3 ms·

I would go so far as to say the uncorrected gaze is a lie. When I’m on a videoconference, I am looking directly at whoever is speaking, but the camera’s physica

I would go so far as to say the uncorrected gaze is a lie. When I’m on a videoconference, I am looking directly at whoever is speaking, but the camera’s physical placement tells the “lie” that I’m looking down at something else. This is because we haven’t figured out a good way of placing the camera literally wherever the eyes of the other party show up on the screen. So the camera is, by necessity, in the wrong position for video conferencing. But if we can fix it in software, then we can mitigate the “lie” somewhat. This is especially true for my set up, where I have two screens side-by-side with the camera replaced right between them. I just stare at the camera because otherwise it looks like I’m looking way off to the left or right. If I do look at the people who are talking, what they see is me looking off at “something else.” That’s a lie! :)

AStonesThrow 2y ago
This is true, and unfortunate, but for the past 100 years, everyone has known that to make eye contact with a camera, you look into its lens. The instantaneous display of output is very recent, and if you ask a professional actress or news anchor what they do in the studio, they will tell you that they're trained to look into the camera lens, no matter what's on the monitors. I contend that it's unproductive to train consumers otherwise. Yeah, we could look at the screen and have software correct it. Or, we may eventually integrate lenses into screens so that they're placed exactly right. But it seems kludgy to do this software fix. Just train people to look in the right place. (I hate iPhones and I'm unable/unwilling to do Facetime with them. Please use Meet or Teams.) I'm gradually building skills that let me be aware of what's on the screen without having to stare into it. Having a relaxed, wide field of vision helps with many things. Glasses are counterproductive here.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Izkata 2y ago
  News anchor yes, actor/actress no. They look off to the side.
  - AStonesThrow 2y ago
    Ah yes, that's true - unless the character is "breaking the fourth wall" like Clarissa Darling, they'll be avoiding the direct gaze of the viewer for sure. Another example, though, would be vocalists in a video; usually they'll be singing right at the viewer and making a connection there, unless they're just too cool and aloof.

AStonesThrow 2y ago

This is true, and unfortunate, but for the past 100 years, everyone has known that to make eye contact with a camera, you look into its lens. The instantaneous display of output is very recent, and if you ask a professional actress or news anchor what they do in the studio, they will tell you that they're trained to look into the camera lens, no matter what's on the monitors. I contend that it's unproductive to train consumers otherwise. Yeah, we could look at the screen and have software correct it. Or, we may eventually integrate lenses into screens so that they're placed exactly right. But it seems kludgy to do this software fix. Just train people to look in the right place. (I hate iPhones and I'm unable/unwilling to do Facetime with them. Please use Meet or Teams.) I'm gradually building skills that let me be aware of what's on the screen without having to stare into it. Having a relaxed, wide field of vision helps with many things. Glasses are counterproductive here.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Izkata 2y ago
News anchor yes, actor/actress no. They look off to the side.
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  Ah yes, that's true - unless the character is "breaking the fourth wall" like Clarissa Darling, they'll be avoiding the direct gaze of the viewer for sure. Another example, though, would be vocalists in a video; usually they'll be singing right at the viewer and making a connection there, unless they're just too cool and aloof.