6 ms·
Is there a reason OP can't get themselves a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable, and use OBS to capture the feed from the HDMI-out in the camera? Most dec
by delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
Is there a reason OP can't get themselves a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable, and use OBS to capture the feed from the HDMI-out in the camera? Most decent capture cards also expose themselves as cameras to almost all applications. This is my setup, and it works perfectly. Nikon D7500 as a webcam. More professional setups use Atomos monitors with built-in NVMe drives mounted directly to the camera.
I generally find the camera manufacturers' in-house programs absolutely terrible. Nikon's webcam utility is free[1], but has significant limitations over the capture card setup. Likewise for Sony. Both have considerable resolution and framerate limits, and I'd rather feed a 4K 60 FPS stream into my meeting program and let it handle the compression than have an XGA 1024×768 15 FPS output from the camera.
[1]: https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/548/Webcam_Utility.html https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/548/Webca...
- timewizard 2y agoSure. I can do anything. It's the principle of the thing.
- brushfoot 2y agoThe principle is to use the right tool for the job. USB can do just about anything. Video out is one possibility. But HDMI can already do that. It doesn't make sense to expect the manufacturer to provide a free app to make USB do something you can already do over HDMI, and for which HDMI is intended. This article is rage bait where there's no real cause for outrage. But it's adjacent enough to "right to repair" and "subscription fatigue" that it sounds outrageous.
- tjoff 2y agoThe right too for the job most certainly is not HDMI. The video feed should (depending on usecase, sure) be compressed on the device and sent over USB. Sending uncompressed video just to be badly compressed in a capture device is most definitely not the right tool for the job.
- brushfoot 2y agoOn these cameras, HDMI is the right tool for the job. USB video quality is often poor where it's supported, and HDMI is there for video output. These cameras are not made to be webcams. OP is using theirs as one, and that's fine; I do too. But device-side compression for USB video out, a webcam app, etc. are webcam features. They come at a cost, and many camera buyers don't need them. For those of us using these cameras in these nonstandard ways, we can reach for HDMI, which is the right tool for this particular job.
- tjoff 2y agoThe camera already have high-quality compression since it needs that to store video. If maybe latency is poor or other reasons exist not to use that then fine. HDMI can be a workaround, it still is an insanely bad tool for the job.
- brushfoot 2y agoIt's a workaround for the camera not bundling all the features that it needs to be a webcam, absolutely. The standalone cameras I've used haven't included free webcam functionality and I don't think that's outrageous, but apparently many people here who've been downvoting me disagree. Personally, I think HDMI is great for A/V tasks that a camera doesn't support out of the box since it's a widely supported standard.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y agoRealtime compression in a portable device with limited processing power is going to reduce quality. It is better to transport uncompressed video and let the receiver decide how to manage it. USB-3 has adequate bandwidth for doing this. USB-C lets you switch to DisplayPort if the receiver can handle it.
- tjoff 2y agoThe camera already does realtime compression to the sdcard. It has dedicated hardware for this. USB-2 has adequate bandwidth for compressed audio+video. Your HDMI capture device (which is a cheap portable device with limited processing power) is probably going to do a much worse job. Sending uncompressed video over usb is absurd.
- elaus 2y agoI mean why invest $70 (and a lot of ressources) in hardware when, in theory, you have everything you need, the software is just locked behind a paywall?
- delta_p_delta_x 2y agoBut you generally don't have everything you need. As I've mentioned most cameras' USB webcam output (if at all present) is quite bad, even via the official programs or gphoto. The 'correct' way to access video output is through their, well, video-out port (usually HDMI), which almost necessitates a capture card or monitor.
- morsch 2y agoEvidently these cameras are capable of exporting high quality video via USB, if you pay 5 bucks a month. This doesn't sound like a hardware problem. It also has a control channel, unlike HDMI.
- delta_p_delta_x 2y ago> these cameras are capable of exporting high quality video via USB No, they are not. The USB port is (usually) USB 2.0 and the video output, even though the application might claim 1080p 30 FPS, is a 'digital upscale'[1] from XGA or 720p. That in my view is decidedly not 'high quality'. My monitor has eight times that resolution and more than four times the framerate, totalling more than a 32× increase in bandwidth, and it is from 2021. If users want high-quality video out from their pro cameras, use a capture card or monitor. That's how it's always been. As another commenter said, this article is rage-bait because the OP has purposely chosen a decidedly poorly-supported way to use their camera's functionality instead of the industry standard. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/1e32r51/canon_eos_webcam_utility_does_not_support_1080p/ https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/1e32r51/canon_eos_we...
- morsch 2y agoFair enough -- though I'd take 720p from my DSLR over 1080p+ from my webcam every time; that's enough pixels for a meeting. And I also had to get a capture card for it, because the USB access was locked behind proprietary/shitty software (Sony).
- rozenmd 2y agoYou don't even need OBS for this - capture cards show up as digital cameras in macOS
- delta_p_delta_x 2y agoIndeed.
- junaru 2y agoYou do, capture cards introduce latency something around 30-50ms (at least the cheaper ones) and if you are using non built in mic you need to resync everything up.
- michaelt 2y agoHow easy and slick this setup will be depends on the camera. For example, my camera can't operate and charge over USB at the same time, so you need a supplemental power supply. And it won't autofocus continuously or keep the exposure and white balance stable unless you're recording a video. And videos can only be so long. So I've got a HDMI-to-USB converter, a special HDMI cable, a special power brick and adaptor, a special tripod so all those cables don't pull the whole setup over, and I've got to restart video recording every 30 minutes or so, and wipe the microsd card regularly. Your camera's probably better suited to this than mine :)
- josephg 2y agoWhat camera do you have? Why can't it autofocus when its not recording? I believe you, but thats very silly.
- vladvasiliu 2y agoNone of my stills cameras focused continuously out of the box, probably to save power (moving potentially heavy lens elements around requires energy). My Olympus mirrorless can be told to focus all the time, but it's not the default.
- entropie 2y agoI can force my (canon) camera to autofocus while not recording but usually you want to avoid that. It really hits the battery because the lens is permanentely adjusting. Most mirrorless cameras a hybrids and you usually do not need this feature while takting stills.
- josephg 2y agoMakes sense. On my sony camera (a7iv), it does continuous autofocus in video mode. You don't need to hit the record button - just set the focus mode to AFC (autofocus continuous) and it does its thing. I also just tried connecting it as a webcam over USB, and it does continuous autofocus when set up like that too. I'm sure it uses more power, but the camera can power itself over the USB port while connected, so thats not a problem.
- brushfoot 2y ago> Is there a reason OP can't get themselves a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable, and use OBS to capture the feed? This is how I've used my Sony camera since COVID. It works great. I wasn't sure at first if OP was trying to do something nonstandard, because you get video to your computer with a video cable. Plus a way for your computer to capture that, which for me is CamLink. Honestly, I'm surprised there's a relevant manufacturer app at all. Not surprised that it costs money. This is a bit like not having power in your home to charge your camera with and asking the manufacturer for a generator. They may have a solution, but the price will be bad.
- SSLy 2y agoOP wants to just use the USB cable, which makes sense for me.
- brushfoot 2y agoWhy should the manufacturer raise the price of the camera for you and me just to implement something extra OP wants that they can already do through HDMI?
- afandian 2y agoThey have already implemented it, otherwise it wouldn't work.
- brushfoot 2y agoThe app is part of the implementation. And they're apparently subsidizing the cost by charging separately for it. Drop the fee and that's now baked into the camera's base price.
- dspillett 2y agoIt is already implemented, otherwise they wouldn't be able to enable it once the subscription is active. Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a feature that is build into the camera, that is a standard feature on other cameras and imposes no ongoing costs to the manufacturer¹? This is an example of gouging, pure and simple. ---- [1] unless they are forcing the user to use their hosted service for steaming the webcam output, in which case there is some bandwidth and perhaps other processing cost, but that is on them for having not just implemented a standard that enables local-only recording
- jwr 2y ago> a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable Are there any USB-connectable capture devices that can process 4K? Everything I see tries really hard to hide the fact that while they can input 4K, they can only produce 1920x1080.
- rmoriz 2y agoElgato Cam Link 4K
- radicality 2y agoI’ve been using this with a Fuji XT4 for last 2 years as webcam, working great. Though for stuff like google meet, I usually set it to 1080p 60fps since that’s the max res most meeting software will accept anyways, and frame rate is more important for live meeting than res.
- jwr 2y agoOh, good to know! I didn't manage to find this one. But this one is $100 in the US, and $120 in some other places. Which is quite a bit of additional money to pay on top of your camera, which already has USB and should just provide a video stream there… (this dongle is also USB-A, unfortunately)
- rmoriz 2y agoThere are cheaper ones but as noted above, most devices are not real 4K or poor quality and "unbranded". You should be able to convert USB-A to USB-C.
- palijer 2y agoThis is exactly what I do. I'm also confused by this article...
- brushfoot 2y agoIt's rage bait. People hate subscriptions, understandably so, and people without A/V experience might expect a camera not sold as a webcam to easily double as a webcam since they both can capture video. It's just a really poor reason to be outraged at Canon (or Sony or any of the other companies whose non-webcam cameras don't seamlessly turn into webcams without some standard A/V adapters).
- bhickey 2y agoCanon's webcam software was until recently free. It was the sole reason I bought a Cabin camera. This is a rug pull.
- brushfoot 2y agoThat's upsetting, but my point is the article itself is rage bait. It's not outrageous for Canon to charge for webcam software when there's HDMI video-out on the camera.
- BeFlatXIII 2y agoImagine stanning for nickel-and-diming.
- brushfoot 2y agoI can imagine supporting my right to charge my customers for the software I build for them, absolutely. And I support Canon's right to do the same. Many of us have had the experience of clients telling us to "just" write code that they think is easy, but we know how that can go in reality. There's already a simple solution here in HDMI. I don't see a reason to be outraged at Canon over not providing another solution that most buyers will never even use.
- roland35 2y agoAt least with my camera the feed is low resolution and has the on screen overlays on it.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y agoWould this approach also give you control of camera settings? I think the OP's situation, he wanted that.
- deskr 2y agoExactly. But why does he need to buy a USB capture card and HDMI cable? He can just hire someone to come and record the videos for him. They'll also do the post processing. Why does he even even record the videos himself? He can just hire actors to do what he wants, probably a lot better. And what's the whole thing with buying a camera? He should just buy a studio and hire a crew to manage all that stuff.
- dmix 2y agoBuying usb capture cards is a standard accessory for content creators. It's not a big deal.
- brushfoot 2y agoNot a big deal at all. The outrage in this thread is incredible. Buying a couple A/V adapters to adapt a non-webcam camera into a webcam is somehow seen as a terrible burden. If someone doesn't want to do that, perhaps they should buy...a webcam. No adapters needed. A camera comes with more power at the cost of simplicity for this use case.
- delta_p_delta_x 2y agoThis is what's called a slippery slope. A capture card and HDMI cable together cost less than $100. Hiring someone will be at least an order of magnitude more expensive—and more so the more people you hire.
- mynameisvlad 2y agoWhoosh. That was the entire point of the comment, to point out the slippery slope in the HDMI/cable card argument in the first place.
- delta_p_delta_x 2y agoEh? There's no slippery slope. A capture card is standard equipment for any broadcaster. There is an absolutely massive gulf between a one-time supplementary purchase of $100 versus a multi-million dollar studio, film crew, actors. The comment was ludicrous, sorry.
- GranPC 2y agoThis is hugely dependent on whether the camera supports clean HDMI output - that is, without overlays. My Canon camera for example insists on showing a focus square over HDMI no matter what, and it is impossible to disable.
- archerx 2y agoYou can remove it by installing magic lantern. It lets me use my old 650D as a second camera.
- GranPC 2y agoUnfortunately there is no port of ML to my specific model. I did some porting work myself by running the camera firmware in QEMU, but to be able to run it on hardware I apparently needed some signing key that only the Magic Lantern lead dev has. By the time I was doing all of this he was busy with real world stuff so ultimately I just borrowed a friend's Nikon camera.
- vr46 2y agoML doesn't work on a lot of cameras - yet. It's quite far behind the last generation of SLRs and stays away from the flagship models.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- acjohnson55 2y agoThe particular camera he's talking about, the G5 X Mark II, does support clean HDMI out. I used to use it as my webcam.