4 ms·
USB 2.0 at 200 MBps sounds like a serious limitation. 1080P is of course more than sufficient for the average video conference, but it seems kind of wasteful to
by johndough 3y ago
USB 2.0 at 200 MBps sounds like a serious limitation. 1080P is of course more than sufficient for the average video conference, but it seems kind of wasteful to use a 48MP sensor and then discarding most of the information, followed by lossy compression.
- solardev 3y agoA large sensor isn't just for raw megapixels (which are arguably kinda useless in a video conference where most people are tiny parts of the gallery anyway), but the image quality and light sensitivity and such should all be a lot better. It's better that they use the large sensor and onboard signal processing to interpolate a denoise a good 1080p frame than the opposite -- most webcams cram too many pixels into a tiny sensor and give you a large but shitty video. Many good cell phone cameras do the same thing (start with an oversized 48MP sensor, but interpolate it to give you a high-quality 12MP one; only a few let you access the raw unprocessed 48MP stream). 200 Mbps should be more than enough to stream good quality video. YouTube suggests 40 Mbps for 4k@60Hz (compressed) https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2853702?hl=en# https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2853702?hl=en#