6 ms·

I'm just not sure I buy this... The number of people willing to pay significant money for a high end webcam was very small. Now my parents and their friends ar

I'm just not sure I buy this... The number of people willing to pay significant money for a high end webcam was very small. Now my parents and their friends are talking about better lighting and camera angles. It seems like this industry is unusually ripe for a "better webcam" that "just works"

chadlavi 6y ago
and unfortunately Amazon and Facebook's spy-on-you-all-the-time FaceTime call-style communication products are going to dominate, especially with that demographic.
gimmeThaBeet 6y ago
Did somebody say iSight 2?
- yboris 6y ago
  iSight was such a beautiful-looking product! It's rather mind-blowing that back then its 640×480-pixel VGA resolution was considered good.
  - rasz 6y ago
    It wasnt just good, it was almost broadcast quality :) This was still a time of CIF 352x288/QVGA 320x240 webcams with interpolated 640x480 modes. "High-End" Logitech QuickCam Pro 3000 produced something like this https://secure40.securewebsession.com/mikeshardware.site.aplus.net/pics/qc_example_qc2.jpg https://secure40.securewebsession.com/mikeshardware.site.apl...
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    It's still good enough. 1080p or 4k is totally unnecessary for a Zoom meeting.
dogsgobork 6y ago
Right now they're talking about better lighting and camera angles. Will they still be interested in six months? In a year? There's a lot of uncertainty for any prospective manufacturer, they could spend a significant amount of money and time developing a product only to launch it into a world that never wants to do another zoom meeting again.
atoav 6y ago
I worked as a freelance DOP and worked with cameras + lenses that coat more than a decent car. And while there is certainly room for improvement with typical webcams: the problem is in many cases not the camera, but the conditions under which it operates. Low light, shooting against the light, smeared laptop lenses, weird angles (not eye level), weird perspective framing, bad combination of light and framerates, mixed light temperatures, low CRI lighting, etc. If you take an 40k€ Arri and a 20k€ Zeiss Prime and do all of the above the result will still look more or less crappy. Making a good looking image that feels natural is work, and while the camera is an important cog in the machine, it alone won't do wonders. The whole physical space around the motive needs to be arranged the right way, light fixtures that can cost a ton as well are set up, a whole truckload of grip is placed etc. IMO we will get photorealistic realtime avatars with cinematic lighting before we will get cameras that create better pictures on their own. Or the crappy webcam pictures are filtered in ways that make them look acceptable etc. Making a good picture involves realising how somebody looks and how they want to be seen and get them closer to that goal, it is not something where one size fits all.
- Firadeoclus 6y ago
  > And while there is certainly room for improvement with typical webcams: the problem is in many cases not the camera, but the conditions under which it operates. Low light, shooting against the light, smeared laptop lenses, weird angles (not eye level), weird perspective framing, bad combination of light and framerates, mixed light temperatures, low CRI lighting, etc. If you take an 40k€ Arri and a 20k€ Zeiss Prime and do all of the above the result will still look more or less crappy. All this is true, yet the difference between a bad laptop webcam and a high-end phone front camera is huge.
  - musingsole 6y ago
    A lot of work has been done on phone cameras to replace standalone cameras, but isn't half of the development investment there on the software side -- in addition to the hardware of the camera? (e.g. echoing GP's "crappy webcam pictures are filtered in ways that make them look acceptable etc" statement)
  - 6y ago
asdfk-12 6y ago
A webcam that "just works" seems like a herculean task if the goal is to have native compatibility with most devices without installing a package - Chromebooks, Apple, *nix, etc. but given how decent cameras are standard on mid-tier phones, you're spot on
- the_pwner224 6y ago
  Most webcam's I've tried do "just work" with *nix since they use USB UVC. And most linux distributions come with or can easily install the qt v4l2 package which can show you a live feed and let you adjust all the webcam's parameters that are exposed over UVC - for my current Logitech that's the common stuff like resolution, FPS, brightness/contrast/saturation, but also hardware-specific things like exposure (or autoexposure), pan/tilt/zoom, and focus / autofocus. I'm pretty sure the situation is the same on ChromeOS and Macs. And I've seen that webcams these days also tend to be pretty plug-and-play on Windows.
jldugger 6y ago
Yea, in 2019 this article made sense. If there is ever a year to launch a high end webcam, it was 2020. A ton of professionals with disposable income and very few ways to spend it, sitting in Webex and Zoom calls all day. People are dropping tons of cash for ring lights and Lume Cubes. These are already serving the Youtuber market, the same way that podcasters enjoy Blue Yetis. Which makes me wonder, what cameras are Youtubers using?
- fossuser 6y ago
  When I looked into it they’re mostly using mirrorless cameras like the Panasonic Lumix GH5 or the Sony a7siii with something like the elgato camlink 4k to get clean output.
  - mxfh 6y ago
    The Sony A7SIII sensor is just as good as it gets outside of cinema rental market. But certainly any post 2010 APS-C or bigger Sony should do to reliably differentiate from consumer webcams, all you need is a bit more light. Maybe get a prime lens on top and that's it, if you're willing to deal with a HDMI capture setup. The specs of some 4k drone gimbals are also impressive, also using mostly Sony sensors, those might be the next best thing to motorized gimbal setups with optical zoom lens, like those used in telepresence sytems: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25511682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25511682
    - fossuser 6y ago
      Yeah I think you're right. I got the LG Meetup for my living room at the start of Covid and it's mostly an overpriced disappointment. I also had to get the external mic because the built in one doesn't have the range advertised (they actually advertise two different numbers). I wanted something I could just plug into my TV PC to use for video chat. The Rally setup has the PTZ camera I wanted, but requires two external boxes which (as far as I can tell) serve no necessary purpose other than bad design. In hindsight the PTZ rally camera with an unrelated third party mic would probably have been the best bet. I would have thought El Gato would come out with some high quality webcam eventually.
fossuser 6y ago
Yeah I think they’d sell instantly. I looked all over for one and it doesn’t exist. The mirrorless camera solution sucks because there’s not an obvious winner there either (and you usually need a capture card/camlink to convert the output from the camera). The room scale ones like the LG meetup are overpriced and generally awful, the PTZ versions from them are even more expensive, use proprietary connectors for the mics and require a host of unnecessary external boxes. The Facebook portal TV is a great product for most people, but I just want something like that I can plug into a PC. There’s a vacuum in this market. The current options are either low quality, overpriced enterprise stuff or dealing with the hassle of a mirror less cam setup.
- novok 6y ago
  I personally wouldn't want to start in this market, because by the time anything could reasonably ship the COVID vaccine has been distributed enough and most people won't care that much anymore.
  - wyclif 6y ago
    I don't think WFH and remote work are going away though, even if COVID does.
    - novok 6y ago
      I think the demand for it will tamper down quite a bit although, and there are still many traditional places that aren't tech that are itching to get people back into offices.
- iamatworknow 6y ago
  >and you usually need a capture card/camlink to convert the output from the camera Early on in the pandemic the major mirrorless camera providers (I believe at least Sony[1], Fujifilm[2], Canon[3], and Nikon[4]) all released software that lets you use any of their relatively recent cameras as webcams with the regular USB transfer/charging cable. A separate capture card is no longer a necessity. [1] https://imagingedge.sony.net/en-us/ie-webcam.html https://imagingedge.sony.net/en-us/ie-webcam.html [2] https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/software/x-webcam/ https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/software/x-webcam/ [3] 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... [4] https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/548/Webcam_Utility.html https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/548/Webca...
gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
The analysis is very good on the article until the conclusion, which ignores all the data. It sets facts that there is no product in the market, there is A: "I do not care about anything, so I will buy a webcam" and B: "i care a little so i will spend $1000 instead of $300 on a phone with a integrated good camera" and C: "i will spend $10k on a DSLR and use as a webcam" Then it measures the market size for A and ignores B and C, which are the actual market they will sell to!
newsclues 6y ago
A modern iSight would be great, especially if it could replace webcam and GoPro
Spooky23 6y ago
The problems are: - most work applications don’t benefit from the quality - most people use smartphones and tablets as daily drivers - photo/video enthusiasts already own cameras that can be put into service.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
IshKebab 6y ago
Sure, so who's going to start a webcam company and design a cheap good webcam in less than a year for a market that will be dead again in less than a year?
- sfink 6y ago
  Might be dead again. With (1) a virus that's going to keep mutating and require regular vaccine updates, (2) the current vaccines with two separated shots and unpleasant side effects, and (3) people ditching their masks even more now that vaccines are in the picture, I'm guessing there's enough uncertainty that people and companies with the money to buy down risk will still be interested for quite some time. Though it'll still be competing with better lighting setups and recommendations for people to just videoconference from their cell phones. I wouldn't want to risk my capital on it, even though I'm pretty frustrated with my webcams' low quality.
petra 6y ago
I think the real problem that needs solving is eye-contact. That's the camera most people are going to buy, because the lack of eye contact is such an acute problem in video chats.
jacobolus 6y ago
The rear-facing camera on a recent iPhone (or comparable high-end Android phone) is already going to exceed the quality ceiling for what streaming 2-way video will support in resolution and bitrate, given acceptable lighting and background. If the front-facing camera on their laptop or tablet doesn't cut it, they should use the rear-facing camera on their phone, and put the rest of their effort into lighting and setup.
neuromanser 6y ago
I started looking for a solution to "my webcam is a PoS" problem a few weeks ago. I realized that a good sensor etc. will cost money, so the hardware should be useful outside meetings. I thought I would spend about $500 on a basic DSLR. After some contemplation, I decided that this was an opportunity to take up a new hobby, and now I'm about to buy a Sony A6000 plus some prime lenses. Just an anecdote.

chadlavi 6y ago

and unfortunately Amazon and Facebook's spy-on-you-all-the-time FaceTime call-style communication products are going to dominate, especially with that demographic.

gimmeThaBeet 6y ago

Did somebody say iSight 2?

yboris 6y ago
iSight was such a beautiful-looking product! It's rather mind-blowing that back then its 640×480-pixel VGA resolution was considered good.
- rasz 6y ago
  It wasnt just good, it was almost broadcast quality :) This was still a time of CIF 352x288/QVGA 320x240 webcams with interpolated 640x480 modes. "High-End" Logitech QuickCam Pro 3000 produced something like this https://secure40.securewebsession.com/mikeshardware.site.aplus.net/pics/qc_example_qc2.jpg https://secure40.securewebsession.com/mikeshardware.site.apl...
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  It's still good enough. 1080p or 4k is totally unnecessary for a Zoom meeting.

dogsgobork 6y ago

Right now they're talking about better lighting and camera angles. Will they still be interested in six months? In a year? There's a lot of uncertainty for any prospective manufacturer, they could spend a significant amount of money and time developing a product only to launch it into a world that never wants to do another zoom meeting again.

atoav 6y ago

I worked as a freelance DOP and worked with cameras + lenses that coat more than a decent car. And while there is certainly room for improvement with typical webcams: the problem is in many cases not the camera, but the conditions under which it operates. Low light, shooting against the light, smeared laptop lenses, weird angles (not eye level), weird perspective framing, bad combination of light and framerates, mixed light temperatures, low CRI lighting, etc. If you take an 40k€ Arri and a 20k€ Zeiss Prime and do all of the above the result will still look more or less crappy. Making a good looking image that feels natural is work, and while the camera is an important cog in the machine, it alone won't do wonders. The whole physical space around the motive needs to be arranged the right way, light fixtures that can cost a ton as well are set up, a whole truckload of grip is placed etc. IMO we will get photorealistic realtime avatars with cinematic lighting before we will get cameras that create better pictures on their own. Or the crappy webcam pictures are filtered in ways that make them look acceptable etc. Making a good picture involves realising how somebody looks and how they want to be seen and get them closer to that goal, it is not something where one size fits all.

Firadeoclus 6y ago
> And while there is certainly room for improvement with typical webcams: the problem is in many cases not the camera, but the conditions under which it operates. Low light, shooting against the light, smeared laptop lenses, weird angles (not eye level), weird perspective framing, bad combination of light and framerates, mixed light temperatures, low CRI lighting, etc. If you take an 40k€ Arri and a 20k€ Zeiss Prime and do all of the above the result will still look more or less crappy. All this is true, yet the difference between a bad laptop webcam and a high-end phone front camera is huge.
- musingsole 6y ago
  A lot of work has been done on phone cameras to replace standalone cameras, but isn't half of the development investment there on the software side -- in addition to the hardware of the camera? (e.g. echoing GP's "crappy webcam pictures are filtered in ways that make them look acceptable etc" statement)
- 6y ago

asdfk-12 6y ago

A webcam that "just works" seems like a herculean task if the goal is to have native compatibility with most devices without installing a package - Chromebooks, Apple, *nix, etc. but given how decent cameras are standard on mid-tier phones, you're spot on

the_pwner224 6y ago
Most webcam's I've tried do "just work" with *nix since they use USB UVC. And most linux distributions come with or can easily install the qt v4l2 package which can show you a live feed and let you adjust all the webcam's parameters that are exposed over UVC - for my current Logitech that's the common stuff like resolution, FPS, brightness/contrast/saturation, but also hardware-specific things like exposure (or autoexposure), pan/tilt/zoom, and focus / autofocus. I'm pretty sure the situation is the same on ChromeOS and Macs. And I've seen that webcams these days also tend to be pretty plug-and-play on Windows.

jldugger 6y ago

Yea, in 2019 this article made sense. If there is ever a year to launch a high end webcam, it was 2020. A ton of professionals with disposable income and very few ways to spend it, sitting in Webex and Zoom calls all day. People are dropping tons of cash for ring lights and Lume Cubes. These are already serving the Youtuber market, the same way that podcasters enjoy Blue Yetis. Which makes me wonder, what cameras are Youtubers using?

fossuser 6y ago
When I looked into it they’re mostly using mirrorless cameras like the Panasonic Lumix GH5 or the Sony a7siii with something like the elgato camlink 4k to get clean output.
- mxfh 6y ago
  The Sony A7SIII sensor is just as good as it gets outside of cinema rental market. But certainly any post 2010 APS-C or bigger Sony should do to reliably differentiate from consumer webcams, all you need is a bit more light. Maybe get a prime lens on top and that's it, if you're willing to deal with a HDMI capture setup. The specs of some 4k drone gimbals are also impressive, also using mostly Sony sensors, those might be the next best thing to motorized gimbal setups with optical zoom lens, like those used in telepresence sytems: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25511682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25511682
  - fossuser 6y ago
    Yeah I think you're right. I got the LG Meetup for my living room at the start of Covid and it's mostly an overpriced disappointment. I also had to get the external mic because the built in one doesn't have the range advertised (they actually advertise two different numbers). I wanted something I could just plug into my TV PC to use for video chat. The Rally setup has the PTZ camera I wanted, but requires two external boxes which (as far as I can tell) serve no necessary purpose other than bad design. In hindsight the PTZ rally camera with an unrelated third party mic would probably have been the best bet. I would have thought El Gato would come out with some high quality webcam eventually.

fossuser 6y ago

Yeah I think they’d sell instantly. I looked all over for one and it doesn’t exist. The mirrorless camera solution sucks because there’s not an obvious winner there either (and you usually need a capture card/camlink to convert the output from the camera). The room scale ones like the LG meetup are overpriced and generally awful, the PTZ versions from them are even more expensive, use proprietary connectors for the mics and require a host of unnecessary external boxes. The Facebook portal TV is a great product for most people, but I just want something like that I can plug into a PC. There’s a vacuum in this market. The current options are either low quality, overpriced enterprise stuff or dealing with the hassle of a mirror less cam setup.

novok 6y ago
I personally wouldn't want to start in this market, because by the time anything could reasonably ship the COVID vaccine has been distributed enough and most people won't care that much anymore.
- wyclif 6y ago
  I don't think WFH and remote work are going away though, even if COVID does.
  - novok 6y ago
    I think the demand for it will tamper down quite a bit although, and there are still many traditional places that aren't tech that are itching to get people back into offices.
iamatworknow 6y ago
>and you usually need a capture card/camlink to convert the output from the camera Early on in the pandemic the major mirrorless camera providers (I believe at least Sony[1], Fujifilm[2], Canon[3], and Nikon[4]) all released software that lets you use any of their relatively recent cameras as webcams with the regular USB transfer/charging cable. A separate capture card is no longer a necessity. [1] https://imagingedge.sony.net/en-us/ie-webcam.html https://imagingedge.sony.net/en-us/ie-webcam.html [2] https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/software/x-webcam/ https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/software/x-webcam/ [3] 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... [4] https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/548/Webcam_Utility.html https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/548/Webca...

gcblkjaidfj 6y ago

The analysis is very good on the article until the conclusion, which ignores all the data. It sets facts that there is no product in the market, there is A: "I do not care about anything, so I will buy a webcam" and B: "i care a little so i will spend $1000 instead of $300 on a phone with a integrated good camera" and C: "i will spend $10k on a DSLR and use as a webcam" Then it measures the market size for A and ignores B and C, which are the actual market they will sell to!

newsclues 6y ago

A modern iSight would be great, especially if it could replace webcam and GoPro

Spooky23 6y ago

The problems are: - most work applications don’t benefit from the quality - most people use smartphones and tablets as daily drivers - photo/video enthusiasts already own cameras that can be put into service.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

IshKebab 6y ago

Sure, so who's going to start a webcam company and design a cheap good webcam in less than a year for a market that will be dead again in less than a year?

sfink 6y ago
Might be dead again. With (1) a virus that's going to keep mutating and require regular vaccine updates, (2) the current vaccines with two separated shots and unpleasant side effects, and (3) people ditching their masks even more now that vaccines are in the picture, I'm guessing there's enough uncertainty that people and companies with the money to buy down risk will still be interested for quite some time. Though it'll still be competing with better lighting setups and recommendations for people to just videoconference from their cell phones. I wouldn't want to risk my capital on it, even though I'm pretty frustrated with my webcams' low quality.

petra 6y ago

I think the real problem that needs solving is eye-contact. That's the camera most people are going to buy, because the lack of eye contact is such an acute problem in video chats.

jacobolus 6y ago

The rear-facing camera on a recent iPhone (or comparable high-end Android phone) is already going to exceed the quality ceiling for what streaming 2-way video will support in resolution and bitrate, given acceptable lighting and background. If the front-facing camera on their laptop or tablet doesn't cut it, they should use the rear-facing camera on their phone, and put the rest of their effort into lighting and setup.

neuromanser 6y ago

I started looking for a solution to "my webcam is a PoS" problem a few weeks ago. I realized that a good sensor etc. will cost money, so the hardware should be useful outside meetings. I thought I would spend about $500 on a basic DSLR. After some contemplation, I decided that this was an opportunity to take up a new hobby, and now I'm about to buy a Sony A6000 plus some prime lenses. Just an anecdote.