[adrusi]

Smartphone cameras are small and far better sensors than what you get in webcams. They rely on software to produce images of the quality we're used to seeing, especially with less-than-ideal lighting, but the lenses and sensor are still far better than the Logitech C920.

A webcam doesn't need the latest and greatest video hardware. Give it a camera module from a midrange 2017 smartphone and use the latest image processing tricks, and you'll blow almost any webcam on the market today.

[modeless]

> Give it a camera module from a midrange 2017 smartphone and use the latest image processing tricks, and you'll blow almost any webcam on the market today.

Sorry, that's exactly the strategy of these webcam startups, and Apple with the Studio Display, and the results empirically suck. Even if you could get 2017 smartphone quality (which is still apparently an unsolved problem), why should you settle for that in a webcam that doesn't need to fit in your pocket or run on a tiny battery or cost a tiny fraction of the BOM of a much more complex device? We should be doing way better than that. And way better is definitely possible.

[blablabla123]

As stated somewhere else, at the end the video will go through very lossful compression and often be scaled down when used at work. I mean I'm now at my 4th webcam since the pandemic started because the other cams were: too dark, constantly zooming in and out for no reason (MS Cinema Lifecam), poor image. I now sticked with the Logitech C920 because I can manually set brightness/contrast/activate autofocus.

I think that understates how bad the current state of webcams really is. Esp. when you move around a lot while talking/there's an unusual light situation. IMHO first these core problems need to be solved (and then of course it'd be great be build upon that)

[modeless]

Bigger sensors and bigger lenses are exactly what would solve those core problems. Even after video call compression (which is not always extreme) it is trivial to tell whether a video was taken with a big sensor/lens or a small one. Compression is no reason to use a crappy camera. Garbage in, garbage out.

[kylecordes]

This is the answer. Camera and processor from a several-year-old smart phone, which is now quite cheap. Sell it for $500.

So far no one has, there must be a reason no one can.

[drdec]

> So far no one has, there must be a reason no one can.

I am reminded of the story of two economists walking down the street. One spots a $20 bill on the sidewalk points it out to the other, who says "Don't be ridiculous, if there really were a $20 bill on the ground someone would have picked it up by now."

[vjerancrnjak]

I always wondered how IMX377EQH5 sucked in some devices and was incredible in others (Nexus 5X has really good video/picture quality).

Some devices use it for 4K video and it looks like upscaled 480p. Yet 1080p on Nexus 5X looks very sharp.

[smaudet]

Welcome to what camera makers realized a long time ago - film doesn't matter, the processing does.

It's why DSLR was (is?) a thing - if you ever do research on one, you realize they factor in quantum mechanical effects to make your picture better...(in addition to the 20 or so simultaneous images they take in order to parallel process image).

I haven't kept up as much but - the flat sensor craze was all about how we didn't need DSLR anymore and could just get away with large pixel counts and better processing, and yet the processing still matters...far more than the pixel count. I think that was mainly because 100+ mirror systems are a bit expensive compared to a single flat sensor.

But when you think about them as 100+ parallel processing sensors peforming low-power auto-computation _for-free_, well.

That's another thing entirely.

I do wonder why some DSLRs suck at video - I suspect it has to do with whethey the manufacture cheaped out on the compression circuitry or not - some cameras can/could should shoot HD video, a lot did not, leaving that the pricier models.

[Groxx]

At that price point you're competing with a GoPro, which is likely as good or better at a lower price. All (or most?) current GoPros can be used as a webcam.

[june11]

Actually I tried to do exactly this. Except the gopro webcam software straight up doesn't work and they don't plan on fixing it. Its depressing really.

[Groxx]

That would indeed put a dent in that plan :\ I suppose there are always DSLRs, as those are also sometimes in a similar price bracket (many recent ones can act as a webcam as well).

I gather support / fixes / etc have been rolling out rather slowly, have you tried it in the past few months? Or is it currently that unusable? I certainly wouldn't expect the software to be difficult to build, there are quite a few webcam-emulating projects out there... but then again this is a company's software rather than an interested hobbyist.

[codetrotter]

GoPro is too clunky to carry around for use with a laptop.

Meanwhile, sensor and lens from a smartphone camera can fit in a small enough form factor that it makes sense to carry it around alongside your laptop.

[yardstick]

Almost all laptops have a camera already, crappy as they may be, they still work. I don’t think laptop users are a big market for webcams? Isn’t it more for desktops where you have the luxury of space and bulk?

[xxs13]

The latest Gaming Laptops no longer have webcams ...

It's a growing trend ... if you're a gamer who spent 2000$ on a laptop and also want to do some remote work/interviews you need an external webcam...

[yardstick]

Growing trend in a niche market I would suggest. I know people who have 2 laptops - one for gaming, one for work (with webcam etc). Because the gaming laptop is too bulky to carry around, it's effectively a desktop.

[xxs]

if you are a gamer, you don't use a laptop. Gaming laptops are great portable desktops effectively. They have little autonomous time gaming or heavy compilations. So they have to be plugged in - they still are not great as a desktop gaming station, though.

I personally use a 'gaming' laptop as the default work computer (it's over 3.7kg w/o the charger which is another 600g)

[thayne]

If I'm paying $500 for a webcam, it's going to be staying on my desk.

[thayne]

At $500 you're approaching the price point of low end mirrorless cameras, which will probably have higher quality than a small, old smartphone camera.

[kenneth]

A low end mirrorless camera is a fantastic webcam -- the only problem is it's clunky to set up that way especially on the software end. If you made one that's plug and play I would buy it.

[prmoustache]

Nobody wants to spend that amount of money on a webcam. People would buy second hand Sony RX0 for that kind of thing if that was the case.

[smaudet]

Depends on who you are. "Nobody" would spend 1k+ on a desk mic, except unless you are upping e.g. your podcasting game.

I suspect a lot of vloggers, or at least wannabe, can and would easily shell out a measly 500$ for a webcam.

I agree, for a lot of people who just want to webcam mom that's going to be overkill, but if you have money, or do it professionally (I don't mean a remote work job) to the point where you are putting on makeup, investing time, often to the tune of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, its a no-brainer.

[sephamorr]

Ironically, the Apple Studio Display has a A13 processor inside it for camera and other processing. Misses your $500 price point by a long way though!

[chipotle_coyote]

The Studio Display does have a 27" 5K P3-color monitor attached to it, which drives up the price a bit...

Seriously, though, in the context of webcams, the Studio Display is kind of a counterpoint to "just rip a camera module out of a few-year-old smartphone and it'll be terrific". That's pretty much what Apple did here, and it's rather notoriously, ah, not great. (I have one, and I think it's better than some people give it credit for, but I know I'm comparing it to Apple's laptop webcams, which have historically been pretty terrible.)

[Miraste]

Sadly, Apple's laptop webcams are still way better than the ones in competitors. I used an HP Spectre from 2020 or so and it had literally the worst digital camera I have ever seen, including the 90s. It's pinhole sized, and it made a brightly lit room look like a closet at midnight while being grainier than off-brand film. They might as well not have bothered.

[stock_toaster]

elgato facecam is fairly decent.

[Firmwarrior]

yeah, at that point you can just get EpocCam from Elgato, a mount from AliExpress/Amazon/Elgato, and have your 2022 phone's camera quality for ~$30

[newsclues]

The physics of optics are still a hard problem and laptop screens have less room which is why the suck.

[grishka]

There's no such limitation with a dedicated webcam, the kind you mount on top of your monitor. Yet these also are noticeably worse than what you'd find in a 5-year-old phone.

[newsclues]

I think the webcam industry probably doesn’t develop it’s own parts and just picks cellphone parts off the shelf.

Economy of scale and good enough.

[bborud]

...and yet, my macbook pro camera produces a better image than my external webcam even though it is lower resolution.

[1123581321]

You probably have a 1080p which required a notch in the screen to make room. The 720p Mac webcams do not look as good as a Logitech 920 or 922.

[bborud]

Resolution is just one factor. What processing you do to an image can easily make a lower resolution image look better than a high resolution image with horrible colors, bad contrast, poor tone curves etc. I'd describe the output on Macs as "unoffensive". It isn't great, but it also isn't bad.

Most people who dabble in photography and shoot raw will have some idea of this. The (untreated) images that come out of my professional DSLR don't look as pleasant as those that come out of my iPhone. Even if they have 4 times the pixels, and each pixel has much more dynamic range. How the raw sensor input is interpreted, influenced by intent, and then rendered, can be the difference between something you would hang on your wall and something you'd delete.

I have half a dozen macs with cameras, including the 16" notched M1 Mac Pro. None of them produce a great image, but they won't stand out as bad in a video conference. My $1000 camera does stand out because of its poor image processing, especially in low light conditions. It is a bit sharper, but the colors look distinctly off.

[sudosysgen]

Doesn't it have a notch?

[GekkePrutser]

True but this argument doesn't work for desktop webcams which have as much space as they want (even a lot more than in a phone)

[DiggyJohnson]

For what it’s worth, I agreed with the cynical view of GP until I read this comment. A very convincing defense of the prioritization of the software layer.