5 ms·

Does this make the Pi webcam a viable project now? I looked into making one during the pandemic - but i think lack of auto-focus was one of the things that cau

Does this make the Pi webcam a viable project now? I looked into making one during the pandemic - but i think lack of auto-focus was one of the things that caused me to rule it out at the time…

capableweb 4y ago
Auto-focus seems like one of the lesser useful features for webcam (or rather, the use case of a webcam seems to not require auto-focus that much) since the object distance remains largely the same for the duration of the video call, at least the video calls I'm usually in. Maybe people have a different setup that I, but I usually remain the same distance away from my monitor at most times.
- AYBABTME 4y ago
  Good webcam setups have a sharp depth of field, which makes the speaker look sharp and the background blurred. This requires auto-focus because a few centimetres matters to be in field.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    > Good webcam setups have a sharp depth of field, which makes the speaker look sharp and the background blurred I'm guessing you mean "shallow depth of field" rather than "sharp" here. And you probably don't want it to be so shallow so a few centimeters would matter, then your nose could be in focus but your ears not, or vice-versa. That's a bit too shallow. It also doesn't require auto-focus, it requires you to be able to put the camera at a good distance with the correct f-stop, or being able to change the f-stop one way or another. Auto-focus is more for cases when the subject/object moves a lot forward/backward from the perspective of the camera, so you don't have to manually adjust things.
    - henryackerman 4y ago
      I'd say auto-focus is a requirement for UX. Most users won't find the manual focus adjust button.
    - RobotToaster 4y ago
      When taking portrait photos ideally you want the eyes to be perfectly in focus, and the nose and ears very slightly out of focus. I doubt a small sensor auto-focus camera will achieve that though.
- michaelt 4y ago
  It all depends on your setup. In my experience, effective autofocus provides a bigger quality improvement than the step from 720p to 1080p. Webcams in poor lighting conditions benefit from autofocus, because autofocus makes it easier to use a larger aperture, improving low light performance. Laptop webcams benefit from autofocus because there's no room for manual focus controls, and the distance to the user will vary substantially depending on if the laptop's in a docking station, if the user's leaning in to read some small text, etc. Meeting room webcams benefit from autofocus so you don't need a technician to attend every time it gets knocked out of focus. PC webcams sometimes benefit from autofocus, because the cable usually weighs more than the camera, meaning the camera often gets moved and knocked about. Plus about 95% of home users with manual focus webcams don't even know they need to focus them. Streamers have great lighting and cameras firmly mounted on solid tripods - but they're often using mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras, so they get autofocus for free anyway.
hilios 4y ago
I built one at the time. Imo the lack of auto-focus was a plus, as I'm not moving that much and hate the complete blur to refocus some cameras do occasionally. Back then you needed a Pi Zero for USB device mode and a specific software version for this to be supported other than that it just worked.
- nsteel 4y ago
  I have the exact same experience with mine. I have been running a specialised software build on my pi zero that I found somewhere and have been very happy with it.
dividedbyzero 4y ago
I don't think a Pi webcam is worth the complexity and hassle unless there is a need for processing video on-device on the cheap, but even then, a USB camera may be preferable. For serious streaming quality will still be too far a cry from a Lumix with OBS and for video calls the pricier commercially available webcams like the Razer Kiyo Pro or the Logitech Streamcam give pretty good quality too and they'll actually work in an instant when needed, at not (much) higher cost than a Pi 4 plus accessories plus camera. But before getting a better camera I'd try to improve lighting, try to have lots of uniform white diffused light coming from at or behind the camera; simple things like white LED strips at the back of the monitor bounced off a wall or other surface behind it can work well because Teams/Zoom will compress and shrink your video to death anyway, so high resolution and fine detail are wasted, but a kinda well-lit person will still look decent even in a tiny and brutally compressed thumbnail on a laptop screen and I'm not aware of any AI filter that actually does a good job at simulating that, and any that did probably wouldn't fit on a Raspberry Pi anyway. And before doing even that, I'd make sure my audio is actually decent, since that's what most people take for granted since it is for granted in real-life meetings, but being hard to understand or sounding harsh and jarring is something people react to a lot more strongly and viscerally to than bad-ish video, often without even realizing that's what bothers them about a person. Think of it like meeting to get work done in a dimly-lit room vs. in the middle of a construction site – people sometimes do the former on purpose, e.g. to improve projector image quality, but the latter will feel jarring to most, especially if you're the only person who sounds like that. Important to use the test call functionality in Zoom/Teams/... since their compression may reduce quality by a lot. External USB microphones can be a good inexpensive option, something like a Behringer C-1U, anything bluetooth tends to sound rather ugly. And before doing even that, I'd think real hard if even that's actually needed. Most people seem to not give a damn and are just fine not sounding and looking like a newsperson. There might be more profitable things to put that time and money towards.

Does this make the Pi webcam a viable project now? I looked into making one during the pandemic - but i think lack of auto-focus was one of the things that caused me to rule it out at the time…

capableweb 4y ago

Auto-focus seems like one of the lesser useful features for webcam (or rather, the use case of a webcam seems to not require auto-focus that much) since the object distance remains largely the same for the duration of the video call, at least the video calls I'm usually in. Maybe people have a different setup that I, but I usually remain the same distance away from my monitor at most times.

AYBABTME 4y ago
Good webcam setups have a sharp depth of field, which makes the speaker look sharp and the background blurred. This requires auto-focus because a few centimetres matters to be in field.
- capableweb 4y ago
  > Good webcam setups have a sharp depth of field, which makes the speaker look sharp and the background blurred I'm guessing you mean "shallow depth of field" rather than "sharp" here. And you probably don't want it to be so shallow so a few centimeters would matter, then your nose could be in focus but your ears not, or vice-versa. That's a bit too shallow. It also doesn't require auto-focus, it requires you to be able to put the camera at a good distance with the correct f-stop, or being able to change the f-stop one way or another. Auto-focus is more for cases when the subject/object moves a lot forward/backward from the perspective of the camera, so you don't have to manually adjust things.
  - henryackerman 4y ago
    I'd say auto-focus is a requirement for UX. Most users won't find the manual focus adjust button.
  - RobotToaster 4y ago
    When taking portrait photos ideally you want the eyes to be perfectly in focus, and the nose and ears very slightly out of focus. I doubt a small sensor auto-focus camera will achieve that though.
michaelt 4y ago
It all depends on your setup. In my experience, effective autofocus provides a bigger quality improvement than the step from 720p to 1080p. Webcams in poor lighting conditions benefit from autofocus, because autofocus makes it easier to use a larger aperture, improving low light performance. Laptop webcams benefit from autofocus because there's no room for manual focus controls, and the distance to the user will vary substantially depending on if the laptop's in a docking station, if the user's leaning in to read some small text, etc. Meeting room webcams benefit from autofocus so you don't need a technician to attend every time it gets knocked out of focus. PC webcams sometimes benefit from autofocus, because the cable usually weighs more than the camera, meaning the camera often gets moved and knocked about. Plus about 95% of home users with manual focus webcams don't even know they need to focus them. Streamers have great lighting and cameras firmly mounted on solid tripods - but they're often using mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras, so they get autofocus for free anyway.

hilios 4y ago

I built one at the time. Imo the lack of auto-focus was a plus, as I'm not moving that much and hate the complete blur to refocus some cameras do occasionally. Back then you needed a Pi Zero for USB device mode and a specific software version for this to be supported other than that it just worked.

nsteel 4y ago
I have the exact same experience with mine. I have been running a specialised software build on my pi zero that I found somewhere and have been very happy with it.

dividedbyzero 4y ago

I don't think a Pi webcam is worth the complexity and hassle unless there is a need for processing video on-device on the cheap, but even then, a USB camera may be preferable. For serious streaming quality will still be too far a cry from a Lumix with OBS and for video calls the pricier commercially available webcams like the Razer Kiyo Pro or the Logitech Streamcam give pretty good quality too and they'll actually work in an instant when needed, at not (much) higher cost than a Pi 4 plus accessories plus camera. But before getting a better camera I'd try to improve lighting, try to have lots of uniform white diffused light coming from at or behind the camera; simple things like white LED strips at the back of the monitor bounced off a wall or other surface behind it can work well because Teams/Zoom will compress and shrink your video to death anyway, so high resolution and fine detail are wasted, but a kinda well-lit person will still look decent even in a tiny and brutally compressed thumbnail on a laptop screen and I'm not aware of any AI filter that actually does a good job at simulating that, and any that did probably wouldn't fit on a Raspberry Pi anyway. And before doing even that, I'd make sure my audio is actually decent, since that's what most people take for granted since it is for granted in real-life meetings, but being hard to understand or sounding harsh and jarring is something people react to a lot more strongly and viscerally to than bad-ish video, often without even realizing that's what bothers them about a person. Think of it like meeting to get work done in a dimly-lit room vs. in the middle of a construction site – people sometimes do the former on purpose, e.g. to improve projector image quality, but the latter will feel jarring to most, especially if you're the only person who sounds like that. Important to use the test call functionality in Zoom/Teams/... since their compression may reduce quality by a lot. External USB microphones can be a good inexpensive option, something like a Behringer C-1U, anything bluetooth tends to sound rather ugly. And before doing even that, I'd think real hard if even that's actually needed. Most people seem to not give a damn and are just fine not sounding and looking like a newsperson. There might be more profitable things to put that time and money towards.