. The thing that makes for a good web-cam is a great lens. The sensor and body of the camera is mostly commodity and contributes at max $50-$100. A good lens with shallow depth of field will cost $500-$700. So the best case current solution would be $700+ for something that will look as good as a high-quality DSLR without the body complexity. I designed a prototype of this type of camera and I think there's a market but it's difficult to defend. You end up competing with Logitech or Canon, GoPro & Apple enter the market. It's more likely that cell-phone quality cameras start being added to laptops and the shallow depth of field is done in software.
  • lupire 6y ago
    Why is your lens 3x the price of a pro-am Autofocus prime or zoomablr DSLR lens?
• _carbyau_ 6y ago
  At the particular market segment they seem to be aiming for - the enthusiast middle ground - the cost of extra capability is not competing with higher/lower priced cameras. It is competing with environment control on price. If I can change lighting with a $10 lamp or two and clean up the space behind me then why do I need "low light capability" and shallow depth of field? When this middle ground is marketed, it should be against the convenience of NOT having to arrange your surroundings "Just so".
• bsenftner 6y ago
  Can't believe nobody has mentioned just getting an IP camera for $50. 4K video, IR and low light sensitive, typically multiple codecs and streams simultaneously. Seriously, why waste time with consumer class USB cameras?
• jonpo 6y ago
  you can buy a good webcam. its unfortunate that to get decent image quality you need a good cammera. here is a tip you can skimp on the hdmi to usb dongle it digital 15 dollars should do it.(elgato seems to be a vlogger conspiricy) i found the best results from a cheapish dslr (that i already had) with a fixed fast macro lens at F3.5. best value is probably a mirrorles with a decent lens. when your in front of a big monitor less need for ring lights.
• andjd 6y ago
  I'm not sure that the product the author describes trying to make is really any better than the top-of-the-line Logitech units that sell for $200. I have seen them in action, and unless you're pixel-peeping at 4k, their results are at least on par with a mid-range phone. Without investing $$$ in computational photography to clean up the images, you're not going to get flagship smartphone quality photos out of cellphone-sized assemblies, no matter how high quality they are. A more interesting take on this space would be to try and offer the same quality as the mirrorless camera setup in a smaller and cheaper package. Upscale to a 1-inch or APS-C chip and a wide aperture lens, and you could get the blurred out background effect naturally, get an overall higher quality image. Without the need for a display and by offloading autofocusing compute to the computer, you'd be able to reduce the per-unit cost substantially below a standalone camera. Another interesting product for this space would be a teleprompter-style monitor-camera pair that effectively lets you place the camera behind the screen. This allows the user to naturally maintain eye contact with the camera, which can marginally improve connection and trust with the human on the other side of the call. For, say, sales teams that may have to rely more and more on video calls, compared to in-person meetings, this marginal improvement could be worth a lot of money.
• jaimex2 6y ago
  Literally any DSLR will let you do this. It's what 90% of Youtubers and streamers use.
• Sodman 6y ago
  It always baffles me that high-end webcams also usually come with bad microphones built-in. If you're dropping $200+ on a fancy high-end webcam for either streaming or high-quality video calls, you're probably also going to be dropping $60+ on a decent stand-alone microphone.
• Animats 6y ago
  There are plenty of camera modules available.[1][2] Those are both 4K, USB interface and take a big external lens. That's just from a quick look at Google. You could probably find more options, even without running around Huaqiangbei. You're not limited to phone-sized optics. [1] http://www.camera-module.com/product/8mpcameramodule/cmt-4k-usb-camera-module-8mp-sony-imx317-sensor.html http://www.camera-module.com/product/8mpcameramodule/cmt-4k-... [2] https://www.e-consystems.com/4k-camera-module.asp https://www.e-consystems.com/4k-camera-module.asp
• ptcampbell 6y ago
  As pointed out by others, a cheap HDMI to USB converter unlocks many possibilities. I use a Sony RX100 on a tripod plugged into a $20 eBay dongle. Works flawlessly cross platform, no drawbacks except there is no mic.
• devy 6y ago
  I am going tangential a little bit from what the original post here, but I think the answer is you can. GoPro Hero Action Cams can be used as a good webcam[1], for instances. They are definitely NOT cheap though - running $250 - $500 new depending on the models and about $100+ for used models on flea bay. The latest GoPro models like Hero8 Black or Hero9 Black that doesn't have HDMI output ports but instead having USB-C output ports actually make it easier to connect to computer as a premium webcam because not only those new models don't require a HDMI video capture device to convert signals but also the USB connection is slow charging the GoPro battery! All you need to get it to work is the GoPro camera with latest firmware, the bundled USB-C to USB-A cable and a desktop app (for macOS the app is about 10MB and super easy to use.) Let me tell you the video quality so much better! (1080p instead of 720p on MacBook Pro and the camera sensor is obviously different too). https://gopro.com/en/us/news/how-to-use-gopro-for-webcam https://gopro.com/en/us/news/how-to-use-gopro-for-webcam
• m01 6y ago
  Don't the Logitech Brio Ultra HD pro or Streamcams (if 1080p is enough) roughly tick the boxes the author wanted? Am I missing something?
• tripzilch 6y ago
  > [to use blah mic] you’ll need an external sound card with phantom power supply. A decent one can easily cost you $200 I got a decent one for $40. The more expensive ones generally have more in/outputs and such, they're not better in sound quality.
• tomaskafka 6y ago
  To everyone who says 'good webcam must be expensive' and 'you need light first'. No, and no. I am testing Reincubate Camo with my iPhone XS, and the image (together with computed portrait blur) is absolutely awesome, and several times better than any webcam tests I see. However, the set up is tedious. First kickstarter to take an upper midrange smartphone sensor (<$40 BOM) and connect it to at least middling ISP and USB controller wins $100+ of my cash easily, and will be the best thing that happened to webcam market since its conception. I have no idea how can Logitech sell atrocities like Brio and call them premium webcams. And I am baffled by everyone who insist that hack from a DSLR, Elgato, and a bag of cables to keep it powered is that only possible solution. To me, this feels like the famous Dropbox comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
• Friedduck 6y ago
  The answer is because it’s a pretty narrow market. Anyone wanting good quality has purchased a camera (or has one), external mic, and cobbled it together themselves. Or they buy a laptop with a decent camera and add a mic. So your market is the niche between those groups, and those who make do with their laptop. Not a large enough opportunity to pursue, I don’t think.
• mikestaub 6y ago
  I gave up and just use https://reincubate.com/camo https://reincubate.com/camo
• empiricus 6y ago
  Is it possible to just use a phone as a webcam? The rear camera of recent phones should be much better than a standard webcam.
  • terafo 6y ago
    Yes, it's possible. You can find a lot of apps doing exactly this.
• angusiasty 6y ago
  You can buy one, just don't look for a webcam. What you need is good camera and lenses. I'm using Sony A6400 with decent lenses and video quality is amazing, but this setup probably costs much more then most people would be willing to spend on a webcam.
• zaptidizap 6y ago
  50% OT: I was wondering why hooking cameras into the police system is reserved for 1000+ euro cams + expensive private security firms