8 ms·

Opal Camera

74 points by konha 5y ago

grendelt 5y ago
"Plug & play, right on your Mac." So... Windows users SOL? It's a USB webcam, no?
- nsajko 5y ago
  The paragraph immediately below: > Access the power of Opal Computer Vision within the Opal app. The app allows you fine-grain tuning of your image and access to Machine Learning powered features that help you look your best. So the software seems to be Mac-only.
- Isthatablackgsd 5y ago
  If you have a smartphone lying around waiting to be useful, you can use OBS with OBS.Ninja. Ninja will run in the browser and it works very well on any platform. I used it a few times since Macbook camera is not great.
arthurcolle 5y ago
Looks great! I have the Logitech BRIO which is quite nice for the quality. Theres this subculture that seems to have emerged where people get these super top notch mics for videoconferences now that everyone is remote, which I don't really get but this definitely seems great if not a bit overkill!
- ebspelman 5y ago
  I feel like that has to do with the Twitch/streamer culture too, where lots of people have big, visible mikes.
formerly_proven 5y ago
The blurbs are a little bit incoherent > DSLR technology on a webcam > A Mirrorless Miracle > 7.8mm [diagonal] sensor 7.8 mm diagonal is basically the ballpark of a phone camera sensor (which it almost certainly is). It's not all that obvious why you'd spent 300 $ on this instead of using a smartphone as a webcam. 300 $ also gets somewhat close to being able to buy a used low-end mirrorless camera plus lens and adapter (if necessary), which is more flexible and you get a camera for free. Might be for the "can't be bothered, but have money" market, as an all-in-one-solution to get something OK without meddling?
- bayindirh 5y ago
  The only thing it has a top notch Sony sensor and a glass lens assembly, with f/1.8 equivalent aperture. It'll have no bokeh or low light sensitivity of an FF or APS-C camera. Also, Sony A7 (first generation) comparison is rigged. Get an A7-III, A7C for $2000, and install latest webcam drivers. Its colors and fidelity will blow Opal out of water, even without trying (both have 6K sensors, too). The only alleged improvement of Opal is microphone array however, Apple is already good at this. When Zoom & Google's noise cancellation technology is added on top, everything is more than satisfactory, for most scenarios. On this front, I'm not sure that stereo mics of a true mirrorless system would be that behind in focusing sound (if webcam driver can stream the location of the prominent face to the driver, a more advanced sound filtering can be done with a pair of mics, too). If you're too inclined, you can just throw in a Yeti in a mix and, sound issue will be solved for once and for all. All in all, it's a good webcam, but they're picking wrong competitors. A modern mirrorless is too powerful for them, and MacBook's pinhole webcam is too good for its size. They need better marketing and targeting IMHO.
  - carlob 5y ago
    What do you mean f/1.8 equivalent? I thought focal lengths were different for different sensor sizes, not apertures.
    - bayindirh 5y ago
      the F number is calculated by f/D where f is the focal length and D is the diameter of entrance pupil. For a F/1.0, 50mm lens, you need a 50mm front element. In Opal's terms, this means their f/D ratio is 1.8. However, it doesn't mean it can capture equal number of photons with a full frame system with a f/1.8 lens, since their sensors' surface area is not equivalent. Another difference will be in DoF. Since the sensor is smaller, there'll be a big crop factor, it'll multiply everything. Hence the resulting DoF will not be anything like a full frame system. In other words, almost everything will be in focus. To add a cherry on top, they're not telling the T number of their lens, which defines how much light actually passes through it. F number and T number can be vastly different, intentionally or unintentionally, due to design parameters and features of a lens.
Grismar 5y ago
Spectacularly bad SEO and marketing, try searching for it. Vapor?
- konha 5y ago
  Alexis Ohanian tweeted about it earlier, seems real. https://twitter.com/alexisohanian/status/1435709529308626946?s=21 https://twitter.com/alexisohanian/status/1435709529308626946...
0des 5y ago
I like the niche that's being targeted here, and I did sign up. 300 is affordable, and who doesn't like trying new things? However, after giving my email, I scroll down to the comparison between iPhone, this, and Sony, and I'm a bit let down. I'm not trying to be the one with the hot take here, but the depth of field is too shallow, the edges are fuzzy, and the colors are blown out. Perhaps the comparison would have been better between similar devices in a similar cost bracket, like a GoPro or actual higher end webcams.
- troupe 5y ago
  I'd consider narrow depth of field a plus when it comes to a camera that is supposed to be showing my face.
- daniel_reetz 5y ago
  I have to say, the comparisons don't look very favorable. It looks like they favor image processing vs lens/sensor combo. This is a modern take to be sure; just not one I'm real excited about.
  - commonlands 5y ago
    Yes, their neural-net based image tuning is the core IP/feature for the vision part of the product. The comparison images/videos look like their ISP tuning (/ neural net) is cranking up the saturation too much and metering only in the center. Might just be the way it was set for the promotional video, so time will tell. All of these can be easily integrated into Macbook webcameras via software updates/tools. "We gave the Opal C1 the fastest neural processing chip ever on a webcam. At 4 trillion operations per second, it rips through ML models at blazing speeds" If they want/wanted optimal lens+sensor performance, the industrial designers would need to give a bit. The 0.9" depth is tricky for all-glass wide-angle lenses and 1/2.3" format type sensors. My guess is the device would need to be ~1.4" to incorporate an all-glass lens that's fully suitable for this sensor, particularly at F/1.8. Can talk more about this offline (commonlands.com). It sounds like they are still figuring out their lens. The writing on the camera says 3.3mm~=100deg DFoV; 19mm equivalent on 35mm full frame. The webpage indicates 4.81mm~=78.6deg DFoV; 28mm equivalent on 35mm full frame.
smoldesu 5y ago
I had my cursor over the 'buy' button until I saw that their client was Mac-only, and it appears to be the only easy way to modify any of the settings. Seems a little silly to buy a webcam that I can only control with <10% of the computers I encounter on a daily basis.
- flemhans 5y ago
  There is no buy button.
briandoll 5y ago
Or just use your much better iPhone camera via Camo (https://reincubate.com/camo/ https://reincubate.com/camo/) w/ great image tuning, etc. since you always have your phone with you and isn't yet another thing to deal with.
- jjcm 5y ago
  I've used Camo and other phone-as-a-webcam softwares before. My issue with them is setup is required. If I need to 2fa into something during a zoom call, I have to turn off my webcam and use my phone, then re set up my phone as a camera, turn on the software, and link it to my computer. It's too much friction, especially if you only have 1 min before a meeting to prep. With a dedicated webcam, it's alway set up. There's no software to start up, there's no positioning the camera every time.
  - briandoll 5y ago
    I can see that. In the year that I've been using Camo, I've never personally had that issue, but I can see it being problematic if you're constantly needing your phone for a second factor all day (consider a yubikey?). I'd say that another _advantage_ (IMHO) of Camo is that I don't have my phone to use for distractions while on calls, so that's a pro in my book.
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
I’ll check it out, when it ships. Webcams are a pain to produce. Someone here, posted a story (maybe a year or so ago), about how they wanted to make a webcam, and gave up, because logistics.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  I think this might be the story: https://vsevolod.net/good-webcams/ https://vsevolod.net/good-webcams/
foofoo4u 5y ago
I wonder how this compares to the [Webex Desk Camera](https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collaboration-endpoints/webex-desk-camera/index.html https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collaboration-endpoin...) which seems to be in a similar price point.
- troupe 5y ago
  The WebEx deskcam is nice but doesn't have an option for as narrow of field of view as their previous webcams. Also Microsoft Teams hates it and will only use the lowest resolution which is a pain when you have a 4k camera.
foofoo4u 5y ago
Quick suggestion to whoever created the website. Please enable an ability to make the video comparisons full-screen-able. I can't gauge as well how good the quality actually is unless I can scale it up.
- tommoor 5y ago
  Pretty sure this is intentional – they don't compare well at full size, see some of the other links in this thread
inportb 5y ago
So... they're saying their product is approximately on par with an 8-year-old camera? Though the A7 video still looks better, as expected. > Macbook Webcam Free https://opalcamera.com/compare-macbook.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-macbook.mp4 > Opal C1 $300 https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4 > Sony A7 $2050 https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4 I don't even know where to buy the A7 now, but the A7II could be had for sub-$1k.
dharma1 5y ago
It looks like a really well designed product. But you can just use your phone as a desktop webcam no? Maybe this is a bit less faff
profquail 5y ago
The Opal webcam ($300) looks fairly similar in specification to the new(ish) Dell UltraSharp webcam ($200): https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-webcam/apd/319-bbhp/pc-accessories https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-webcam/apd/3... What is Opal offering over the Dell webcam for the extra $100?
- Sebguer 5y ago
  The knowledge that it won't work on a Windows machine, as far as I can tell from their ad copy. Edit: Though, to be fair, apparently the Dell one doesn't support macOS?
- OliverJones 5y ago
  What's the difference? This Opal has a good quality lens. f/1.8 is a large aperture. That means it can gather a lot of light. Six glass elements probably means it has good geometric and color distortion characteristics. The specs say it has a fixed focus from 10cm to infinity. That's not bad. Lenses like that for DSLRs retail for $100 or more. The Dell webcam specs say nothing, but nothing, about the lens. That usually means it's a coke-bottle shard. (meaning cheap and barely acceptable.) Opal are also bragging about a beam-forming mic array (that is, a software shotgun mic). That's worth money. No mic at all on the Dell. Compare various smartphones. Many smartphone makers brag about their lenses.
  - devindotcom 5y ago
    F/1.8 is a familiar number to people only because of how that number matters for a full frame, APS-C, or 4/3 sensor. It doesn't translate well to what would produce good image quality on an 8mm sensor. The equivalent F number will be much higher. Using it in this context is just marketing. I'm not saying it's bad, just that the information they're giving isn't what people will understand it as, which I think is a bit misleading. My friend wrote a very interesting article on the topic if you're curious - I had no idea about most of this: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equival...
  - 5y ago
werber 5y ago
I appreciate the honest side by side comparison. This seems like a god send for the light sensitive power can user but for the occasional one on one developer like me a waste
modeless 5y ago
This is very dishonest in the video comparison section. The Opal Camera video is using a software background blur filter (just like the one in Zoom or Hangouts) to make it look like it has a DSLR style lens with shallow depth of field. But in reality it has a tiny, crappy lens, just like every other terrible webcam. Also they compare vs a $2k camera but any DSLR will put this thing to shame and there are much cheaper ones out there. Even a point-and-shoot pocket camera would be much better than this thing, if it supports a webcam mode (not sure if any do). Despite the rigged comparison, at full resolution you can still easily tell that the video quality is nowhere near the level of the DSLR: https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4
- cvburgess 5y ago
  The DSLR felt 10x smoother and more natural to me as someone that knows nothing about cameras. Ironically, this website made me want to go find a cheap/used DSLR because the quality is so much better. I personally use Camo with my iPhone which does almost all of these things and uses the computer in my pocket. Would love to see a comparison with that as I think its reasonable to assume someone willing to drop $300 on a webcam has overlap with someone willing to pay a monthly fee to use their phone as one.
- com2kid 5y ago
  A DSLR doesn't rest on top of my monitor. I don't want to use up precious desk space on a tripod and a DSLR body. Saying a DSLR is better is like saying full size speakers are better than sound bars. Of course they are, but form factor matters!
  - modeless 5y ago
    Mirrorless cameras are not that big these days, especially if you get a pancake lens. You're not going to carry one around with your laptop but I expect most people with a monitor on their desk could fit one directly underneath it with one of those tiny tripods ($9.99 with one day delivery on Amazon). On top would probably be possible too with the smallest ones.
dmitrygr 5y ago
All I see is a textual 404 page: https://archive.is/defP6 https://archive.is/defP6 [edit, later, page is up again] They really need to proofread this page... "Microphones Type: MEMs" It is "MEMS" not "MEMs", micro-electromechanical system. "S" is part of the acronym...
- aendruk 5y ago
  Somehow I expected that to be an archived copy of the working page. I feel like I got rickrolled, but it’s exactly as promised. Here’s one with text at least: https://web.archive.org/web/20210813192120/https://opalcamera.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210813192120/https://opalcamer... Opal is “DSLR technology on a webcam”.
tmabraham 5y ago
The website is down, I am getting a 404 page.
rasz 5y ago
Its a "mirrorless DSLR"! As a bonus its build around Intel Movidius, probably cancelled before they start shipping. and 404 page not found
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
konrad__ 5y ago
For an alternative you can buy right now: I am using a UC 70 (mokose 4k in the US / osybz 4k on AliExpress) it's around 170$ with surprisingly good image quality. It supports UVC, so you don't have to install drivers or "Ai enhance" bloatware. The included (CS-mount, interchangeable) lens is pretty good as well, although the widest field of view is not as wide as other webcams. No microphone though...
perardi 5y ago
Well the website is down, but from the cache, the primary selling point is… ”An ƒ1.8, six-element, glass lens brings in 2.4x more light than any other webcam…With a 7.8mm, 4K Sony sensor” …which granted, is better than other webcams. Except for the one in my pocket, on my iPhone. Which also has advanced noise-filtering technology. I guess there’s a market for a fancy standalone webcam, but it cannot be huge. Most people don’t care, people who moderately care can use their smartphones with a bevy of tethering software, and if you really care you are probably a streamer or YouTube producer who has a real camera, like perhaps this Sony: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-zv-e10-review https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-zv-e10-review
- asimpletune 5y ago
  > I guess there’s a market for a fancy standalone webcam, but it cannot be huge. Most people don’t care, people who moderately care can use their smartphones ... I think I've seen a number of times on HN people complaining that there isn't a better camera solution, given how much remote work we've been doing since covid. This is usually followed by people saying that what's really important is sound, along with their personal setups. Based on that alone I think this company has a reasonable chance at success, especially since stuff like this is often expensed. I'd say one risk to the company is when Apple simply makes better cameras in their MacBooks, but even then it'll be a while before company's replenish their supply of new MacBooks.
- modeless 5y ago
  Ooh, the ZV-E10 looks nice! I already have some E-mount lenses for my NEX-5, but it's too old to work with the webcam software Sony released last year, so I was thinking about upgrading.
  - raesene9 5y ago
    yeah I've got a ZV-1 and been looking at the ZV-E10 reviews, it looks nice. the only thing putting me off is that it looks like they move the USB/HDMI ports to the other side from the ZV-1 so, if you flip out the screen, the cables will obscure the screen.
- 5y ago
ortusdux 5y ago
I would rather bump up a few hundred dollars and get a DSLR that can be used as a webcam. I would guess that many of the people who care about the improvements that this $300 camera claims to have either already have a DSLR, or would like to own one. https://www.epiphan.com/blog/best-cameras-for-live-streaming/ https://www.epiphan.com/blog/best-cameras-for-live-streaming...
unicornporn 5y ago
7.8mm sensor and "DSLR technology"?
Sephr 5y ago
If a 7.8mm sensor counts as "DSLR technology", does that mean our regular cameras are now "spy satellite technology"?
didntknowya 5y ago
nice but i'm not sure i want everyone at work to be able to zoom in on every pores of my face...
dadior 5y ago
I don't know too much about camera, lens... but the website UI/UX design is pretty successful, it make people the thing is cool, advanced, and willing to make a try.
hammyhavoc 5y ago
How about Linux and Windows support?
raesene9 5y ago
After much searching around for a decent webcam, I went for a Sony ZV-1. Cheaper and smaller than a DSLR setup, has Clean HDMI and good eye autofocus. There's also the new ZV-E10 which adds interchangeable lenses and USB-C but it looks like they've moved the cable ports round so they obscure the screen when it's flipped out, which would be a pain.
mchusma 5y ago
As an alternative, I bought one of these (a competitor) https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lumina-4k-webcam-look-great-on-every-call-with-ai#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lumina-4k-webcam-look-gre... I liked in theory that it has a better picture than my current webcam, and has "auto framing", which I found great on my Facebook portal.
drywater2 5y ago
I think it's better if I stick with my GoPro hero9, which can be used as a cam. It's the same price, but I can take it with me anywhere, film in 4k60fps and it has some stabilization software which is really good.
arthurcolle 5y ago
Any way to get an invite code?

Opal Camera

74 points by konha 5y ago

grendelt 5y ago

"Plug & play, right on your Mac." So... Windows users SOL? It's a USB webcam, no?

nsajko 5y ago
The paragraph immediately below: > Access the power of Opal Computer Vision within the Opal app. The app allows you fine-grain tuning of your image and access to Machine Learning powered features that help you look your best. So the software seems to be Mac-only.
Isthatablackgsd 5y ago
If you have a smartphone lying around waiting to be useful, you can use OBS with OBS.Ninja. Ninja will run in the browser and it works very well on any platform. I used it a few times since Macbook camera is not great.

arthurcolle 5y ago

Looks great! I have the Logitech BRIO which is quite nice for the quality. Theres this subculture that seems to have emerged where people get these super top notch mics for videoconferences now that everyone is remote, which I don't really get but this definitely seems great if not a bit overkill!

ebspelman 5y ago
I feel like that has to do with the Twitch/streamer culture too, where lots of people have big, visible mikes.

formerly_proven 5y ago

The blurbs are a little bit incoherent > DSLR technology on a webcam > A Mirrorless Miracle > 7.8mm [diagonal] sensor 7.8 mm diagonal is basically the ballpark of a phone camera sensor (which it almost certainly is). It's not all that obvious why you'd spent 300 $ on this instead of using a smartphone as a webcam. 300 $ also gets somewhat close to being able to buy a used low-end mirrorless camera plus lens and adapter (if necessary), which is more flexible and you get a camera for free. Might be for the "can't be bothered, but have money" market, as an all-in-one-solution to get something OK without meddling?

bayindirh 5y ago
The only thing it has a top notch Sony sensor and a glass lens assembly, with f/1.8 equivalent aperture. It'll have no bokeh or low light sensitivity of an FF or APS-C camera. Also, Sony A7 (first generation) comparison is rigged. Get an A7-III, A7C for $2000, and install latest webcam drivers. Its colors and fidelity will blow Opal out of water, even without trying (both have 6K sensors, too). The only alleged improvement of Opal is microphone array however, Apple is already good at this. When Zoom & Google's noise cancellation technology is added on top, everything is more than satisfactory, for most scenarios. On this front, I'm not sure that stereo mics of a true mirrorless system would be that behind in focusing sound (if webcam driver can stream the location of the prominent face to the driver, a more advanced sound filtering can be done with a pair of mics, too). If you're too inclined, you can just throw in a Yeti in a mix and, sound issue will be solved for once and for all. All in all, it's a good webcam, but they're picking wrong competitors. A modern mirrorless is too powerful for them, and MacBook's pinhole webcam is too good for its size. They need better marketing and targeting IMHO.
- carlob 5y ago
  What do you mean f/1.8 equivalent? I thought focal lengths were different for different sensor sizes, not apertures.
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    the F number is calculated by f/D where f is the focal length and D is the diameter of entrance pupil. For a F/1.0, 50mm lens, you need a 50mm front element. In Opal's terms, this means their f/D ratio is 1.8. However, it doesn't mean it can capture equal number of photons with a full frame system with a f/1.8 lens, since their sensors' surface area is not equivalent. Another difference will be in DoF. Since the sensor is smaller, there'll be a big crop factor, it'll multiply everything. Hence the resulting DoF will not be anything like a full frame system. In other words, almost everything will be in focus. To add a cherry on top, they're not telling the T number of their lens, which defines how much light actually passes through it. F number and T number can be vastly different, intentionally or unintentionally, due to design parameters and features of a lens.

Grismar 5y ago

Spectacularly bad SEO and marketing, try searching for it. Vapor?

konha 5y ago
Alexis Ohanian tweeted about it earlier, seems real. https://twitter.com/alexisohanian/status/1435709529308626946?s=21 https://twitter.com/alexisohanian/status/1435709529308626946...

0des 5y ago

I like the niche that's being targeted here, and I did sign up. 300 is affordable, and who doesn't like trying new things? However, after giving my email, I scroll down to the comparison between iPhone, this, and Sony, and I'm a bit let down. I'm not trying to be the one with the hot take here, but the depth of field is too shallow, the edges are fuzzy, and the colors are blown out. Perhaps the comparison would have been better between similar devices in a similar cost bracket, like a GoPro or actual higher end webcams.

troupe 5y ago
I'd consider narrow depth of field a plus when it comes to a camera that is supposed to be showing my face.
daniel_reetz 5y ago
I have to say, the comparisons don't look very favorable. It looks like they favor image processing vs lens/sensor combo. This is a modern take to be sure; just not one I'm real excited about.
- commonlands 5y ago
  Yes, their neural-net based image tuning is the core IP/feature for the vision part of the product. The comparison images/videos look like their ISP tuning (/ neural net) is cranking up the saturation too much and metering only in the center. Might just be the way it was set for the promotional video, so time will tell. All of these can be easily integrated into Macbook webcameras via software updates/tools. "We gave the Opal C1 the fastest neural processing chip ever on a webcam. At 4 trillion operations per second, it rips through ML models at blazing speeds" If they want/wanted optimal lens+sensor performance, the industrial designers would need to give a bit. The 0.9" depth is tricky for all-glass wide-angle lenses and 1/2.3" format type sensors. My guess is the device would need to be ~1.4" to incorporate an all-glass lens that's fully suitable for this sensor, particularly at F/1.8. Can talk more about this offline (commonlands.com). It sounds like they are still figuring out their lens. The writing on the camera says 3.3mm~=100deg DFoV; 19mm equivalent on 35mm full frame. The webpage indicates 4.81mm~=78.6deg DFoV; 28mm equivalent on 35mm full frame.

smoldesu 5y ago

I had my cursor over the 'buy' button until I saw that their client was Mac-only, and it appears to be the only easy way to modify any of the settings. Seems a little silly to buy a webcam that I can only control with <10% of the computers I encounter on a daily basis.

flemhans 5y ago
There is no buy button.

briandoll 5y ago

Or just use your much better iPhone camera via Camo (https://reincubate.com/camo/ https://reincubate.com/camo/) w/ great image tuning, etc. since you always have your phone with you and isn't yet another thing to deal with.

jjcm 5y ago
I've used Camo and other phone-as-a-webcam softwares before. My issue with them is setup is required. If I need to 2fa into something during a zoom call, I have to turn off my webcam and use my phone, then re set up my phone as a camera, turn on the software, and link it to my computer. It's too much friction, especially if you only have 1 min before a meeting to prep. With a dedicated webcam, it's alway set up. There's no software to start up, there's no positioning the camera every time.
- briandoll 5y ago
  I can see that. In the year that I've been using Camo, I've never personally had that issue, but I can see it being problematic if you're constantly needing your phone for a second factor all day (consider a yubikey?). I'd say that another _advantage_ (IMHO) of Camo is that I don't have my phone to use for distractions while on calls, so that's a pro in my book.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

I’ll check it out, when it ships. Webcams are a pain to produce. Someone here, posted a story (maybe a year or so ago), about how they wanted to make a webcam, and gave up, because logistics.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
I think this might be the story: https://vsevolod.net/good-webcams/ https://vsevolod.net/good-webcams/

foofoo4u 5y ago

I wonder how this compares to the [Webex Desk Camera](https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collaboration-endpoints/webex-desk-camera/index.html https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collaboration-endpoin...) which seems to be in a similar price point.

troupe 5y ago
The WebEx deskcam is nice but doesn't have an option for as narrow of field of view as their previous webcams. Also Microsoft Teams hates it and will only use the lowest resolution which is a pain when you have a 4k camera.

foofoo4u 5y ago

Quick suggestion to whoever created the website. Please enable an ability to make the video comparisons full-screen-able. I can't gauge as well how good the quality actually is unless I can scale it up.

tommoor 5y ago
Pretty sure this is intentional – they don't compare well at full size, see some of the other links in this thread

inportb 5y ago

So... they're saying their product is approximately on par with an 8-year-old camera? Though the A7 video still looks better, as expected. > Macbook Webcam Free https://opalcamera.com/compare-macbook.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-macbook.mp4 > Opal C1 $300 https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4 > Sony A7 $2050 https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4 I don't even know where to buy the A7 now, but the A7II could be had for sub-$1k.

dharma1 5y ago

It looks like a really well designed product. But you can just use your phone as a desktop webcam no? Maybe this is a bit less faff

profquail 5y ago

The Opal webcam ($300) looks fairly similar in specification to the new(ish) Dell UltraSharp webcam ($200): https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-webcam/apd/319-bbhp/pc-accessories https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-webcam/apd/3... What is Opal offering over the Dell webcam for the extra $100?

Sebguer 5y ago
The knowledge that it won't work on a Windows machine, as far as I can tell from their ad copy. Edit: Though, to be fair, apparently the Dell one doesn't support macOS?
OliverJones 5y ago
What's the difference? This Opal has a good quality lens. f/1.8 is a large aperture. That means it can gather a lot of light. Six glass elements probably means it has good geometric and color distortion characteristics. The specs say it has a fixed focus from 10cm to infinity. That's not bad. Lenses like that for DSLRs retail for $100 or more. The Dell webcam specs say nothing, but nothing, about the lens. That usually means it's a coke-bottle shard. (meaning cheap and barely acceptable.) Opal are also bragging about a beam-forming mic array (that is, a software shotgun mic). That's worth money. No mic at all on the Dell. Compare various smartphones. Many smartphone makers brag about their lenses.
- devindotcom 5y ago
  F/1.8 is a familiar number to people only because of how that number matters for a full frame, APS-C, or 4/3 sensor. It doesn't translate well to what would produce good image quality on an 8mm sensor. The equivalent F number will be much higher. Using it in this context is just marketing. I'm not saying it's bad, just that the information they're giving isn't what people will understand it as, which I think is a bit misleading. My friend wrote a very interesting article on the topic if you're curious - I had no idea about most of this: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equival...
- 5y ago

werber 5y ago

I appreciate the honest side by side comparison. This seems like a god send for the light sensitive power can user but for the occasional one on one developer like me a waste

modeless 5y ago

This is very dishonest in the video comparison section. The Opal Camera video is using a software background blur filter (just like the one in Zoom or Hangouts) to make it look like it has a DSLR style lens with shallow depth of field. But in reality it has a tiny, crappy lens, just like every other terrible webcam. Also they compare vs a $2k camera but any DSLR will put this thing to shame and there are much cheaper ones out there. Even a point-and-shoot pocket camera would be much better than this thing, if it supports a webcam mode (not sure if any do). Despite the rigged comparison, at full resolution you can still easily tell that the video quality is nowhere near the level of the DSLR: https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4

cvburgess 5y ago
The DSLR felt 10x smoother and more natural to me as someone that knows nothing about cameras. Ironically, this website made me want to go find a cheap/used DSLR because the quality is so much better. I personally use Camo with my iPhone which does almost all of these things and uses the computer in my pocket. Would love to see a comparison with that as I think its reasonable to assume someone willing to drop $300 on a webcam has overlap with someone willing to pay a monthly fee to use their phone as one.
com2kid 5y ago
A DSLR doesn't rest on top of my monitor. I don't want to use up precious desk space on a tripod and a DSLR body. Saying a DSLR is better is like saying full size speakers are better than sound bars. Of course they are, but form factor matters!
- modeless 5y ago
  Mirrorless cameras are not that big these days, especially if you get a pancake lens. You're not going to carry one around with your laptop but I expect most people with a monitor on their desk could fit one directly underneath it with one of those tiny tripods ($9.99 with one day delivery on Amazon). On top would probably be possible too with the smallest ones.

dmitrygr 5y ago

All I see is a textual 404 page: https://archive.is/defP6 https://archive.is/defP6 [edit, later, page is up again] They really need to proofread this page... "Microphones Type: MEMs" It is "MEMS" not "MEMs", micro-electromechanical system. "S" is part of the acronym...

aendruk 5y ago
Somehow I expected that to be an archived copy of the working page. I feel like I got rickrolled, but it’s exactly as promised. Here’s one with text at least: https://web.archive.org/web/20210813192120/https://opalcamera.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210813192120/https://opalcamer... Opal is “DSLR technology on a webcam”.

tmabraham 5y ago

The website is down, I am getting a 404 page.

rasz 5y ago

Its a "mirrorless DSLR"! As a bonus its build around Intel Movidius, probably cancelled before they start shipping. and 404 page not found

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

konrad__ 5y ago

For an alternative you can buy right now: I am using a UC 70 (mokose 4k in the US / osybz 4k on AliExpress) it's around 170$ with surprisingly good image quality. It supports UVC, so you don't have to install drivers or "Ai enhance" bloatware. The included (CS-mount, interchangeable) lens is pretty good as well, although the widest field of view is not as wide as other webcams. No microphone though...

perardi 5y ago

Well the website is down, but from the cache, the primary selling point is… ”An ƒ1.8, six-element, glass lens brings in 2.4x more light than any other webcam…With a 7.8mm, 4K Sony sensor” …which granted, is better than other webcams. Except for the one in my pocket, on my iPhone. Which also has advanced noise-filtering technology. I guess there’s a market for a fancy standalone webcam, but it cannot be huge. Most people don’t care, people who moderately care can use their smartphones with a bevy of tethering software, and if you really care you are probably a streamer or YouTube producer who has a real camera, like perhaps this Sony: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-zv-e10-review https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-zv-e10-review

asimpletune 5y ago
> I guess there’s a market for a fancy standalone webcam, but it cannot be huge. Most people don’t care, people who moderately care can use their smartphones ... I think I've seen a number of times on HN people complaining that there isn't a better camera solution, given how much remote work we've been doing since covid. This is usually followed by people saying that what's really important is sound, along with their personal setups. Based on that alone I think this company has a reasonable chance at success, especially since stuff like this is often expensed. I'd say one risk to the company is when Apple simply makes better cameras in their MacBooks, but even then it'll be a while before company's replenish their supply of new MacBooks.
modeless 5y ago
Ooh, the ZV-E10 looks nice! I already have some E-mount lenses for my NEX-5, but it's too old to work with the webcam software Sony released last year, so I was thinking about upgrading.
- raesene9 5y ago
  yeah I've got a ZV-1 and been looking at the ZV-E10 reviews, it looks nice. the only thing putting me off is that it looks like they move the USB/HDMI ports to the other side from the ZV-1 so, if you flip out the screen, the cables will obscure the screen.
5y ago

ortusdux 5y ago

I would rather bump up a few hundred dollars and get a DSLR that can be used as a webcam. I would guess that many of the people who care about the improvements that this $300 camera claims to have either already have a DSLR, or would like to own one. https://www.epiphan.com/blog/best-cameras-for-live-streaming/ https://www.epiphan.com/blog/best-cameras-for-live-streaming...

unicornporn 5y ago

7.8mm sensor and "DSLR technology"?

Sephr 5y ago

If a 7.8mm sensor counts as "DSLR technology", does that mean our regular cameras are now "spy satellite technology"?

didntknowya 5y ago

nice but i'm not sure i want everyone at work to be able to zoom in on every pores of my face...

dadior 5y ago

I don't know too much about camera, lens... but the website UI/UX design is pretty successful, it make people the thing is cool, advanced, and willing to make a try.

hammyhavoc 5y ago

How about Linux and Windows support?

raesene9 5y ago

After much searching around for a decent webcam, I went for a Sony ZV-1. Cheaper and smaller than a DSLR setup, has Clean HDMI and good eye autofocus. There's also the new ZV-E10 which adds interchangeable lenses and USB-C but it looks like they've moved the cable ports round so they obscure the screen when it's flipped out, which would be a pain.

mchusma 5y ago

As an alternative, I bought one of these (a competitor) https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lumina-4k-webcam-look-great-on-every-call-with-ai#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lumina-4k-webcam-look-gre... I liked in theory that it has a better picture than my current webcam, and has "auto framing", which I found great on my Facebook portal.

drywater2 5y ago

I think it's better if I stick with my GoPro hero9, which can be used as a cam. It's the same price, but I can take it with me anywhere, film in 4k60fps and it has some stabilization software which is really good.

arthurcolle 5y ago

Any way to get an invite code?