If you go this route, please make sure your system is robust and ready to go before meetings.
We had to ask one employee to go back to his reliable built-in webcam because every other meeting started with 2 minutes of him getting his camera turned on, messing with audio inputs, getting his microphone boom in place, and fighting other quirks. He also had a tendency to drop out of long meetings when his camera overheated, at which point it was another 1-2 minutes of messing around with the camera setup.
If you're going to do this, it must be reliable and ready to go before meetings. Don't be the person fighting with expensive equipment all the time just to get a marginally better image for your highly compressed Zoom video stream. This isn't a Twitch stream. We just want to talk and get down to business.
Agree 100% - This is why I eventually dropped it. I used to run a photography side gig, so I reused my full frame DSLR, nice portrait lens and lighting + cloth backdrop. But I had cables everywhere and multiple points of failure in the chain. Camera could overheat, software was wonky, something would get unplugged, and there was stress on the CPU at times too due to 3rd party apps required.
Overall it just wasn't worth the effort, especially once I realized nobody cared or even really noticed. Now, absolutely, many projects are worth doing for their own sake and for your own satisfaction :). But while accomplishing it brought that satisfaction, continued use on daily bases just wasn't worth it.
So I looked for a nice webcam with narrowest possible FOV (which is the opposite from what manufacturers are going for, unfortunately), put it on a tripod with ring light, and I get results that are externally undistinguishable (if not better), but FAR superior reliability.
----
Note also that photographer in me wanted to do a Portrait shot with zoom in my face. Interestingly, overwhelming feedback once I actually asked real people, is that they PREFERRED a wide shot with my office visible. Made it more human and less stark/intimidating, apparently. So as ever, don't make assumptions of your user base! :)
Hi - I assume your question is which webcam did I use for narrow FOV - for actual camera, it's trivial to pick a lens or zoom :).
I ended up getting Logitech Brio. It's expensive for a webcam, and honestly I'm a bit peeved - I don't feel I am getting my money's worth in terms of image quality. The software is also absolutely atrocious, so I don't really use it. But it is the best compromise of image quality and FOV that I could find.
(if your question was about DOF / bokeh/ blur, no webcam will do that and so far I haven't liked any software options. I just put a black collapsible photography background behind me so nothing but me is in the photo to begin with :)
Considering Logitech hit a goldmine during pandemic induced lock-downs by selling >10 year old webcams at premium, I don't see any reason for them to innovate or at least improve their products in near term.
Perhaps we've overestimated the need-gap[1] for good quality webcams? Most people seem to be just fine with mediocre webcams for that video call in which their video is anyways going to be compressed and resized to small window if there are multiple participants.
That doesn't mean I didn't waste my time in trying to build a better webcam like others here, I tried to convert a old point-and-shoot into a webcam using CHDK firmware but I couldn't find a way to get the video stream.
Most people yell at their computer. Preciously few people who spend 6+hrs a day on calls and meetings, get a good headset with a boom microphone. Nobody correlates the "what? Did you say something" and overlaps and garbled voices and muffled noise cancelled uni-directional simplex conversations on them not getting a company-expensed headset. Improving on the built-in laptop video is not even on the radar :D
I have both the 920s and the Brio. The Brio’s image is sharper and more detailed but somehow the 920s’ image is more natural.
I was underwhelmed with the Brio but I eventually got used to it. It’s not the upgrade to the 920s I had imagined it to be but it’s good enough to keep.
And yes, I used Logitune to tune as much as I could. It was horrendous out of box.
I find the LogiTune software good enough for managing my Brio webcam. Certainly less buggy and frustrating on Mac than some other official software I tried previously.
Unfortunately, the C920s resets all its setting when losing power.
I'm using it on my home computer and my work laptop, but don't want to install the software on the work laptop. So I must live with the extremely wide FOV there.
I have a script which runs after login and after resume from sleep. It runs guvcview (Linux tool for managing webcams) and loads a saved profile that has my preferred zoom and focus settings.
To be honest, 1.5k is a pretty decent budget for any non-gaming laptop. It's definitely a red flag to start at a company and get a bargain bin laptop, but giving out 5k laptops to every new hire is probably just being wasteful with about 3.5k. Chairs & desks are where penny pinching is an even more dreadful flaw.
If you expect someone to sit for 8 hours a day give them a good chair lest they start having back issues after two months of employment.
Amateur photographer looking to learn more here. My initial impression is that a 35mm focal length on a full-frame/35mm film equivalent sensor would have a relatively _wide_ field of view (FOV). Or do I have that backwards?
My other thought is that the suggested lens can stop down to f1.8, which would give a nice narrow depth of field (DOF) and add a pleasant background blur, but it would also be harder to stay in focus during a call. If the person on camera moves forward or backward very much at all when the lens is at f1.8, they would be pretty blurry. So perhaps they could get away with a lens that just stops down to f2.8 or so, albeit with worse low-light performance (smaller aperture, less light coming through).
But take these comments with a grain of salt. It sounds like you have a setup that works well for you.
Yeah, not enough coffee - got my DOF and FOV mixed up.
In any case I find if you sit close to your camera, 35mm is a good FOV that will fit in your head and shoulders. The background blur for f/1.8 works well if you enable Servo Autofocus with Face Detect. It will momentarily get confused if you step out of the frame and back in again, but it can track a face pretty well after that.
Just checked using a camera and you're right; a person right around "conversation distance" from the camera focusing at 35mm looks pretty natural in frame for a video call. It sounds like I underestimated modern continuous autofocus. Great info from you and the sibling comments, thanks.
Most modern cameras have the ability to do constant autofocus in video mode, to varying degrees of quality and success. Usually they will try to follow anything that looks like a human face, or at least the brightest object in the field of view.
That said, even the greatest autofocus isn't going to be able to keep up with a person who moves around a lot at f/1.8 - so it's reasonable to stop down a bit if that's the case for your subject.
> If the person on camera moves forward or backward very much at all when the lens is at f1.8, they would be pretty blurry.
The mirrorless EOS camera's (R series) have autofocus with face tracking which works quite well. At f1.8 you get 8cm depth of field at 1m distance so you'd have to stop down the aperture to about f4 if you want your whole head to appear sharp on video.
My bad, I read this as "narrow DOF", in which case a low f-stop helps.. Will leave the recommendation for anyone who wants a nice background blur. But perhaps go for a 50mm f1.8 if you want a narrower FOV.
He was probably using software, like Canon's Webcam Utility, to stream his camera's HDMI OUT to his computer instead of using a capture card. He likely did this because of his camera not having "clean" HDMI output (i.e. you'd see icons if he were to capture what was on his camera's screen). Software like this is extremely unreliable by comparison and consumes CPU cycles like crazy, both on the camera and on your computer.
Additionally, for most cameras, the input feed used by the software goes through the camera's image processing stack as if they were using the real-time "Live View" feature (i.e. showing you the image you're going to take post-processing, i.e. real-time image processing). This often heats the camera up and causes it to shut down due to thermal overload. If you use a capture card, it captures whatever's on the screen without hitting the image processing stack, which is much less resource-intensive.
The first person I interviewed with this setup had the same problem. He looked great, but the software processing the input from his camera made him lag horribly.
I have a Canon M200 mirrorless SLR with an Elgato HDMI Capture card and have used it for all-day online meetings (even through OBS!) with no issues at all. Startup takes me, like, 30 seconds: turn key and fill lights on, turn camera on, press hotkey to start OBS, Krisp and Zoom, turn on video.
> He was probably using software, like Canon's Webcam Utility, to stream his camera's HDMI OUT to his computer instead of using a capture card.
No, he was using an HDMI capture card and trying to do things with OBS.
> Startup takes me, like, 30 seconds: turn key and fill lights on, turn camera on, press hotkey to start OBS, Krisp and Zoom, turn on video.
Which is all great and fine if you've got it perfected and you're the type of person to handle all of this before the meeting starts.
But when someone shows up late to a meeting or forgets to prepare, it's far easier for everyone involve if they can just open their laptop and join the meeting with the built-in webcam instead of turning on their camera, turning on lights, starting OBS, confirming all the settings, etc.
There are HDMI to USB cards that emulate a USB HID camera which is immediately available in zoom w/o need for OBS, the only thing I do is turn on the camera itself which takes maybe 2-3 seconds and is non-blocking for the call (until it's ready it's just a black screen in zoom if the meeting was already started).
> No, he was using an HDMI capture card and trying to do things with OBS.
There’s definitely a lot of variables and points of failure here but this isn’t my experience using an elgato cam link and a Sony camera. Granted it was a desktop so it’s quite a bit more powerful than a laptop but once setup I had no such issues with overheating or random drop outs (tested for 3-4 hrs at times).
Adjusting the mic should also not take much time, put it in front of your face.
I’m far from an expert in such setups as well so it sounds like your coworker either had bad hardware or less than optimal config.
I agree with you though, if you’re going to use this setup make sure it’s solid before you rely on it.
However one thing I have noticed is mic quality matters... up to a point.
I'm not even talking mic booms and super expensive setups, the difference between some omnidirectional mic on the bottom of a laptop or the side of one of those bluetooth headphones and pretty much any headset with a mic pointed at your actual face is night and day. It doesn't need to be expensive, but it does need to be within reasonable proximity to your mouth, and preferably not over a questionably compressed bluetooth stream.
I find the macbook pro onboard mic to be superior to every headphone mic and every group room mic I have tested and I have tested many. If you have one and you are using headpones made for music do everyone a favor and set your defaults so that it always uses the mac's mic. With many Bluetooth heaphones you also get vastly better sound quality in your ears if the mic is not in use.
I agree with your statement about quality, but everything is good only until you start typing. Everyone on a meeting will hear it as if their ears were inside your laptop. And when you’re talking while typing, oh god
Out of curiosity, I picked up a Konftel Ego portable blutooth speakerphone for some testing. An integrator turned us on to Konftel as a cost effective alternative to polycomm speakerphones, and they were indeed quite good.
I've been very happy with it! Indeed, I started typing without thinking during a meeting, apologized to the group and they said they didn't hear the typing at all. I was shocked because I am in a temporary setup and am using my mechanical keyboard - which I try to avoid during the day for obvious reasons.
Pretty amazing quality. I ended up getting one for my parents to use on their calls and they love it - works with the computer, their cell phones or their house phone. Provantage has 'em for $80 too.
That is definitely true, but I have developed the good habit of not typing while I talk and muting the rest of the time, or at least when I do have to type.
I agree when compared to BT mics. They suck, in general. But compared to a decent (~50€) wired headset, they lose, hands down. You can also find really decent mics in second-hand stores. I got a 900€ mic for 20€ and just had to replace a few components.
Also, there’s nothing more annoying than hearing birds chirping when you’re trying to have a meeting with the volume turned all the way up to hear you talking. Buy a freakin headset.
Same! The macbook speaker is also one of the best I've heard. Sometimes if I'm not expecting a rustling or footsteps, or a quick car beep in the background of a movie, I'll look over assuming it was a real life sound.
That's coming from plugging a bose speaker in to whatever laptop I'm using before.
The machine has it's flaws, but this part is really close to magic for me.
> Disagree. You still get a ton from a low res image of a person vs a static image.
Like what? Having worked from home since the time when (affordable) connections were too slow for anything but text, it's questionable if audio even brings any value. I never watch any video streams that may be present on calls. They are, while a fun novelty, useless.
> Why would my coworkers need to see the individual pores on my nose anyways?
Your coworkers wouldn't need to see you at all under normal circumstances, but if video is your product then doing it right is worthwhile. There's good reason why movies aren't filmed on first generation iPhones.
People aren't shooting movies, they are just conveying mood and nuance through facial expressions, which is essentially an extra channel of communication that we have evolved to use efficiently. If a team finds that certain discussions go better with video/audio, using a simple web cam will certainly be better than dismissing it entirely jusy because people don't have professional setups
Body language, facial expressions, tone of voice (annoyed, happy, etc), massive speed increase in communication.
Please don't take it the wrong way, but it's extremely strange you don't see any of this.
If I may ask, what do you do for work now? What kind of communication do you need with people where text is as fast as face to face? Have you ever worked in a physical office before? Do you have any issues when it comes to socializing with people IRL?
Without trying to sound glib, it's a long list. I have a number of different jobs across multiple industries. However, director of a beverage company along with working with a software development team are where my calls take place most often.
> What kind of communication do you need with people where text is as fast as face to face?
In particular, software-related technical matters are painful to communicate by voice. Because of that, everyone wants to share their screen to reintroduce text, so any video that is being recorded gets pushed to the side anyway. This where text wins hands down, if you know how to communicate.
Indeed, it has become apparent in the last couple of years, with everyone moving home, that most software developers have no idea how to communicate. Calls have become a crutch to try and fumble their way through it. When you have to repeat yourself over and over again to get your point across, voice bandwidth starts to gain an edge. However, my experience in working with effective communicators in an age when text was the only practical option (long distance charges would have killed you!), it's clear that text is far more efficient when utilized well.
> Have you ever worked in a physical office before?
I have, even in software, a long, long time ago. Some of my jobs also still take me to physical locations. Software has been WFH for most of my software career, though.
> Do you have any issues when it comes to socializing with people IRL?
I guess that's for the receiving end to decide, but in terms of socialization IRL is my preferred mode. Work communication isn't really socialization, though. It's knowledge transfer. And that's where text shines. Not only in its ability to communicate ideas but also the natural maintenance of record.
> Please don't take it the wrong way, but it's extremely strange you don't see any of this.
Frankly, as mentioned, shared screens dominate the vast majority of calls I'm on given the ineffectiveness of voice. Even if I thought there was theoretical value in the video, it would be difficult to give attention to it. I don't find it strange that an animated postage stamp off to the side provides no value at all. What is to be gained from it? You can't see much without taking from the focus.
If you’re in consulting this brings a lot more professionalism to the table if your video and audio are higher quality. For normal coworkers, yea probably not worth it though a good quality mic + boom will be greatly appreciated.
I'd say the opposite. I don't need to have perfect video quality in a business call. I want to see their facial expressions and understand them clearly. I don't care if the skin tone matches reality to 100% or if brightness is perfect.
I'd argue only if you have a presenter without screen sharing, perfect video makes sense. In most business meetings screens are shared anyway or there's a group of people.
Take a picture of your face, set it as your background in OBS, and stream that. It's much more convenient, because you only have to make sure your camera works well once, instead of for every meeting.
Let's just end the simulacra and embrace the absurd, take a video of yourself walking into the room, acting surprised that someone's on a call and awkwardly backing out of the room, if your platform supports animated backgrounds, use it.
Take anyone who notices and asks if you have a previously undisclosed twin-sibling out to dinner for being observant.
Bonus points if you wear the same clothes as your video self to really mess with someone's head
Yeah Apple's network link conditioner is great for this. If you don't want to send video but the organizer insists, just tune it down to the point your audio goes roboty. They'll be begging you to turn off video to improve the connection :D
How is streaming a picture to Zoom more convenient than uploading a profile picture to Zoom? If you stream the picture, you have to have special software running all the time. With a profile picture, you don't.
> Additionally, for most cameras, the input feed used by the software goes through the camera's image processing stack as if they were using the real-time "Live View" feature (i.e. showing you the image you're going to take post-processing, i.e. real-time image processing). This often heats the camera up and causes it to shut down due to thermal overload. If you use a capture card, it captures whatever's on the screen without hitting the image processing stack, which is much less resource-intensive.
These pathways are the same. You're decidedly not getting raw video out of (most) consumer cameras via HDMI.
This is what I use as well. The software can be a slight pain in the ass, but once you get used to a handful of quirks it's pretty smooth sailing. I've used it for teams calls, web-based barcode scanning testing, etc. Never had it cut out on me due to some arbitrary limitation.
Having a webcam on a proper tripod makes it really easy to control variables in testing of things like barcode scanning and other image recognition tasks as well. Being able to swap lenses and manually control the entire system can make a huge difference for my purposes. I will tape my test samples to a whiteboard (sometimes with varying backgrounds) and place the camera at a fixed location from it.
I don't go much further than the camera and basic software. I don't have patience for backdrops, lights, finicky software chains, etc. I simply do M50=>canon software=>windows webcam device.
I’m starting to suspect something is wrong with our Elgato card because it has been a hit and miss experience for a long time now. We also have a knock off chinese 4k stream box (not the total dirt cheap ones) and that has sometimes been better than the elgato.
You need to make sure that you're not connecting it to an overloaded USB hub and that it's connected to a USB 3.0 port. I get framerate drops when those conditions aren't satisfied.
I've got a very nice mirrorless camera and glass and eventually came to the same conclusion: It's just not worth the hassle even for the improvement in image quality.
However, I have found that it's absolutely worth it to upgrade to a better microphone. Just about anything is better than the mic built into most computers and better voice quality will give you more presence and make it significantly more enjoyable for others to listen to you. Wearing headphones also helps so that the computer isn't forced to do echo cancelation on the signal.
A decent dynamic mic handles background noise well by design, as opposed to using software to attempt to process the dirty signal coming from a tiny ECM. I can comfortably take a call on my setup while people are talking next to me and with the TV on. If you want to go further there are ENG mics which can handle even noisier environments - think an interview in the middle of Times Square.
A mixer or interface also allows you to monitor the microphone signal in your headphones or speakers. It keeps your tone and volume more consistent and you'll immediately notice if you accidentally back away from the mic (as opposed to the other side complaining they can't hear).
I got a highish quality webcam (the Dell one with no mic, I use airpods) for this reason. It looks MUCH better than a built in webcam, not up to the level of a mirrorless camera, but not that you can really tell on a compressed stream.
Every other day I have someone ask me about my mirrorless setup (I frequently have calls with new people), it is night and day to my expensive waste of a webcam.
This advice goes for... life. Don't switch over from something reliable to a newer/flashier solution until the reliability of a new system gets close-enough that you won't break critical functionality.
Source: Recently swapped over to a better camera, after testing it out in informal meetings and verifying reliable function...
I think the problem is that the people who are prone to do this are also prone to fiddle and over-complicate things. For the last 18 months, I've been using a wild-overkill mirrorless camera through an HDMI->USB adapter dongle thing (not the El Gato, it's one that uses a standard UVC driver so works with Linux with zero fuss). The adapter limits it to 1080p resolution, but that's plenty for webcam work, and all I do to use it is flip the power switch on the camera.
The advantage in my case is huge: I have a bright window to my side (and I refuse to close the curtains and work in the dark) and a white background. My c920 would expose for the average brightness level, and made me look like I was in the witness protection program. With the mirrorless, it has more dynamic range, and also I can set the exposure manually so I always look fine and the background gets a bit blown out.
I agree with people saying that better lighting (I look better when I use the Key Light as a fill light on the opposite side of the window) and a better microphone (Rode USB mic on a boom arm that I keep positioned just under what's visible in-frame -- still close enough to my mouth to get good sound without the "hey, don't forget to like and subscribe" effect) are more important, but doing a better camera is better, too.
Yes, if you are using a camera for the webcam, it should probably be dedicated to it. Mine is a Canon M50, attached into a quick-release shoe into a teleprompter but even then it still two wires (USB and HDMI) and I also have to take out the AC power adapter to use the camera on its own.
I'm using mine all the time (I do corporate training and haven't done in-person since March 2020), so it sits in the mount. I also know the correct combination of rain/blow-into-the-Nintendo dances to get OBS and other software to work with it.
My setup is:
Older Nikon D71000 DSLR here with 17-55mm on wall-mount
Elgato Cam 4k dongle mentioned in the article
two good lights with nice diffusers to the left and right of my monitor facing the wall, for reflected light
HyperX glowy red mike with physical mute, love that thing
This gear works 100% of the time, all the time, in Zoom, Google Meet, Teams, Webex, you name it.
Bootup is definitely does some things, turning on two lights, camera on/off switch, and a small button on back of it to shift to the 1080p output. But at this point it is just seconds, muscle memory.
I get a lot of compliments on quality, clearness, and the natural optical effect of out of focus blurred background.
And I definitely notice other people's poor lightning, bad quality picture, artifacting of cheapo webcams or got forbid native built in laptop cameras.
>He also had a tendency to drop out of long meetings when his camera overheated,
Also make sure your digital SLR or whatever expensive camera you're using as a webcam doesn't have a 30m video limit, which some do. This is one of the most recommended pieces of advice on /r/videoediting (non-professional) for new streamers.
For most people, if you want better video quality for Zoom meetings or teaching Yoga online or similar, then a relatively recent smartphone camera + better lighting and microphone is more than sufficient.
Some cameras still turn off the video mode, it has been patched out in some nikon and Canon models as it's just a firmware limitation stemming from the same tax reason.
The video limit isn't related to recording but thermals. Often they just have an in built timer to turn off video at the point they tested the camera to be getting too hot.
That sounds unfortunate. After a few kinks at the beginning, I've moved to using my nikon z6 as webcam. The first kink was power delivery, I found a plug that goes into the battery slot.
Amen. Can confirm this 100% - I just spent the past two years doing robust physical tech product presentations with multi-cam setups and many different video streaming configurations. It always takes quite a bit of effort to set up and something doesn’t work right randomly all-the-fucking-time.
I don't even know why anyone in your meetings needs to see each other's faces. I've been working remote for a year and eventually everyone just turned off their cams. I'm one of three out of a dozen plus that even has an avatar.
I just used my iPhone's rear camera as a webcam. Works surprisingly well, and had even less issues than trying to use my mirrorless Fuji cameras. Quality is substantially better than my built-in webcam, but about the same in a compressed stream as the mirrorless really.
Agree! It took time to learn how to do this effectively while remaining mobile/nomadic, and it forced me to decide what meetings are worth it which ones aren’t. For all of the gear I have (as a filmmaker…) I fall back to using an iPad quite a bit on the road.
I think it's also important to highlight commercial USB webcams, like the Logitech 922. They are kinda expensive but still cheaper than a DSLR and will get you all of the low hanging fruits over webcam quality. DSLR would get you benefit on top of that but arguably, given that 720p is the common webcam resolution, you wouldn't be missing out on much. Except maybe features like improved focus and depth of field effects.
Are you mandating video in meetings? Why would he need to drop when he can just turn off the camera? This seems more like a human problem than a technology problem.
And if you don't go that route, please make sure to turn off your camera.
From what I've seen people being late is more often a problem of the people and not the hardware.
And if after three years of remote work, you weren't capable of getting a working microphone, camera and stable internet connection, I'd con that as a people problem, too. Working meaning you can actually hear the other person and not only their fan.
Honestly the video adds pretty much nothing to a Zoom meeting. You're better off without it. Maybe it's different for managers/executives but for engineers it's more of a distraction.
People built Linux over email. Having audio meetings is more than enough.
We've had a few video meetings at the beginning of this whole plage situation, but after a few weeks, cameras were left turned on just for the initial "hi!"s and "hello!"s, and after that, everyone turned their camera off, because everyboy was watching the shared screen, and probably because noone was wearing pants anymore. Now, we don't even turn them on in the first place.
Even for streamers, audio is _much_ more important than video. You can have a potato webcam and get by, but if your audio sounds like crap nobody is going to stick around at all.
Unless one of the participants has some degree of hard-of-hearing, in which case, being able to see the other person's lip movements is really helpful.
I'd be shocked if that really came through with the jitter/compression/etc. IMO Email is king for accessibility, I wish people didn't hate on it so much.
Lots of these tools do real time closed-caption now anyway.
I love email, but not everyone does well with it. There is no tone or body language with email, you have to read into it and if you don't know what you're looking at or who you're talking with, you have to evaluate all sorts of potentially negative scenarios. Is this person a poor communicator? Are they speaking with a guarded tone because they're covering up? Are they cc:ing and bcc:ing because they're looking to burn me or protect themselves from something? etc. Emails are saved for years and resurface. They are also shared with other people and you may or may not know.
Some people write long emails like reports, other people write very short emails. There is no standard.
The real-time closed captions are gratefully appreciated and much needed from an accessibility standpoint, but they're not perfect. More technical words, accents, etc. all cause difficulties.
If the bandwidth is good and ping time low, video conferencing works very well. You can see and hear when the audio matches the lip movements. It's awful when the audio is not in sync with the video.
Protip: if your goal is to use your smartphone as a webcam, check out this: https://vdo.ninja
Written by some guy named Steve, it’s an incredible piece of web software that uses WebRTC to stream phone audio and video as an OBS input. OBS then features a virtual webcam capability to take that stream and make it a webcam. I can then also use OBS to do whatever processing I want, e.g. making my webcam also contain a screen share or whatever else.
It’s trivial to then load up multiple instances for multi-angle scenes in OBS, then cut between the two. For example, you could have one ‘face’ camera and one ‘page’ camera showing paper on your desk and make a 2nd scene with the ‘page’ camera as the primary and a small PIP view of your face.
It goes much farther than just being an input for OBS, though. For example, it can create video chatrooms of multiple participants with URL parameter configuration and without touching OBS (indeed that’s now one of its primary use cases).
I use it to stream applications/webpages with my partner when we’re apart so we can watch a movie together by creating a high res vid/stereo audio input with no noise cancelling as the movie, then have her and I connect as lower quality, mono+noise cancelling participants. Each of us receives the video and audio of the movie, but only the audio of each other.
There’s heaps of parameters to control video and audio quality, buffering, etc. - just about anything you need.
I stumbled across it when I was trying to get my iPhone to be a webcam early on in the pandemic. There’s multiple apps for that purpose - many paid - but this was so easy and worked so well that it blew them out of the water from a capability perspective.
I know I sound like a shill but honestly I’m just a huge fanboy. It’s one of those web apps that does a job really bloody well, with heaps of flexibility and extensibility. I’m genuinely impressed with it and all the hard work Steve’s clearly put in.
At work we had to create a streaming setup to provide remote training to a customer on the other side of the world that involved parachute packing & guided drone integration. Stuff that was usually done in person but due to the pandemic traveling was not an option at that time.
vdo.ninja and a couple of iPod Touch's (RIP) were really useful to give the trainers the ability to walk around the parachute loft to get up close and personal with a specific set of equipment. Combined with OBS, some powerpoint plug-ins, and vdo.ninja, we were able to bring something together that worked really well in no time at all.
An alternative for a local network is running NDI.
That's how for events we stream a bunch of remote cameras (and even computers on the network) into visual displays.
Also NDI native cameras are slowly becoming a thing. I'm really in love with the Logitech Meevo. It's targeted for use with phones, but it works great with computers and OBS too. Drop dead simple to use, and with the POE kit very, very stable. I'd go something like it over a mirrorless camera hack any day.
I use something similar to stream video from a Pixel phone over USB to OBS (Droidcam). I tried doing it over WiFi but the latency is better over a wire.
Does anybody know how to source a WebRTC stream for OBS inputs? In particular, I have a python program and want something that looks like:
rtc = open_stream_to_obs(address)
while True:
rtc.send_frame(my_numpy_array)
Was trying to use OBS's built in RTMP support but found it a buggy mess that would freeze/drift over time. Ended up using the free version of StreamBridge https://tricube.net/products/stream-bridge/ to convert the RTMP from IP cameras I had to NDI - and from there it worked flawlessly with OBS.
It doesn't look like StreamBridge supports WebRTC, but maybe someone else has a WebRTC to NDI converter that would be similar to StreamBridge? I really hate having the intermediate step, but I like having stable video even more :)
Another more turnkey (but commercial) option is EpocCam by Logitech.
It's a free driver download for MacOS and Windows and then a paid app for your phone (6 dollars I think) and you can use your phone as a webcam, either over wifi or USB.
It works with OBS, Zoom, Meet, and other stuff (maybe not FaceTime though? I don't use it on my Mac but I know Apple is picky about what cameras can work with FaceTime) and just shows up as a regular webcam on your system.
If you have an older or spare phone, the camera in it is likely waaaay better than a webcam.
>I use it to stream applications/webpages with my partner when we’re apart so we can watch a movie together by creating a high res vid/stereo audio input with no noise cancelling as the movie, then have her and I connect as lower quality, mono+noise cancelling participants. Each of us receives the video and audio of the movie, but only the audio of each other.
Ohh, shared media watch is still such a mess right now, and it would have been so amazing in the peak of the pandemic. Replying so I can find this in the future.
If it detects it’s on the same LAN it’ll route locally, so I find it quite good. The only challenge I’ve had with latency is desync when using it for video but using a desktop mic directly into the PC for audio, as opposed to using the phone for both. However that’s possible to overcome too with delay.
My use case was doing remote language classes. I had multiple programs open on my desktop and had my lesson book on my desk in front of me. I was looking at slides that I had to read, with PDFs open next to the slides shared during the video call. Joining on a phone was prohibitive compared to joining from my desktop.
I’d imagine anything where I need to read slides/notes on a screen would suck if done via a phone. In fact, the only time I use my phone is if my video is off and I am listening passively.
I have an alternative approach that I discovered recently while building a microscope with a webcam driven by linux.
Nearly all modern cheap webcams are UVC-compatible and they work with linux. Different models expose different functionalities, but I ended up with this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07R489K8L
It does 1600x1200 25FPS YUYV (as well as a wide range of other resolutions and FPS) uses the C/CS-mount lens standard (easy to buy a wide range of high quality lenses). It doesn't have a microphone but you should be using an independent mike anyway. Has software control of exposure color temp, and gain, which is great for various lighting conditions.
You read the data through USB, not HDMI. The one thing I haven't managed to do is autofocus, but imho, for webcams you want to set a fixed focus around your head anyway.
Works with all video conference programs, and OBS studio (I actually import the video in OBS and then create a virtual camera).
I looked at similar cameras a while ago (Mokose brand), but never got around to it because I was unsure of the lens. Especially field of view (is it wide enough angle?), but also overall quality. I saw a sample somewhere with a dark ring along the edges of the final image.
Did you have any issues with that? Do you have a rough approximation of what zoom setting you're using and what FOV it gives?
I'd love to get a better camera than the built-in laptop one, but also don't want to shell out $1500 plus the hassle of a DSLR…
I use a Mokose 4k USB webcam with a 5-50mm zoom lens that cost under $100 for the set.
I experimented with a huge variety of mounting options before settling on a SmallRig adjustable arm clamped to the top of my monitor mount, so it peeks over the top of my monitor, basically where a built-in webcam would be.
To me it’s the best compromise between control, quality, and price. Having physical control of zoom, focus, and exposure is amazing. Meetings start up instantly, no software to mess with.
To be fair I spent another $150ish trying various mounting options, but those are shared between the camera, mic (Rode NT-USB), and lighting. Eventually I gave up on the camera light and fixed my room lighting. A more frugal person could get a similar setup for $250 all in.
Not really. It's unclear if the time invested in documenting the design is worth it yet. I haven't decided if it would be useful. For now, I recommend looking at OpenFlexure or Flexiscope (there's one other one that's good but I forget the name).
The idea is fairly simple. It's a basic construction kit for simple microscopes (just LED, lens, objective, tube, and camera, all mounted to an aluminum extrusion post using 3D printed parts). Then some inexpensive XYZ stages to move the sample holder holder around for large FOV and focus stacking.
Everything else is just cobbled-together from python, but see MicroManager for a tool that can drive an open source microscope.
I have a very similar hardware setup and love it. What benefits does OBS provide for your video conferencing? If it’s worth the extra hassle I might need to look into adding it.
I use it for the chroma keying in VC software that doesn't support it, like Meet (which has a machine learning system that tries to identify the background).
I often present other windows and using OBS is often more ergonomic than connecting and presenting a second window; I can composite a transparent version of my head over what i'm presenting. Or present my whole screen, etc. Basically, twitch streaming for video games and other stuff changed how I do VC.
How do you do present window sharing to a Meet call?
Using OBS gives you a very flexible way to stack a window capture with video sources, composite them, etc, yes, but your output is then routed through the virtual camera driver and sent to Meet as a regular webcam feed.
So because Meet thinks it's just a webcam feed, your coworkers will just see your shared window as a tiny video tile downsampled on the sending end down to 720p, and the only way they have of seeing it large is to pin your video tile manually.
Is there a trick here where you got OBS to output the composite feed to a chromeless window then you share that as a regular application window presentation?
This looks like it should compare favorably to the "real" camera + HDMI capture card solution. The lens is always the most important part of any camera setup, so if you get the right lens, you're probably gold.
Ehh. After a certain point that's true, but a lens doesn't help much with a garbage sensor, particularly one that has to be compensated for with huge exposure changes. (This is the core of why webcams are disappointing, not the lens.)
I use a GH4 or G9 with a USB3HDCAP at my desk because I already have them and the glass, personally, and I know the sensor is not going to be a trailing problem behind the (cheap!) glass that I use.
The sensor is an IMX179 which is a mainstay. I believe the sensor area is smaller, and probably higher noise than a DSLR or mirrorless, but for VC use, it's probably not going to make a difference.
Do you have a sample image from that camera? I bought a similar board, same sensor, with the intent of attaching a nicer lens to it, but quality is dogshit. Absolutely horrendous, like a Nokia phone from 2001.
One thing that I’ve been trying to educate my colleagues about (including the A/V folks!) is that one can bypass the need to fiddle with drivers by using a generic hardware HDMI -> USB video conversion stick utilizing the mirrorless/DSLR’s HDMI output. It’ll mount as a generic video input that Zoom/Teams/OBS can use. You can find these for $40-$100 and it allows one to switch out hardware brands at will without installing drivers. And don’t forget that it opens up a world of filmmaking mics to complete the package, and sends it all on one cable!
I’ve used Fujifilm, Sony, Canon, Panasonic, and I think even a gopro once successfully using this method.
Edit - added mic suggestion
Also: this works for me on Win/Mac, but I’ve not tried Linux yet.
I just failed at this recently. Apparently the camera needs to support "clean HDMI out," which many don't. Mine (for example) has HDMI out, but it's for like a "preview" screen for a photographer--it doesn't just output a clean, high-res HDMI stream.
Yes, that is a gotcha, as some of the cheaper or older camera models have no HDMI out or the require proprietary conversion with a vendor driver. I haven’t run into this often myself yet since most people I know have been buying newer and more video focused cameras over the past couple years.
EDIT - For your case perhaps using camera settings to minimize the data (ISO/aperture/shutter etc) being shown on on the screen works well enough to use what you have?
> EDIT - For your case perhaps using camera settings to minimize the data (ISO/aperture/shutter etc) being shown on on the screen works well enough to use what you have?
I saw a few threads with that suggestion, but I wasn't able to minimize the data being shown, or confirmation that anyone with a Rebel T7 was able to do it.
I was able to do this on my Rebel T7i by switching to manual focus, and then selecting the "info" button a couple of times to remove the overlay. There might have been some other changes I made, like turning off the grid overlay, but I think just the first two changes were enough though.
This is the gap I hit, after trying to set up an old Canon G11 (released 2009) as an alternative to a webcam for my partner's Twitch streaming. It has a micro-HDMI port on the side of it, but only for reviewing photos— it doesn't pass through the live viewfinder image, and it appears there may be hardware limitations which prevent that from ever being possible, even with the various hacked up firmware options like CHDK/Magic Lantern [1].
EDIT: I mean it'd probably be OK if I were just shooting a video--I can fumble through it connecting unreliably, or just do another take if it unexpectedly disconnects. But I'm doing multiple video calls a day, and the webcam built-in to my monitor "just works" every time. It's tough to justify the additional complexity for something that isn't working reliably.
That's why I started leaning toward "Clean HDMI". With that method, as long as the HDMI capture device works, everything should "just work" on the Mac side, and as long as the camera can output clean HDMI, it should also "just work." I'm not dealing with a poorly-supported software webcam utility, special USB signaling, or annoying inactivity timeouts.
But it looks like I'll need a different camera, and it won't be cheap, but at least it's an option.
For the case of some older Nikon models, like my D7000, it is not possible to get "Clean HDMI" from the stock firmware, but there are options to patch the firmware[1][2] to get this. I use this with an HDMI to USB dongle[5], a wired battery pack[4], the aforementioned D7000 and any of the lenses I already owned. I've found that 35mm is a bit too tight given the length of my desk where the camera is mounted[3], but 20mm-24mm is about what works well for me at the moment.
The biggest problem with my setup is that when I open OBS I need to disconnect and reconnect the dongle before OBS will pick it up. Until I figured out how to repeatably get that working it was... more trouble than it was worth. I need OBS because the version of the patched firmware I'm running produces a non standard aspect ratio that I adjust for in OBS, at the cost of a more involved setup and extra CPU utilization. If I used the patched firmware that removes the fixes that (I haven't tried it yet), I would likely forego OBS for meetings.
It's not ideal but I've circumvented this by disabling automatic focus and other things that add visible elements to the preview, and the just using the preview's 720p output. It's a hassle and you'll have to manually adjust the focus so that everything's not blurry, but the end result quality is quite good.
Different, I think. It's a Canon but I don't it wasn't bought by me and I don't have it right now so can't check the exact model, sorry. Quick googling suggests that it can be done with Rebel too: https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART17...
This is the method I use, in conjunction with the Sony ZV-1 which gets a mention in the article. It also bypasses the problem mentioned in the article about turning up as a mass storage device.
What I've found is that by USB charging and using HDMI out, it's good for ~2.5 hours of streaming, which I've only ever hit once as a limit.
there's a newer Sony in the same line (the ZV-E10) but it moved the ports to the other side of the camera, so if you flick the LCD round so you can see it, the cables are in the way...
I've been using ZV-1 with Cam Link for almost 2 years now. It can be powered indefinitely with a good micro USB cable and a reliable 2A+ power supply. I often have all day back-to-back meetings so I don't bother to turn it off. Otherwise a dummy battery is an option.
With my a6300 I actually managed to get a week (!) of constant streaming and USB charging out of it. I use a USB data blocker to enforce USB charging only, it works incredibly well.
If you enable PC Remote Function [1] it disables UMS so you don't need another cable/adapter plugged in. I notified the author and he updated the article.
> You can find these for $40-$100 and it allows one to switch out hardware brands at will without installing drivers.
The cheap ones (as little as eight bucks) all use the same all-in-one HDMI-receiver-MJPEG-encoding-USB-device chip; it's not perfect, but they do actually support 1080p at 30 fps.
They're generally pretty reliable but an issue to be aware of is that the cheaper ones can have quite high latency (0.5s or more). This means for Zoom etc you will have to choose between audio/video being desynced and more awkward conversation (if interactive discussion is more important than presenting).
is the quality at least comparable to what i can get from a mid-range webcam?
because that is what this is competing with for someone like me who already has the necessary camera, but also needs a webcam occasionally.
Ditto. I'm currently using an old Nikon D5100 with a generic HMDI->USB input stick ($15), a generic USB-->battery adaptor ($35) and a custom firmware (to remove borders and menus) from https://nikonhacker.com/
The body is old enough to not car about voiding warranties by using a generic battery adaptor and custom firmware.
At least my Fuji X-T4 insists on its own driver that makes use of live view video the camera sends via some proprietary protocol and exposes that as a virtual webcam. It doesn't do USB webcam sadly.
I hate to say this but it’s almost entirely not worth it.
The image quality only shows up here because they’re uploading images that they took from the camera locally. Trying doing it with Zoom.
The compression is absolutely terrible. You’re gonna find that you spent a lot of time and money only to see a decent quality image on your side. Everyone else is gonna see the same muddy mess that they always saw.
The image is always bad due to the compression. If you’re a twitch steamer or something where you’re doing a 50mbps bitrate then whatever. But for most folks - there is little to no improvement. Your best way to improve image quality would be to improve lighting. Even a good camera will have a bad image with bad lighting.
Respectfully, I have to disagree. I have a similar setup to the one in the article (Sony A6400 + Simga 30mm f1.4) and the difference in image quality is dramatic _even over Zoom_. It is such an improvement that, in my experience, almost every first meeting that I have with someone over Zoom the other participant will remark on how good my picture is. The perception of "quality" has little to do with resolution issues or compression artifacts and far more to do with good framing/focal length, focus depth and bokeh all of which a good camera setup has in spades and all of which webcams lack.
The lens and sensor makes the biggest difference here - paints a completely different picture due to capturing light in the way were used to seeing in tv and film.
> The lens and sensor makes the biggest difference here - paints a completely different picture due to capturing light in the way were used to seeing in tv and film.
Not really true. It's often editing + lighting that really has the strongest effect.
$100k cameras can take dogshit videos and photos when you don't know how to edit them properly or know how to light the shot.
I have the same setup. The image quality is noticeable. People comment on it regularly, and others using DSLR webcams can always spot it due to the perfect optical blurring of the distance. It took me a while to get it to work reliably and I annoyed people getting it working right, but once I did it’s fairly solid. Sometimes the video capture freezes and sometimes the camera even shuts down, but these are rare and I know how to fix them in a second or so. I am a little disappointed that two years into broad remote work and virtual life it’s not gotten easier to have a high quality audio and video capture.
I worked with a guy who used a DSLR as a webcam and his picture was totally remarkable over Google Meet and Zoom. The very first thing I did was send a screenshot of the meeting's tile view to a friend, asking if he noticed anything funny about one of the videos, and he easily spotted the one I was talking about.
Every time we had a new team member join the calls, they would immediately comment on this guy's ridiculously nice picture quality and ask him what kind of camera he had.
^ this, I use a Sony RX100V with a first gen Blue Yeti and
1) They consistently connect and work better than what my Windows-using coworkers experience with hardware built into their monitors (and I regularly use Slack, Zoom, and Google Meets every day and it works seamlessly across them all)
2) As you mention every single person every single time comments when they initially see it. Like 100% of the time without fail.
IMO as an expensive consultant™ I think it improves perception and is courteous to my clients to give them a higher level of production value.
Uhh Zoom is not going to erase the improved color balance and bokeh. Although I'll agree with you when it comes to the author's claim about fine-grained facial details being improved by the camera; those you'll almost certainly lose over Zoom compression.
With blurred background due to bokeh, more bandwidth bits are available to the face detail. Nothing to tune, that’s just how constrained bitrate compression works.
Video streaming someone's work station is about as ideal as you can imagine for most codecs. There is VERY little movement, everything is consistent and stable. Change from frame to frame is ultimately what determines how good a picture looks at a given bitrate. Little change means the codecs can spend more bits on fine details.
Sorry, but have you actually compared the two? As another point of anecdata, I immediately noticed that my new coworker was using a proper camera during our first 1:1. The depth of field and crispness really stands out from your typical MacBook Pro webcam.
I think what a lot of people are underestimating is just how terrible most laptop webcams and cheap off the shelf webcams are in terms of image quality. Spending a bit on a half decent webcam can get you probably 85-90% of the way towards what you can get with a DSLR.
As someone who has actually used both setups, the DSLR setup was great but a pain to manage. Just for simplicity of my desk setup, I switched to a decently pricey webcam after doing some research for whenever I am WFH and the image quality for streaming video is very close to my Canon's. There are some tuning advantages the DSLR has that obviously the webcam doesn't give you so it will never be able to match it perfectly IMO but it is far superior to any of my laptop webcams and a far more convenient substitute.
I think you are mostly right, but I'd rank it like this (from best to worst combo of quality for time + cost):
1) "high end" webcam (~$200)
2) DSLR + capture card you already own
3) Any Webcam
[...]
10) Buying a DSLR and capture card only for this
You miss out on most of the benefits of a nice still camera when you use it this way - 90% of people will have less trouble and cost by just buying a better dedicated webcam. That said, some people need a nice webcam and need to produce video content - they SHOULD use this setup (or at least try it). Purpose-made webcams are "bad" as general purpose cameras but good at what they are sold to do - deliver good enough video that you expect to get murdered by compression.
I agree with your points of it not being worth it for most people and fixing lighting is a big factor -- however, even on zoom calls, using a proper camera / lens combo is very much noticeable compared to a regular webcam, regardless of the compression.
I've run a a6500/sigma 30 f/1.4 combo for a couple of months just for fun when COVID started and everyone noticed the quality difference. I ditched it in the end because it was way less convenient then to have a single usb webcam and nobody gives a shit about how you look.
I know it says "minimum" there but it's likely going around that rate most of the time or lower. I've worked in environments where they pay tens of thousands of dollars per room to set them up with professional cameras, high end plans, etc. Compression ruins it all. May as well be a $10 webcam. There are other requirements as to how you interact with other members. You won't even get high quality unless you full screen + make it to where you can only see one member at a time.
> I've worked in environments where they pay tens of thousands of dollars per room to set them up with professional cameras
Me too. The value isn't so much in the quality of video, its things like PTZ control of the camera and preset control of the position of the camera. For example, in a larger room you can click a button 'whiteboard' on the control panel and it will pan up and zoom in to the whiteboard.
Only tangentially related but if you already have a popular Logitech webcam (like the C920) chances are you can find a kit to mount C/CS/D-mount lenses on it, like with this one: https://www.kurokesu.com/shop/C920_REWORK_KIT2
C/CS/D mounts are for CCTV camera so you can find new and used lens for cheap. They will not fix a cheap/bad sensor, but they will definitely get you extra flexibility in what kind of framing/shot you can do.
I got a Mokose UC70 USB C mount camera on Amazon. It's just a plug and play webcam but I mounted a Ricoh f/1.4 lens on it and it's fantastic. Much cheaper than getting a real mirrorless camera too.
This right here is the best solution I've found. I have their Brio kit w/2.8-12mm CS lens and it's excellent in a small package. Low light conditions are still a challenge due to the tiny sensor.
As a bonus, you can disconnect the built in mics and opt for a nice boom mic with a hardware cut off switch.
Yes, but unlike screw-on cameras, the process here takes out the original lens, so you expose the bare sensor to whatever glass you will add later on.
C/CS/D mount are screw-on, they are also completely manual, so you lose software control over focus and other things, and you need to rotate rings in the lens itself to adjust.
That sounds like an upgrade to me since my C920 and C922 had very fidgety auto-focus. I could turn it off via the Logitech camera settings application, but it would always reset itself to on when the computer was rebooted.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned using a teleprompter yet. You can pick one up for around $100 and when combined with a little 7" monitor (another $100) attached to your computer, creates a nice setup for zoom calls where you can look directly at your partner. Also doubles as a great talking head setup for video production.
I got a teleprompter when Covid hit. I do a lot of training and I use it mostly for "looking into the eyes" of my students.
I have a twitter thread describing my setup. [0]
Were I to do it again, I would get a slightly larger monitor for it. I don't know if it is causation or just correlation (I'm getting old) but my eyes have gotten a bit worse in the past bit.
Do either of you have a shot of what this looks like in practice? Google Images isn't giving me much. Specifically what the Zoom or Meet looks like from your perspective.
>I'm surprised no one has mentioned using a teleprompter yet. You can pick one up for around $100 and when combined with a little 7" monitor (another $100) attached to your computer, creates a nice setup for zoom calls where you can look directly at your partner. Also doubles as a great talking head setup for video production.
For anyone else confused about what a teleprompter adds here, it's that the two-way mirror lets you put a webcam 'behind' the virtual reflected screen, so it can be perfectly centered in the screen.
Though this just makes me want to tape or suspend a webcam to the middle of a regular monitor, so it could show actual size human faces.
The Youtube channel DIY Perks has a video making essentially a homemade teleprompter mod for a laptop with very cheap materials.[1]
I've thought about getting a proper teleprompter but my issue there would be screen space and lighting. Has this worked well with a decently inexpensive webcam or do you use a full-on streaming/production type camera setup?
I haven't tried using the teleprompter with a webcam, but I don't see why it wouldn't work. I use a Sony a6600 myself, with a Sigma 16mm/f1.4 prime lense.
Regardless, I recommend capturing in 4k, and running that through OBS so you can zoom/crop the image for ideal framing, optional of course.
I use the Caddie Buddy one [1], which is a bit more robust for bigger cameras. There are other options where you can use your phone or something, but I prefer using a mirrorless and a good sized monitor.
Oh my! A teleprompter for less than $200! I haven't kept up with this market, but that's so amazingly affordable. I've long switched to tablet for the text, but this is easily 5x cheaper than what I still use from a purchase back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. I'm guessing that mine is 5x heavier too. However, it is one of those things that once you have it, you don't need a new one so I've just never looked to see what is cheaper today
The quality aspect is obviously important but I'd suggest that the location of the lens is also vital if you don't want to have meetings where everyone seems to be not looking at you.
I cannot wait until cameras work behind the screen and can be positioned right in the center but for now, the only option I found was something called Center Cam that mounts a small lense on a skinny support that can be positioned over the screen, somewhat unobtrusively.
I am a Camo user too and it's incredible but having the phone off to one side in a tripod or mount exacerbates the "here's (not) looking at you" issue.
I started a project that uses Camo and suspends the phone upside down from the top of the screen via a 3D printed mount. Then, an app on the phone, mirrors the portion of the screen that is covered by the phone. Not perfect (or even close) and it means you need to use the lower quality front facing camera but it fun to dabble.
Random rant, maybe not the right place and certainly not targeted at you but: I hate nothing more than trying to accomplish productive work on a video call. Virtual meetings would work better so much better for me like this:
1. As low latency on the audio as possible, so people can lightly talk over each other like in meatspace.
2. If you really want to be able to gauge people's reactions as you're talking, or whatever reason people like to see each others faces, you get Tom Goes to the Mayor-style avatars which animate slowly (once per second?) in response to the user's movements. No need to send a full video feed over the wire.
The experience of tiled window panes with our heads floating in front of blurry living rooms and nobody looking anywhere near the same place just sucks.
As someone that puts a cover on their camera since I am in various states of compromise in front of it I'm not looking forward to a camera I can not cover.
That’s a super neat idea! I have a feeling the inevitable solution to this need will be a combo of a tech like Apple’s Center Stage and some sort of eye-focusing alteration to the image, like a live deep fake of yourself (just the eyes). Software-only means widespread adoption.
FaceTime actually did the eye adjustment thing for a bit, but they disabled it. Not sure why, it seemed to work okay. Maybe it freaked people out though.
I appreciate the cleverness of your approach. But is it possible to take a C290-ish webcam, chop off the left and right, and maybe the top and bottom, until it is the width of a dime, so I can suspend it in the middle of my screen? Unlike the thread's original post, I am not overly concerned with image quality, but the "not looking" effect that you mention is an issue for me.
Cool. Thanks, somehow I didn't understand that it is a product instead of an idea. (I have a microphone and can put it off camera. The quality of the picture is not critical for my application, and my personal eye does not find it a bother. I just want to look at the screen.)
That's another device (and cost) to absorb. And not a small device at that.. I like the idea of the centre for 2-4 hours of meetings, then I just put it away.
It's really just a piece of glass and some black fabric to keep the light out, very inexpensive and super useful compared to all the engineering solutions suggested here^^
For video, I think this is a waste of time and money. Audio is a different story.
The quality of your audio has an impact both on the intelligibility of what you're saying and on listener's subconscious evaluations of you. Audio software and hardware is also cheaper and much, much easier to deal with than video--I've had no problems with essentially the same setup across Mac, Linux, and Windows.
The cost of entry is somewhere around $50-$100 for USB microphones, although if you're willing to spend closer to $250, you can get a decent USB audio interface ($120) + standard (XLR) microphone ($100) + XLR cable ($10) + stand or boom arm ($20).
I've been in countless online meetings where I'm barely able to hear one or two of the participants.
Every time I've evaluated a better video setup, it's been clear that there are a bunch of things you want to get right in order to have a smooth & reliable experience. You want a camera with clean HDMI output, a capture card, and make sure that your camera can be run continuously for as long as the meetings will last--don't forget back-to-back meetings. If you might be in meetings for three hours in a row every once in a while, do you need a camera that can be run for three hours continuously? Most "proper" cameras just can't do that. If you dig into the specs, some of them will list the maximum amount of time that they'll run before shutting off. Twitch streamers and people who run YouTube channels have done the research and will tell you which cameras are suitable for this kind of work, but at that point, you're often spending like $700 or more just so people can see a clearer picture. I would love it if I could just use my DSLR, which is a very nice prosumer DSLR with some nice lenses, but it's just not designed for streaming video. I would have to buy something new.
High-quality audio for $50-$100 is a much, much better deal.
This is very true. I have what most people would consider a "pretty advanced" setup for work, and all of my money has gone into audio and lighting. I use the built-in webcam on my work MBP, and I constantly get positive comments from colleagues and customers about my audio and video quality. For video quality, /lighting/ is actually far more important than the camera itself. Even a many thousand dollars camera will not fix bad lighting in a room.
Everything you said about audio is spot-on. I will say the cheap booms suck, and it's worth spending money on a proper boom. Heil makes a boom that's relatively cheap and actually good, but most people at work who ask me how to get started I say to either buy a Blue or Rode setup, with their kit that includes the boom and shock mount.
For audio software on Mac, Rogue Amoeba makes the best stuff, bar none.
A lot of cameras will list maximum time before shutting off as 29 minutes, 59 seconds. This isn't neccessarily because of overheating issues but (I think) to avoid falling on the wrong side of some tax/duty differences between camcorders and stills cameras.
As an example, on my home setup I use a Canon R5 for video calls (way overpowered for this task but I have it for stills photography). This lists maximum recording time as 29:59. However it doesn't limit the amount of time it can be switched on and outputting via HDMI and I've used it for calls of 3+ hours without any issue (with an AC battery adapter).
> A lot of cameras will list maximum time before shutting off as 29 minutes, 59 seconds. This isn't neccessarily because of overheating issues but (I think) to avoid falling on the wrong side of some tax/duty differences between camcorders and stills cameras.
That's for recording to memory card, not for the HDMI feed.
> The cost of entry is somewhere around $50-$100 for USB microphones, although if you're willing to spend closer to $250, you can get a decent USB audio interface ($120) + standard (XLR) microphone ($100) + XLR cable ($10) + stand or boom arm ($20).
Is a XLR microphone worth the cost increase - for meetings, not streaming(or youtube creation)?
> Is a XLR microphone worth the cost increase - for meetings, not streaming(or youtube creation)?
I'm not sure how to quantify it, and I've not used USB microphones. By the time USB microphones appeared on the market, I already had microphones and there was no reason to downgrade.
My point of reference is the Shure SM57 / SM58 (which are very similar). The SM57/SM58 is dirt cheap at $100, extremely reliable, and has a very good sound to it. The "sound" of the microphone is largely created by the construction of the capsule and the construction of the microphone body. When you listen to a recording, you're hearing not only the sound, but also the resonances of the microphone capsule and body. My experience is that as you explore cheaper options below $100, you see microphones with much cheaper construction and noticeable resonance problems. I am extremely skeptical of USB microphones that are radically cheaper--up to 80% less expensive--than the most basic, inexpensive USB interface + microphone combo I could come up with.
For this reason, when I give advice to people who want to make music using a microphone, I recommend that they start with the $250 (total budget) USB interface and SM57/SM57. If $250 is out of their budget, then they should just save up until they can afford it.
So I will tell you that I am not happy with the quality of microphones in general under $100, or the quality of condenser microphones under $200-$300. I'll also tell you that the main thing I've been using Zoom for in the past couple years has been remote vocal lessons, so my needs are different from yours.
I would also caution you that there is an enormous amount of misinformation and bad advice about microphones online. People forget about acoustic treatment (super important), recommend that someone starting out get the SM7b (awful choice for first microphone), or tell you that condenser microphones are more sensitive to background noise and poorly treated rooms (just plain false--this one makes no sense at all).
So is it worth it? Don't know--how much money can you play around with, and how much do you care about audio quality?
I care enough to want to upgrade my work-issued Plantronics headset. Not enough to spend $500 doing so. $250? Possibly since it's a one-time investment, as long as there's a significant upgrade that can still be perceived in low bandwidth online meetings.
One thing I would like to avoid is the 'youtuber' setup. Ideally I'd like the microphone to be able to pick up my voice without it itself being in the camera view.
Fair. I'd prefer to call it the "Johnny Carson" setup, though!
Microphone placement is a massive subject by itself. The basic idea is that you make the signal loud by moving the microphone reasonably close to your voice and point it at your mouth, and simultaneously, the part that people forget, you put the microphone far away from noise sources and pointing away from them. This second part is what built-in laptop microphones are especially bad at. (Note that microphones have different pickup patterns, so pointing "away" from a source means different things to different mics, and it's irrelevant for omnidirectional mics.)
Depending on the camera set up, you can put something like an SM57 just out of frame and still have it be fairly close to your mouth, away from noise. A boom arm or mic stand will help. Setting your mic on the desk can work but this will pick up vibrations from the desk.
Other common setups are lavalier microphones, headset microphones, and shotgun microphones. Fair to assume you're not using a shotgun microphone.
Lav mics are simple and unobtrusive. TV hosts use them a lot. (You can see that late night TV hosts have a lav mic in addition to the desk mic... 99% of the time, you're hearing the lav mic, and the desk mic is off.) Headset mics give you more consistent and clear sound, with more freedom of movement, which is why singers and presenters use them a lot. Beware that cheap lav / headset mics will sound as bad as your laptop microphone, just with less background noise. You can watch reviews on YouTube for these kind of mics and decide if you want to try one out.
I'm almost convinced to get a real microphone(probably with a stand, for the time being). Doing some research on models now. The Johnny Carson setup may not be a big deal if most of the time the camera is off, but audio is important. And even then I might be able to keep it off frame. We'll see :)
Love my Konftel Ego portable bluetooth speakerphone. It stays plugged into USB power 99% of the time on my desk but the audio quality for myself as well as how others hear me is leaps and bounds better than any other solution I have found, including headsets.
Obviously if there are others in the room/house then a speakerphone may not be the best solution; but if you aren't going to annoy others I find a speaker phone far less fatiguing than dealing with headsets all day.
Might want to just try a high quality conference speakerphone. They have advanced audio processing, directional microphones, noise cancellation, etc. built in - since they are designed for this kind of audio from the ground up.
You can find the Konftel Ego for $80 at Provantage.com (around $120 everywhere else). Konftel makes amazing speakerphones that rival polycomm, for a lot less. Indeed, I actually prefer their sound to polycomm.
The Ego will be a dramatic upgrade from whatever is built into your other gear. If you still aren't happy with it, then you can start going down the USB/XLR microphone rathole if you still prefer. But it's probably unnecessary.
There are a ton of guides online, especially since the pandemic started. Getting a USB microphone is so easy and cheap that you probably don't need a guide for it. The guides that I've seen for USB mics are generally focused on the features that streamers need, which are somewhat unique (they want to capture desktop audio at the same time).
If you are going for the prosumer option, I recommend Scarlett Solo + Shure SM58 + XLR cable + mic stand. This may be a bit overkill for meetings, but it's a good starting point if you want to record music, stream, record a podcast, etc.
I will note I've had a bunch of issues with the Blue microphone USB output hanging when I reboot my PC with it plugged in: it still registers, but won't pickup audio - a quick replug fixes it, but it's incredibly annoying.
If I were modifying my setup today, I would've gone with an XLR mic out the gate: at the end of the day I ended up running analog audio to the Blue microphone anyway because the value of having monitor audio to your headphones is incredible (and you do not want any latency on that at all).
I repurposed my old 6s and I gotta say the quality is excellent. And the free version of the software has more than enough for most people, so this could very well be a completely free upgrade for someone.
I do have a lifetime license, and have tested it with my 12 pro and while it obviously looks better, most of the time I stay with the 6s and default settings since I can just leave it mounted on top of my monitor.
This looks neat. It seems like it requires you to install software on the system, which is often (usually?) not an option.
Is there anything like this that shows up as a webcam without additional software that doesn't come with the OS (i.e., uses a driver already available on Windows, Linux, ChromeOS like most webcams such as the Logitech C920 do) ?
Don't iPhones do that annoying thing where it shows your image flipped the wrong way when you use the selfie camera? Selfie cameras should always behave like a mirror, in my opinion. It's how humans are used to seeing themselves.
I forget if that's the default or not, but if it is you can disable it. You ideally wouldn't use the selfie camera, though; the rear camera has a bigger sensor and a better lens.
camo is great. I was doing what the OP outlines at the beginning of the pandemic with an a6000 and a $10 ebay hdmi capture card. It looked 10% better than camo for 100% more effort.
I just switched from an old apple cinema display to a modern monitor with small bezels, so I need to cut a new one to stop it from blocking the top of my screen.
These $10 selfie sticks with handles that open into a stand are actually great and much more compact and portable when closed than even a small tripod https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09B6QHZK5
Changed out the mount to work with my USB webcam and it works a treat. Obviously it won't work with a heavy mirrorless camera - but there are tons of mini tripods out there - the Joby Gorillapod's and their numerous clones are among my favorites due to their flexibility.
I've got a lego stand built from a few bricks holding an iPhone 7 in landscape above my screen. The lens is maybe 18mm above the top of the display pixels.
I have a pretty full on setup, with a condenser microphone on a boom, studio lights and softboxes pointed at me, with a full frame mirrorless camera and a high frame rate capture card.
I tried doing meetings with it, but ended up getting a lot of inane comments about it, particularly as the microphone is in frame. Personally, I don't want to draw attention to myself in a meeting, so I've ended up going back to using a terrible webcam for work, like everyone else.
Visible microphones really take away from the naturalness that you get from a fancy camera, and they make workspaces feel cluttered to boot.
Recommend getting a shotgun mic (AudioTechnica AT875R) and mounted it atop the camera, as these sit out of frame and still have great sound. Worth trying!
I love my Konftel Ego bluetooth speakerphone. $80 at Provantage.com and has really good built in noise cancelation too. Can easily be kept out of frame and sounds great - and you will sound great too.
Way easier than fussing with a shtogun mic and way more forgiving if you move around too.
I picked up a new C920 a few years ago on a £30 deal (I think they go for around £50 now) and it is by far the best USB webcam for quality at this price point
I'm am at a loss as to why this guy is comparing said camera to cameras in the region of £600-1300. if they could produce 20x the quality, then it might be a wothwhile comparison, but they evidently cannot
the C920 has inbuilt hardware h264 encoding (for £30!) which the majority of video streaming and conference platforms will thank you for, freeing up your processor to focus on network quality - which is far more important than choice of camera
the C920 also outputs its nicely pre-encoded stream at 1920p, so I'm not sure why this guy is testing at 720p. perhaps he doesn't realise this and is why he is surprised by the wider angle. perhaps his £600-1300 "proper" camera or HDMI-to-USB only outputs at 720p. who knows. maybe if he'd have spent less time faffing around with desmurfification and Moire he'd have noticed this in the settings
I was expecting an article comparing the C920 to an affordable proper camera with some ffmpeg wizardry, but all I got was a wishy-washy amateur photographer with a stable internet connection and lots of money to burn
Got lucky and got one before the prices of webcams went crazy due to pandemic demand. Think they are back to around ~£60 now.
It just works. Plugged it in, picked up within macOS without a problem, immediately usable in Google Meet. Picture is fine, audio is fine. No complaints.
If you're willing to throw $1000 at a "proper camera" of the sort the author recommends, then sure, it would be very disappointing if it didn't outperform the webcam built in to most laptops or phones.
But is there a "proper camera" for under $100 that can also offer an improvement over a webcam?
$100 can get you an excellent microphone with a boom arm and that will be appreciated by your colleagues much more than being able to count your stubble in 4K 60 fps.
I actually don't want colleagues to be able to inspect my face in immaculate detail, and the amount of ceremony and awkward stands begind the monitor, etc. do not make sence to me. The more expensive webcams do a decent enough job.
The key to the better quality is not camera, it's light.
A dedicated camera with a fast lens has three key improvements over a typical webcam:
- bokeh
- less noise in the dark, better dynamic range (almost irrelevant for a webcam)
- less compressed video (potentially), which is critical for chroma keying; certain USB3 webcams can deliver a much less compressed stream as well.
If you're willing to sacrifice bokeh and don't need chroma keying, $100 or slightly more can buy you light sources to make you look substantially better on your under $100 webcam. And without proper lighting, the proper camera is useless as well.
Some other steps to look good on a webcam: choose a good lighting scheme, use proper camera settings, do some color correction; a color calibration card helps with this immensely, even a cheap one. Use the virtual webcam in OBS with a LUT generated from your card, control your scene with a vectorscope plugin. Voila, you just upgraded your look to a 100x more professional one, using just a simple webcam.
Keep in mind that you need much (and by this I mean MUCH) more lighting than you probably think you do. And possibly blackout shutters or curtains to completely block the outside light, making your lighting controlled.
Not only that, you can have a decade old DSLRs on ebay for <$200. I already happened to have a D7000 from when it was new. Checking on ebay that same (very serviceable) model seems to cost $150~$250. Of course, that might mean a high shutter count, but for the usecase of a webcam, as long as it can capture an image it will work great.
Not for $100, but a Sony A5100 with 16-50 lens can be bought for $400 over here, and will produce a great image. It is very similar to the A6000 but it a bit more compact, less features and a cheaper build.
Canon's EOS Webcam Utility supports cameras down to the EOS 1100D, which, depending on your level of luck, you can find used under $100. Then all you need is a kit lens which can be found for very very cheap nowadays. Or, if you really think you won't be moving much, just get a super cheap vintage one.
Eh, I've had mixed results with Canon's EOS Webcam Utility and my Rebel T7.
I didn't see this documented anywhere, but apparently it's built only for Intel-based Macs. It'll still work on Apple Silicon, but only if the application using it is also built for Intel-based Macs. So you'd want to ensure you install the Intel-based version of Zoom, and then be careful to avoid it auto-updating to the version for Apple Silicon.
I bought a license for Cascable's Pro Webcam, and it mostly worked, but I'd often have issues getting it to initially connect to the camera and it'd sometimes cut out unexpectedly.
Give Camera Live[1] a shot. Canon's own software doesn't support my ancient Rebel TSi so I have to use this one instead, but it's worked really well for me. It connects using Syphon so matching up architecture shouldn't matter (and it works under Rosetta).
I use Syphon Virtual Webcam[2] to feed to Zoom, but you can also use OBS.
It's under 10fps for most of the cheap models. And unless you don't move at all the focal point of the kit lens is going to make the video almost useless. Autofocus on these cameras can't follow as fast as necessary for live video.
I have played with EOS webcam utility in the past and if you are not ready to spend big, DSLR is not the way to go.
I find it interesting that so many people talking about autofocus. My set up has everything on manual focus, and unless I use a 1.8f aperture, there's no need to change things unless I materially change the way I seat.
Not quite $100 but I see the aging yet highly-regarded, video-centric Panasonic GH4 sold used for as little as $200 without a lens. This is the camera many small-midsize video production outfits have stuck to for a >decade. There are many (often fairly good) generic lenses for the 4/3” sensor mount it uses, and the camera is known for having a clean Full HD HDMI out. I can see building a setup like this for as little as $300-400. Add a $40-$100 LED light mounted on the camera and you’ve improved your video presence by 10x for less than $500.
At that budget you’d be better served getting a cheap lighting kit and a small to help push your webcam to its limits. Mount the webcam at eye level, pick a classic portrait lighting setup, and make every pixel work for you.
We had a surprising result using a "proper" camera instead of a webcam for a task.
We needed to take a picture of a particular thing every 15 seconds over a weekend. Our first though was to get a cheap webcam that has some reasonable interface to retrieve static images.
Then someone remembered that the owner of the company was doing some personal projects that involved photography and he had a bunch of cameras in his office. One of them was a Canon Digital Rebel. That could be controlled by a computer.
The owner always liked to save money, so agreed to let us use the Canon for the weekend. I wrote a script to trigger it every 15 seconds, set it running Friday before I left, and came back Monday to see how it went.
What I found was a dead camera. The electronics seemed fine, but something mechanical was broken. A bit of poking around on camera forums turned up that something in the mechanics of the Digital Rebel didn't like extended rapid picture taking, and apparently every 15 seconds counted as rapid if you were doing it for more than a few hours.
We then bought an under $100 Logitech webcam that ran a web server on its ethernet interface that made available a URL that when fetched gave you a static image of whatever the camera was currently looking at. It was simple to write a script to hit that URL every 15 seconds and save the result in a file named with the current timestamp. That ran flawlessly over the weekend capturing all the images we needed.
I'd love to see stats on how many people actually still use webcams for online meetings. I rarely do, and I don't care if anyone else turns theirs on. Watching someone act like they aren't hyper-aware of what they look like on camera adds very little value to the conversation. Unless you're in sales, trying to make a good impression, or some kind of introductory meeting, who cares?
It's a higher bandwidth signal. There's a lot of information conveyed in a person's face and posture. Seeing their reaction to what you say tells you more than just hearing their voice. It's also useful for avoiding collisions where everybody tries to talk at once, and even for identifying who clearly wants to say something, but may be hesitant to do so.
True. But I think one can avoid the credibility damage presenting or appearing poorly over time can cause with just a little thought about audio and lighting etc. There are gains to be had simply by being seen and heard better even if there is low ‘diminishing returns’ point.
Some work environments really encourage them. I work in teams that always use them and in other teams that never use them. I don't think they add anything to conversations at all.
A compromise for when you want a high quality webcam without spending money or dealing with the downsides of using an "real" camera is to use your phone. A 3 year old iphone/samsung will have a built in camera that is better than any webcam you could find under 150$. When you are pairing it with a PC, you can use the back camera instead of the front facing one.
They either work through OBS or a dedicated app that you have to start on your pc. I paid for an app (droidcam, 15$ for the "premium" HD version and free for SD+watermark irrc) because I was in a hurry but I know there are good free alternative if you have some time to spend trying them.
Did this out of boredom (and inability to use my photo equipment as intended in the travel restriction years). My setup was a Nikon Z6II with a 50mm f/1.8 glass, plugged via a capture card. It can do a 10hr meeting marathon without overheating while charging via the usb-c. Never crashed but surely a bit of a hassle and costs me a usb c port, since its not reliable when plugged to the dock (go figure).
Agree with the others, it makes no difference. The only people likely to notice are other geeks. I look like a freshly excavated potato when shot with the webcam, and a slightly more favourably lit potato with the Z6Ii, good glass and diffused lighting.
But hey, people have stupid hobbies, thats ok as long as it reliably works.
But a new problem emerges. Your face is now larger than other faces in the meeting. When the view splits everyone into the grid, your face will be the odd one out.
I don't think it's important for your face to be 50mm photo quality portrait photography for a work meeting. Sometimes when the meeting window is full screen, I reduce its size because I don't want my colleague's faces up close in my face!
Also why do people stare directly into the camera the whole time? I don't get that. I have my laptop off to the side slightly, and use main monitors for other work during meetings, or for viewing the meeting if someone is sharing their screen. Just like in real life meetings, we don't stare directly into each other's faces the whole time. I guess personal preference in these things will vary.
Another reason to not use a DSLR is that many (all?) have timeouts (<30min) in their video mode due to some import tax reason, even when hooked up to a computer.
Atleast this is what I found when I tried a canon DSLR with canons webcam software.
That's only if you actually hit the record button and are actively recording to the memory card, but if you're using the DSLR as a passthrough, it works all day. I have done it w/ my Sony a6500 and it works really well.
Sony cameras work (as mentioned below) but nearly every mirrorless or dslr I’ve used does this by default or can be set up to by switching to continuous AF modes. This is best done while connected to a power source, as the motors drain battery faster.
This changed in 2019 IIRC. The EU changed its regulation and the 30 minute record limit no longer applies. Furthermore, it was always possible to install custom firmware on many cameras that bypassed this limit. Record limits due to temperature and overheating, though, is a different story.
"Digital cameras that are only capable of recording still images remain classified in this subheading. Cameras of this subheading may also have video-capture capability to record continuous periods of video. However, when such apparatus are capable, using the maximum storage capacity, of capturing video in a quality of 800 x 600 pixels (or higher) at 23 frames per second (or higher) for a continuous period of at least 30 minutes (regardless of the fact that the captured video images may be recorded in separate files of a duration of less than 30 minutes) they are always to be classified in subheadings 8525 80 91 or 8525 80 99."
Is it such a big issue? My Canon DSLR turns off every 30min, but that's only for a couple of seconds, it then turns back on. On a positive side, it's now easy to notice when 30min or 1hr meeting is running over, it's a nice reminder :)
What I am surprised about is that nobody has made a high quality UVC camera with a large sensor and great lens, specifically for videoconferencing.
Even the "good" webcams (like the Elgato FaceCam and Logi Brio) have tiny sensors with small lenses. And iPhones (with Reincubate Camo) have bigger but still relatively tiny sensors.
Pair an APS-C sensor with a ~24mm f/2 lens, with no controls; just a USB connection. This would barely be bigger than the lens itself (think double the size of Apple's old iSight).
I'd easily pay $400 or more for this just to avoid messing around with mirrorless cameras and trying to mount them and use their drivers or HDMI capture USB interfaces.
An old phone is probably your best bet - you do not necessarily need that big of a sensor to get decent video. As long as you can provide enough light to keep the noise down and the lens (there are addon lenses for phones that are not half bad) is decent you can achieve probably what you want. The phone will have the necessary horsepower to actually process the video - I think that is probably the main issue vs a webcam
More importantly though why does most conferencing software limit us to such low resolutions? From what I remember Zoom is still max or 720P which is pretty damn terrible....
Yep -- I'm real surprised Logitech hasn't shipped such a thing. $2-400 is the sweet spot. At ~$600, one starts being able to use a Canon M50 and a 22mm f/2 for plug-and-play high-end webcam usage.
There's a huge market there that doesn't know it wants one yet, but it will once it becomes available.
Some camera manufacturers offer software that uses your mirrorless camera to emulate a webcam without requiring a capture card.
For example, Fujifilm's X Webcam software[1] would allow the author to connect his X-S10 to his PC using a USB-C cable, and use it as a webcam. The downside is X Webcam lacks support for Linux.
I used this for a while with my D850. It installed okay and worked, technically. I stopped using it for video calls because it was a hassle positioning the relatively heavy DSLR on my desk during calls and because it eats cam batteries for breakfast (you need a power lead that that slots into the battery location on the camera, which I don't own).
The (free) version of the webcam utility doesn't give you full tethered photographic control of the camera, which might have made it more useful to me.
Phones have just an image sensor with a direct interface to the CPU, with a driver plus a ton of software running on the CPU to enhance quality. You can get good cameras with modern image sensors with usb interface. Note that they need a local controller to well, control them and provide a usb interface, and need firmware for the local controller and need to provide a driver or support for a standard API at the USB end. The market is tiny compared to phones, so for those reasons you can't buy a usb camera with the same low cost and high performance as what is in your smartphone.
That being said, you can buy good usb cameras based on many modern image sensors from a company like e-con[1], but you have to do research about what features are enabled by the driver.
I'm not sure why actual webcams including a way to mount on your monitor are so far behind and expensive. Logitech C920 is still a common recommendation, and it's now 10 years old!
Phone cameras are very good but owing much of it to the DSP and software. An iPhone camera will not produce iPhone quality photos without the chipset and OS.
oh, that's for economic reasons. The industrial and desktop consumer computer vision markets are orders of magnitude smaller and their development cycle times orders of magnitude longer.
I looked into this a while ago- trying to use gcam technology for scientific imaging- when I worked at Google, and there was zero interest from those teams. They were 100% focused on next-gen camera tech (and it showed- that was the period when phones got unbelievably good at taking high quality images using computational photography).
I disagree with the people here saying that no image is better than a camera feed. As an individual contributor and trainer myself, multiple times, I've found out that looking at someone explaining something in itself adds value. It doesn't need to be a sales pitch, you can discuss something with a colleague with a shared whiteboard, and still I appreciate seeing another one, their expressions, face complexion, mood, even their cats, dogs, etc.
That doesn't subtract to the fact that audio is the stronger medium. A great mic setup is orders of magnitude better than a pretty face via a DSLR. Podcastage has been one of my favorite youtubers on the matter since last year, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEMZa5VN3Zw, and in that video he somewhat proves the point.
For camera recommendations, I agree with the majority that it needs to be a reliable setup. I was not a fan of DSLR with capture cards precisely because of that. I recommend AverMedia line of 4K webcams which have good defaults, amazing glass and have a great resolution and adjustable depth of field. In the past I used an Aver C340 4K which is amazing, but bulky, and now more recently I use a PW513 which is way better than anything Logitech has to offer.
Yep, I'm using a Pixel 2 with both DroidCamX and DroidCam OBS (with OBS' virtual camera), I can second that claim.
I occasionally use a Nexus 6 on another setup, but it's a bit bulkier to mount and is a bit finicky with DroidCamX. It has froze up on me a couple times. The OBS version works fine, though. I'll chalk it up to not cleaning up the phone prior to repurposing it.
Early into the pandemic, I was experimenting with an Elgato Cam Link as an alternative to a webcam. However, I never got the setup to work reliably with MacOS and MS Teams (e.g., random disconnects). Has this changed over the years and become a good solution suitable for daily usage? Currently, I'm using a Logitech Brio with two video lights; the quality isn't amazing but at least everything works out of the box.
I have the Elgato FaceCam and it's absolutely fantastic on the Mac. Zero issues, great adjustability, good quality (much better than a laptop webcam, not quite as good as an iPhone/"real" camera.
+1 I wish I could make the Elgato Cam Link 4k more reliable. Some days it is flawless and then other days during an important meeting, I have to keep resetting the USB dongle.
The key to this is really to find the "good enough" solution. For me that was a Sony RX100 Mk V that I already owned plugged into a £25 USB-HDMI capture card. No software required. There is an option to remove the default overlay just for mini-HDMI output in the camera settings.
The increase in quality compared to even the "high-end" webcams is significant, with only a minor increase in complexity. I think if your solution requires you to start faffing around with proprietary camera software or OBS then you've gone too far.
I also agree with other commenters in that a higher quality microphone is far more important. I personally use a Rode Procaster into a Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB interface, but I also use the microphone for professional use. Even something as simple as an external USB microphone (e.g. AT2020USB+ [1]) is going be a massive improvement to *the people who need to listen to you*.
Only thing I find annoying about Droidcam is that I end up having to reinstall the audio and video drivers on Linux every week or so, either due to updates, restarts, or PulseAudio breaking.
For me, I look for the opposite solution. What is the poorest quality camera my colleagues in meetings will passably accept? I want as few pixels of my sleepy head in morning meetings being beamed to my colleagues as I can get away with, which for now the crappy MacBook integrated webcam does a reasonable job for.
I second others here in that having a good quality mic is generally far more important. High quality doesn't mean spendy either - the location of the mic is just as critical as the mic you choose, many cheap headset mics sound pretty good because they get to place the mic directly in front of your mouth, not because they are especially great mics.
I fully appreciate my opinion might be different if I worked in a field where being seen clearly mattered, such as guitar teacher in online lessons etc, but I imagine for most of us here this isn't the case.
I use a Sony a6400 with one of those powered "battery" adapters and hdmi out to an Elgato Cam Link 4k.
Works nearly flawlessly. Sometimes Google meet refuses to pick up the video until I unplug but that might have to do more with the handshake between my back and my TB3 dock.
I can't justify the kind of prices being discussed here because the only use I have for a camera setup like this is Family Zoom meetings. I went looking on Amazon and I stumbled on "Vlogging Cameras". There seem to be quite a few of them available for less than $200, with 4K sensors, and either attached microphones, or an input for an external microphone. I have no idea of the quality of the image being produced by these cameras, but they seem like they could be a low cost option, and better than the typical webcams available.
The more appealing approach is to use a camera you already own rather than a C920 -- anything made within the last decade or so will probably work better, given the C920's awful white balance and autofocus.
errrr... no they aren't. The 24-85 I have on my Nikon D600 is extremely sharp. The 18-55 on most DX Nikons is also pin sharp. For a webcam it surely doesn't even matter?
I agree with you. For use as a webcam, however, the author is probably after a much shallower depth of field than kit lenses generally provide, so opts for a fast prime lens.
I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe I am just repeating a point someone else made.
I draw as a hobby; during the pandemic, lots of people started hosting art posing sessions over Zoom (here is an example of one of my sessions, model was in Mexico - I live in Europe: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cb8WpdEAsOk/?utm_source=ig_web_c...) so I was interested in this article because it looked like something that could make a difference for some of the studios/models I worked with.
Well... it is not really practical. Models do not have large budgets for a start, and are not necessarily tech savvy enough to put together something like this or make it work reliably.
Some places do combined live/online sessions (artists are in the room with the model and there is also a camera for people drawing remotely). I sincerely doubt that this would be of use even for studios.
I believe that online modeling could be a valid use case, but the cost/hassle ratio makes it absolutely impractical for anyone who could be even remotely interested in something like this.
In other words: as the article itself mentions at the start "The market for decent quality webcams seems to be non-existent". Just like "build your AV".
It may be an interesting project for a blog post, but it is really improbable that anyone else would try to replicate the endeavor.
Does anyone have a comprehensive guide for Canon DSLRs on MacOS on M1? The Canon drivers to use as a webcam are nightmarish and my friends had a hell of a time trying to get it to work.
I’ve solved most compatibility problems with several camera brands (and their drivers) by simply using a hardware HDMI->USB video capture/processing card or stick. Then I can mount it as a generic video device and not install drivers at all, allowing me to switch cameras out at will.
FYI, online reviews say the Atomos Connect is just a repackaged version of the same generic HDMI-to-USB converters with the ms2109 chip that sell for $10-20 on Amazon (like the one linked in the original article).
The recently viral “USB hubs drove me crazy” post forced me to realize that all commodity outboard consumer hardware are probably identically sourced boards/chips, with western branding responsible for the markup— but this one survived where a previous cheaper one failed, YMMV.
As I understand, the drivers (webcam utility? not sure) are built for x86. For some reason they don't work in apps which are built for M1, so the camera only works if an app which needs a video is running in emulation mode.
So, if you want to use Canon DSLR on M1 in a web browser (e.g. google meet), get a browser built for x86.
I'm using Chromium, it can be downloaded for x86. The issue is that Chromium doesn't have screen share feature. So, for screen share, I'm using Chrome, and joining the call for the second time, in "companion mode". That's 2 separate browsers to participate in a call. Maybe there is a way to get Chrome or Firefox for x86, but I was a bit too lazy when setting it up :)
Having done exactly this, my main annoyance is that you have to manually power on and off the camera, which means losing whatever zoom and settings you had configured.
There are proper cameras which don't remember settings across power cycles and battery swaps? Curious. Never heard of that before, that's a complete deal-breaker for actually, y'know', using a camera to me. Perhaps the SRAM battery/capacitor in yours is just dead? (Then again, not exactly sure how that happens, I've used 15+ year old Nikon DSLRs and they had no trouble with Alzheimers)
The very first one in the list of recommendations - the a6X00 series.
Theres also the annoyance of actually powering the thing on and off in the first place, which must be near universal. As it is, I use a USB "fake-battery" and just disable that. But its still something I have to manually do instead of the OS just "activating" it.
Some newer compact zooms aren't manual, but zoom by wire. They usually retract when the camera is turned off. This is also the case for most compact cameras, which maybe the GP is talking about, because technically they're also "proper" cameras".
This is actually an issue I've got with the a6300 and the Sony 18-105mm f/4.0 G lens, because it's a zoom-by-wire lens and forgets the zoom setting after every restart.
I've been using an A6300 with a Sigma 16mm f1.4 lens (both of which I already had), mounted to the monitors stand using a basic clamp. It works great, looks fantastic [3] and I still get a lot of compliments for how good my video quality is.
One issue I did run into was getting a decent HDMI -> USB capture device that works with Linux. My first choice was a high end (~£200) ClonerAlliance Flint 4KP [1] which worked fine for Hangouts, but had issues with Zoom and actually seemed to get worse as time went on and it eventually became a bit of a joke as I tried to join calls and had to restart my camera, unplug cables, etc. just to get video. Eventually, I swapped it out for a cheap £15 no-name brand from Amazon and have had literally 0 issues since [2].
The biggest drawback to this sort of setup is that if you're using a camera you already own, it can be a pain to switch between using it as a camera and using it as a web cam, so I've essentially got an expensive camera that I don't get to use as a camera very often. The advantage of course is that even on a dark, rainy evening with nothing more than a small lamp hidden behind my monitor, the image still comes out looking great [3].
Very similar setup here: Sony a5100 + Samyang 30 + Elgato Cam Link 4k and a usb-powered dummy battery. This setup has been rock-solid for over a year now, and I run it all day, every day.
Also useful is Sony's remote control, for engaging/disengaging autofocus without reaching for the camera. The a5100 has a useful flip-up screen, where I can see myself.
Before that, I was running a RasPi Zero with a HQ camera module and a C-mount lens as a webcam. That worked well, too. Better image quality than any of my colleagues, but a long shot from the Sony, obviously.
Just a note - I had a Nokia D90 dslr that would overheat if left in video mode for too long (over 5 minutes). Check for any "max video recording length" mentions on the camera's spec sheet as a early sign that this might be the case.
A "yesteryear" smartphone that is collecting dust is also an excellent alternative, as they have surprisingly high quality cameras and lenses (on the rear side, anyway). I use a cracked-screen-not-worth-repairing Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (about 5 years old now) placed in an amazon ring light (that conveniently has a phone-sized clamp-style mount in the middle). There is an android app that turns the phone into a network-accessible webcam, and a windows app to receive it and map it as a system camera input.
Quality (resolution, field-of-view, focus and light levels even with very bright background) is miles ahead of my logitech brio 4k webcam - to the point I resold the brio after only a few days. I can actually stream in 2160p from the device at a pretty respectable framerate.
Probably not on par with a modern DSLR but for something that most people I think have laying around - highly worth trying first.
Less than 100ms which is very acceptable for video conferencing. Phones also have pretty solid wifi antennas in them so throughput is great even when wirelessly connected to the network.
Yes. Sony became as big of a player as Canon and Nikon because of it. Canon launched a new lens mount (RF) and announced they will stop producing EF lenses and flagship DSLRs. Nikon launched a new lens mount (Z).
If you are going that route (I have), keep in mind that streaming from your mirrorless/DSLR HDMI port usually means h.264 live encoding, which might not work smoothly with older machine, there are very few HDMI to USB capture cards that perform the encoding.
Since I'm still mostly using my old Macbook (late 2014) and a Sony A7II + (Sony FE 55mm f/1.8), I soon realized that with a basic USB capture device (a UVC device that exposes an uncompressed video as webcam) I couldn't get anywhere past 360p with 24fps, and even then, CPU was skyrocketing.
Next I tried to utilize an Raspberry Pi that I have to stream the video, but using VLC as well as FFMpeg and few other streaming products, all did not do well when it came to resolution, fps and latency.
At the same time, I researched some existing USB capture devices, and while Elgato seems like the popular choice, non of their USB capture devices perform hardware h.264 encoding, so the bottleneck remains the host machine.
The only two hardware brands that I found at the time (around a year ago) that made USB capture devices with on-board h.264 encoders were Blackmagic and Magewell.
I went with the Magewell USB Capture Gen 2 which seemed to do exactly what I wanted and no more than that. I was able to find for ~$80 and it has worked perfectly since — no latency or missing frames at 1080p. It also has a very nice management console that let you tweak the (hardware) encoding (enable/disable mirror mode, crop frame and more).
EDIT: another thing that I tried was to use Sony Imaging Edge Webcam — a USB driver that turn Sony cameras into UVC (webcam) device. It works pretty well but has a max resolution of 1024 x 576. Not what I was looking for but still I remember it as being equal or even better than combining a cheap HDMI to USB devices that don't do hardware encoding with OBS for virtual camera.
I found it just after many of the covid restriction were lifted, which resulted in businesses, schools and even churches getting rid of streaming gear on ebay. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but I found quite a few at that were sold around that price (I just checked my ebay account and it was $75).
Just checked and the price for new one where I live (Tel Aviv) is around $450, so I guess I was lucky, at least in that sense.
Still, I do not know of any cheaper option to get 1080p video with older machines. I'm assuming that OBS on a 2022 Macbook would be able to deal with live encoding, but back in 2021 I was still seeing posts on OBS forums detailing streaming issues with M1 macs, and since most of them describe issues with streaming on Twitch, I could only assume it must be for video conferencing.
Is it any wonder that $70 webcam gets out performed by $1200 camera (and that is without a lens!)
My Covid solution was a GoPro 9. Which was like $500, so still way more expensive than the $70 webcam in question, but still way cheaper than any kind of "proper" camera. Sadly the GoPro as a Webcam can only output 1080p even though solo it can record 4K, but since it usually record very wide fish-eye in the webcame mode you can crop to a more sensible "narrow" view that mimics traditional lenses (and since we are cropping 1080 out of 4K the image is still crisp).
Of course I can't recommend buying a GoPro to just be a webcam, but if you are not into traditional photographing as a hobby (I think my iPhone does the job well enough that I can't justify spending thousands on DSLR and lenses) GoPro is a neat gimmick camera you can attach to various other hobby projects and it still works as decent webcam.
Lume cube edge desk light (x2). Logitech brio.
Røde NT1 mic into an audio interface.
Amazing for video calls, and interviews. I feel very professional.
I had the desire to get a Sony mirrorless but all the local Kijiji sellers were flaky. Saved me a couple thousand anyway. No need for it unless I was recording videos (and maybe not even then).
Webcams often simply use cheap, small sensors but I think it's worth mentioning that these "proper" cameras are also not designed to do on-demand video well. It turns out that if you spend $1000 on camera + lens it will look better than your $100 camera + lens, but that's not because the tool is 'better designed' for your use.
On the higher end, cameras make different choices around pixel quality, heat fluctuations, etc in still and video cameras. I think the "professionally remote" segment of the market is super under developed but it's the perfect bingo of awful startup challenges: selling specialist (HIGH capital) hardware to end users with a socially-contextualized value proposition. Good luck!
Edit: in case anyone else is confused - it's that you build a sensor differently to best transmit lower-resolution images for extended periods of time.
During the pandemic, I tried something similar since there was little point to go out to take photos:
1. Sony A7II
2. 35mm lens (I tried others and this gives the best results for 2-3 feet)
3. Sony XLR-K2M adapter + Shure condenser microphone (this is absolutely overkill but I like to record myself playing guitar, and it beats timing stuff by hand)
4. Mini-HDMI cable to Elgato CamLink 4K USB dongle (I tried others, this one worked the best)
5. Two cheap LED photographic lights from Amazon - my workspace is very badly lit, so these also help me keep things well illuminated.
The main downside of using a setup like this is white balancing - I found the camera was not doing a good job by itself, so I had to do some trial-and-error. In less controlled environments, like rooms with lots of windows, this becomes even harder over the course of the day.
And yeah, I originally set all this up to stream games. How could you tell?
I agree with the blogger that you should go with a smaller sensor size. In addition to better price points, they have less scanning to do for each image and should work better for this scenario. I've heard reports of some full frame mirrorless cameras overheating when used extensively for video.
That really entirely depends on the brand / model. Some will overheat in under an hour, some will go on forever as long as you supply power. Price has nothing to do with it.
DSLRs will almost certainly be a cheaper option than a mirrorless camera for this, because pretty much any DSLR from the last ten or so years works for this, and there are many more of them. Autofocus and availability of clean HDMI in video-liveview mode depends though. Many support direct streaming over USB using proprietary tools.
> DSLRs will almost certainly be a cheaper option than a mirrorless camera for this, because pretty much any DSLR from the last ten or so years works for this, and there are many more of them
That used to be true, but with used a6300 cameras going for around 300€ nowadays, it's not the case anymore.
I've done some live streams using OBS, a DSLR and a capture card. Definitely not something I'd want to do for every online meeting. When I need a camera, I use a Logitec C920 webcam. Not as good as a DSLR or mirrorless camera, but it's sufficient and works.
I've had to talk myself out of pulling the trigger on this several times. It's such an obvious level-up compared to how horrible most webcams are – but I just don't need it, and I'm unlikely to use the camera for anything else.
I did spring for a nice software-controlled key light[0], and it makes a huge difference. It basically compensates for the fact that my home-office location has the worst lighting conditions, with a bright window directly behind me and another to one side.
I've had a setup like this since the start of covid and it's what inspired me to seed https://opalcamera.com/ (because they built a pro-sumer webcam for $300)
A cheaper but somewhat more kludgy solution is using an old camcorder with a line out and converting that to USB.
I had an old camcorder laying around (a samsung https://www.samsung.com/ca/support/model/SC-MX20/XAC/ ) with composite out and I also had a composite to hdmi converter and another to convert hdmi to usb. (they also make composite to usb all in converters) I found the box for the samsung camcorder and I still had the RCA output cable. Chained them all together and windows sees it as a usb camera.
I don't understand what's wrong with the Logitech C920's output there. He has plenty of light, so it's a decent image. He talks about video calls and not video production (YouTube, etc...). How great do the video calls need to be?
And I get it, to each their own, but it just seems overly complicated.
I think as long as you have good lighting, something like the c920 is good. I have a Razer Kiyo Pro and it's good too. My biggest issue is lighting. I have blackout curtains to keep heat out so my office is dark. I need more front lighting. Even an expensive set up like the article wouldn't help much.
My C920 will suddenly drop focus and constantly tries to compensate lighting. And I cannot get it to stop. I'm definitely in the market for the right clean HDMI camera.
I'd like to have a solution where chroma keying is done in hardware and ideally also something where I can combine my monitor picture and my camera to do "talking head" videos without software running on my main laptop. It should "just" receive the final picture ready to be streamed to Zoom et. al.
I'm probably not explaining very well. In the end I want to rely on OS & Software as little as possible because things keep breaking (on Linux) for me so if I can just get a single video feed to select as the camera source for Zoom, Teams et. al that'd be great.
Extra note here, I've been running my olympus em5 mk-2 with the drivers Olympus released to run it as a web camera and its been working just fine, out of the box. I got an extra dummy battery to power it (cannot be powered though usb) so I have no worries of it dying during a long meeting.
in a remote office world, I'm glad my team leaves their cameras on and I view it as a form of professionalism to present myself as best I can, and if that's not following a dress code and keeping trim in an office, its giving good video quality in online meetings.
I'm also using an E m5 mk2 on macos, with the battery holder grip and 25mm lens. I'm happy with the image but the software is pretty bad, isn't it? There's a substantial lag between the audio and video which is disconcerting to the viewer. And the video stream doesn't reliably start. I usually have to flip the video off and on a few dozen times in the Zoom app before it begins working.
Aside from that the cost of the Very Special USB Cable is a real insult.
I haven't had the same experience at all, perhaps its because I'm on windows? I also don't use my camera as my audio source. I use my laptop microphone for now, with plans to get an external microphone. I just use the usb cable that came with the camera, I never had to purchase it separately.
The battery I use is one that uses the shell of a matching battery but provides a wired 8V DC through a usb SMPS, 20$ from aliexpress and I never have to worry about it.
Keep in mind that if you're going to be using a fast lens as the author suggests the focus depth will be paper-thin at large apertures. So you're probably not going to get that creamy bokeh in your standup unless you stand perfectly still and move only your mouth muscles.
You can really see this effect when the early mirrorless DSLRs took to market and every youtuber was using one with a fast wide open normal lens. Everything was zoomed in and out of focus resulting in queasy viewers. It took a couple of years for them to get the hang of it though.
I bought a Panasonic Lumix S5 (amazing camera btw - the whole full frame lumix collection blows away everything else I have used and I came from a Sony A7iii) and there is a beta software from panasonic that installs drivers to make it act as a webcam. Actually works quite well and smoothly (it just recognizes like any other webcam - no software to tweak). Unfortunately it is only limited to 720P while the camera can shoot 6K raw video (SSD external required of course) but it works well for Zoom and whatnot.
It's been mentioned in this thread already but the Canon EOS webcam software is kind of cool and it allows you to use fairly high end SLR cameras as a web cam. I bought a battery adapter and tried it with a Canon 5DmIV not too long ago and it worked pretty well.
If I were doing some serious webcamming I'd probably go with something smaller and less expensive, there are whole youtube series on what best cameras to use when streaming or recording. I forget which one seemed to lead the pack. A panasonic maybe?
I do landscape photography and I've repurposed my (fairly dated) DSLR for work meetings. I have a Nikon D600 with Elgato Cam Link 4K capture card and AF-S 70-200mm lens. The lens gives a nice bokeh in the background. It's been great for meetings but the camera does tend to run hot if I leave it on for several hours and shut off, which is expected considering how old the body is. Still love how crisp the image is and do recommend DSLRs for this use if you have one laying around.
Not sure about the autofocus advice; I'm pretty happy with manual focus. It requires static camera placement, and fixed distance to the person, but isn't this happening anyways? Are people really walking around the room or moving camera between calls?
Manual means there are less failure modes - slow autofocus, autofocus trying to refocus, focusing on a wrong thing, etc.
It also means the hardware can be cheaper - camera doesn't need to have good autofocus (some old DSLR is fine), you can also use manual lenses.
Agreed. Using an SLR with a capture card and proper three-point lighting makes you look amazing in online meetings. Very easy to set up as well. Will cost about $700 to get going with, but it's a one-time cost that will work on any computer for a long time.
Not every camera has clean HDMI output, though. It's hard to find a single list of cameras that have this feature, so you have to Google around. Cameras without clean HDMI out will show icons and focus windows when you stream from them.
I had a similar setup, and it was a pain. It was flaky and clunky.
I switched to a Logitech Brio, and have been very happy. It's almost just as good, with no hassle. Highly recommend for anyone looking for an upgrade without wanting to go all-in.
I’ve done this for two years with an A6400 (that is sadly discontinued and now sells for 2x the price with a kit) and a CamLink 4K, and I’m very happy with the results but for the usual web meeting, it’s overkill to spend $1100 on your setup (before lighting).
I record a lot of video in my office so it’s a different thing, but I think the new Opal camera ($300, I got one last week) is pretty great. It’s going to be my new travel camera setup.
I use an X-T4 that way, exposed to V4L2 like this it works well (but with a ridiculous 1024x768 resolution which is apparently the best one can get out of its USB...):
I use my GoPro and it's pretty excellent. The logitech C920 is amazing when using the software "webcam settings" unfortunately the app no longer works. You could adjust the gain, exposure, every setting that logitech for some reason does not let you adjust. I could get incredible quality out of that thing with that software, but since I can't use it on my M1 it's garbage.
I would like to have the ease of use of a webcam (plug it in via usb and it works), and the quality of a dedicated camera. And a possibility to make some presets (focus, zoom, crop, white balance), that are on by default and can be switched easily.
It doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than a standard Logitech Webcam. If it would be in the quality range of an iPhone camera, I would be super happy.
For what it's worth, the camera itself functions just fine without the additional software (which currently still has its quarks). I'm sure you could replicate at least most of the software functionality with OBS if you really wanted to.
Do you have a spare smartphone lying around? Install Camo or any other alternative on it. Connect your smartphone via USB, launch the app, and you're done.
"Wow, karaterobot, your ultra compressed, stuttery video signal has such a great color gamut and and brightness. The 2-inch square your face lives in on my monitor looks amazing, except for the compression and stuttering. Did you get a new camera? ... What's that? Can't hear you... your audio is... yeah you sound like a robot... oops, looked like we lost him."
Maybe it's a bit overkill, but I use a Fuji X-T4 + Fuji 10-24mm lens as a webcam. At around $2500 definitely not cheap but it gets the job done magnificently. Additionally, the Fuji X Webcam software allows me to switch between Fuji's film simulations, adjust color temperature and exposure on the fly. The cam is mounted on a Manfrotto ballhead tripod behind my monitor.
To be honest this is a very expensive route to go.
I started recently using an alternative using droidcam on an old Iphone 5 I had laying around, with a battery that could not hold charge.
If your are in Mac you have to use virtual camera in ops, but works great with linux and windows. I still use a headset mic, but provides great image quality with the benefit of being wireless.
I’ve been using a Sony ZV-1 as my webcam. With a low end laptop (Intel core i3 8th gen running Ubuntu) I had a lot of problems with using zoom. But I switched to a beefier machine with a Xeon processor and a Qadro 6000 graphics card which I use for simulation work and it all worked fine. The camera itself had no problems even with 4 hour sessions.
I use a Sony A6000 with an Elgato CamLink 4K USB adapter. Works great in Windows and Pop_OS 22.04. Slack, Discord, etc all work and I didn't have to fiddle with any configuration since the CamLink shows up as a generic webcam.
I set up howdy (facial recognition login) in Pop_OS and was pleasantly surprised at how relatively simple it was to get working.
Since I don't have a "webcam", I've been using my A7R2 as my meeting camera since covid. I use a 40mm manual lens, and adjust exp comp as needed. No overheating or other issues whatsoever. I'm surprised that so many people seem to have problem with their setup.
I use a GoPro Hero 9 Black and always get compliments on my image quality. GoPro's software is lacking so I stream straight to my computer and do post-processing there with great results. It's a good little device for those not wanting to spend $1000+ on a "nice" camera
I repurposed my old Fujifilm X100F as webcam with the Elgato cam link 4k and dummy battery during the pandemic-- video quality received heavy compliments on Zoom. The setup was working fine until I upgraded my desktop rig. Seems Cam link doesn't play nice with the new Mac Studios.
Using this way for last 1 year without any issue. My setup has canon d5200 with 18-55 lens. Camera is powered by dedicated plugged in power supply. For audio I use a separate headset. OS is ubuntu. Longest I have used is 5 hours continuous without any problems.
I don't want a camera as a webcam. I don't want a device that only works sometimes and has to be setup before use. I don't want a camera that is so good all of my pores are in view. A small amount of blurriness is a feature, not a bug.
Does using a professional camera (DSLR/Mirrorless) damage the sensor over time and lower the lifetime of your camera? Usually shutter count is a good indicator of health of a used camera - would this not have a similarly huge impact?
I don't think there's any risk of damaging the sensor. The shutter is a mechanical part that will physically wear out over time, the sensor is converting photons into voltage.
I've been using my camera as a webcam for over 2 years without any issue, and it's usually on for several hours per day. As long as the sensor isn't getting very hot then I don't think there's much risk to the camera.
Why does my Go Pro Hero 9 Black not work as a webcam with anything other than Cisco WebEx on MacOS? I can't get it to work with OBS or Discord on Mac, and I can't get any video from it on Windows. It's a fucking mess.
I used my Fuji XT-20 with a CamLink for a couple of days early in the pandemic. It was great from a quality perspective and everyone envied the quality, but it was unreliable so I eventually just picked up a Logitech Brio.
"...the A6400 seems to be slightly better as a webcam."
Contact me if you want to buy mine! I bought mine at the start of quarantine for streaming live video at my local church but haven't really used it much since.
The problem with all “proper” cameras is that they have multiple frames of latency and latency is by far the most important thing in a call. Has anyone found a “proper” camera pipeline as low latency as a webcam?
I'd rather buy dedicated hardware and have it just work.
Currently using portal from facebook, works pretty well but limited to the most used video calling like zoom. No google meet :/
Actually I prefer not to show face during any meeting. So probably won't buy an extra camera just for that. However, could be useful once I'm semi-retired and start streaming retro gaming.
I’m wondering if a setup with an external webcam would make it easier to record yourself while using video chat software that doesn’t support recordings (like Duo).
If you use an HDMI-to-USB capture card like the one linked in the article, then you don't need to install anything to use them. The adapter acts like a USB webcam, so you don't have to fiddle with any settings to use it.
There's no reason it should be, it's unclear to me which scenario concerns you:
Mirrorless cameras can be powered by USB, either Micro or C depending on model. The batteries have a built-in BMS so leaving the camera plugged in won't harm them.
Some mirrorless aren't thermally compatible with running full video on battery for long periods, this is worth researching before purchase, but for the ones which are it's not going to damage the battery to run off of it.
Because the sauce is not in the camera, but in the software. I recommend the following article, if not even for reading, just to appreciate how much processing magic is going on: https://vas3k.com/blog/computational_photography/
Laptops have a decent amount of compute power available.
If you look at laptop webcams, they are much smaller(and thinner) and have way crappier optics than an iphone camera. And nowhere near the same amount of optics.
Look at this ancient iPhone 6 exploded camera view. Does it look like it's even close to laptop webcams? Let's not even go into the "huge" (in smartphone terms) lenses modern phones have.
honestly I can't tell the difference. for online meetings both are good enough as long as I am not colsulting a dermatologist for a problem with my skin.
We had to ask one employee to go back to his reliable built-in webcam because every other meeting started with 2 minutes of him getting his camera turned on, messing with audio inputs, getting his microphone boom in place, and fighting other quirks. He also had a tendency to drop out of long meetings when his camera overheated, at which point it was another 1-2 minutes of messing around with the camera setup.
If you're going to do this, it must be reliable and ready to go before meetings. Don't be the person fighting with expensive equipment all the time just to get a marginally better image for your highly compressed Zoom video stream. This isn't a Twitch stream. We just want to talk and get down to business.