3 ms·

Has someone managed to do video conference calls (zoom, etc) with functioning Bokeh without dslr ? Cos I thought that the entire market was moving to video cal

Has someone managed to do video conference calls (zoom, etc) with functioning Bokeh without dslr ? Cos I thought that the entire market was moving to video calls. I don't think there's really any other way except to use a dslr right ?

shagie 5y ago
In order to have nice bokeh (a function of the aperture of the lens), you also need to have a shallow enough depth of field at a fairly close range. As the sensor gets smaller, and the field of view remains constant, the depth of field increases and so the opportunity for bokeh disappears. For pleasant bokeh in a video call, you're going to need a larger sensor than the ones used in camera phones or laptop screens - probably significantly so. Additionally, the lens is going to be quite a bit larger to have good illumination across the entire sensor. From a cost perspective, the cost of the sensor has to do with the yield of the wafer. It costs about the same to make a wafer no matter what you put on it (with certain caveats of the complexity of what you put on it). https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/53826/why-does-increasing-sensor-size-necessarily-lead-to-lower-silicon-wafer-utilizat https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/53826/why-does-inc... If you're working from a full frame sensor, you can at best fit 24x 24mmx36mm chips on a standard 8" wafer. Going to a 13.2mm x 8.8mm sensor you can put 244 of them on the same wafer. Then there's the yield on top of that which further reduces it. This gets it to the point where "to have a nice depth of field for a video call, you're going to need a camera that has similar costs and dimensions of a good digital camera." Adding that to a phone or laptop screen isn't possible. That said, I wouldn't be unhappy to find an affordable usb capable video camera with a nice lens on it (and maybe paired with a ring light or off axis hot lights)... but that's probably easily in the $300-$400 range.
nullc 5y ago
The replacement for the DSLR isn't tiny cameraphone sensors, ... it's mirrorless cameras like the Canon R-series. This cameras look and function like DSLRs but the the viewfinder is electronic, not optical-- running the sensor like a video camera. IMO, it's much better than a DSLR and not just for the lens design reasons mentioned in the article with about the only downside being battery life. I use one for teleconferencing, with the camera in a teleprompter: https://files.catbox.moe/5p2p55.jpg https://files.catbox.moe/5p2p55.jpg

shagie 5y ago

In order to have nice bokeh (a function of the aperture of the lens), you also need to have a shallow enough depth of field at a fairly close range. As the sensor gets smaller, and the field of view remains constant, the depth of field increases and so the opportunity for bokeh disappears. For pleasant bokeh in a video call, you're going to need a larger sensor than the ones used in camera phones or laptop screens - probably significantly so. Additionally, the lens is going to be quite a bit larger to have good illumination across the entire sensor. From a cost perspective, the cost of the sensor has to do with the yield of the wafer. It costs about the same to make a wafer no matter what you put on it (with certain caveats of the complexity of what you put on it). https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/53826/why-does-increasing-sensor-size-necessarily-lead-to-lower-silicon-wafer-utilizat https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/53826/why-does-inc... If you're working from a full frame sensor, you can at best fit 24x 24mmx36mm chips on a standard 8" wafer. Going to a 13.2mm x 8.8mm sensor you can put 244 of them on the same wafer. Then there's the yield on top of that which further reduces it. This gets it to the point where "to have a nice depth of field for a video call, you're going to need a camera that has similar costs and dimensions of a good digital camera." Adding that to a phone or laptop screen isn't possible. That said, I wouldn't be unhappy to find an affordable usb capable video camera with a nice lens on it (and maybe paired with a ring light or off axis hot lights)... but that's probably easily in the $300-$400 range.

nullc 5y ago

The replacement for the DSLR isn't tiny cameraphone sensors, ... it's mirrorless cameras like the Canon R-series. This cameras look and function like DSLRs but the the viewfinder is electronic, not optical-- running the sensor like a video camera. IMO, it's much better than a DSLR and not just for the lens design reasons mentioned in the article with about the only downside being battery life. I use one for teleconferencing, with the camera in a teleprompter: https://files.catbox.moe/5p2p55.jpg https://files.catbox.moe/5p2p55.jpg