4 ms·
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 scr
by 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 agoI'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 agoI 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 agoYes, 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.
- poglet 5y agoI agree, It looks like the main difference between the Macbook webcam and the others was the exposure. If the Opal software worked with the Mac camera allowing adjustments of exposure and white balance that would be perfect (with the lack of true depth of field & 4k) When I read about webcams most of the comments revolve around the microphone quality, I think there should be more focus on that, for example noise reduction technology etc. Marketing could also be made towards video game streamers who often use digital cameras and dedicated mics.
- bayindirh 5y agoLogitech is making webcams with good microphones for a very long time. Their highest end ones (e.g. Brio Ultra HD) also have build in noise cancellation IIRC
- semi-extrinsic 5y agoI also came here to say that the comparisons are bad wrt. exposure. If you don't believe in your product enough to give fair comparisons, then I'm not buying it. Also, with regards to the "works in low light" point: we recently had a problem where the lights went out during a web meeting in the evening. I was surprised to see my $75 Logitech C920 took about two seconds to adjust exposure and give a perfectly good image just from the light of my monitor. And with the amount of video compression that is used, I'm not sure anyone is able to tell the difference.
- jonas21 5y agoI think they're betting this is more than a niche product -- with so many jobs going remote, lots of people are going to want a good webcam for Zoom, etc. Most people are going to look at the comparison between the Opal and A7 and not see much of a difference, but the Opal is 7x cheaper.
- bayindirh 5y agoHowever, A7 test is not fair. First generation A7 is more than 8 years old. Current $2K camera is A7C and A7III, and A7III is one of the most color-accurate cameras out there.