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! :)
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Readit News
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.
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! :)
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.
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.
These pathways are the same. You're decidedly not getting raw video out of (most) consumer cameras via HDMI.
I've since started recording some of my courses directly from OBS. [0] The framerate probably suffers, but I've never had thermal/overheating issues.
0 - https://store.metasnake.com/view/courses/a1a19c9e-af18-4615-...
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 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).
It's fairly easy to get an audio interface and a xlr microphone. I always appreciate when other people have clean audio.
Source: Recently swapped over to a better camera, after testing it out in informal meetings and verifying reliable function...
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/VideoEditing/
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.
After that everything works flawlessly.
Heck, I've had to fight to just get the onboard to function, particularly so in MS Teams.
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.
People built Linux over email. Having audio meetings is more than enough.
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.
The docs explain a lot of its capability: https://docs.vdo.ninja/
Flick through the how it works and use cases pages, they’ll explain it far better than me.
Guides that show sown of the advanced capability: https://docs.vdo.ninja/guides
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.
https://www.ndi.tv/
There are NDI apps for most phones etc.
They recently updated it so that it works in all apps now, including FaceTime.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 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.
Alternative C- and CS-mount lenses are easy to buy https://www.amazon.com/Neewer-Aperture-Compatible-Mirrorless... and will focus near your face and have plenty of light. People will say your background blur is amazing.
Do you have a web page somewhere describing your linux webcam microscope?
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.
Arducam has a bunch of C-mount lenses, https://www.amazon.com/stores/page/35052708-55DC-4832-A0B6-A... as well as nice USB webcams that let you choose from several sensors. https://www.arducam.com/sony/imx477/
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.
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.
There's a web page on Canon's site here:
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/se...
You'll see one list of cameras on there, but at the bottom, you can expand "Clean HDMI", and then you'll see a different list of cameras.
Now I'm debating whether or not I want to spend hundreds of dollars for a DIFFERENT photography camera that support clean HDMI.
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?
[1]: https://chdk.fandom.com/wiki/G11
[1] https://magiclantern.fm/
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.
[1]: https://nikonhacker.com/wiki/Supported_Models
[2]: https://nikonhacker.com/wiki/Nikon_Patch
[3]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B094N6W6SP
[4]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B071L8R4NC
[5]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07K3FN5MR
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...
[1] https://helpguide.sony.net/dc/1910/v1/en/contents/TP00028862...
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.
i found this article https://havecamerawilltravel.com/nikon-d3400-webcam-live-str... that suggests the budget device is workable but obviously doesn't deliver the quality that the camera can provide. but how does it compare to a regular webcam?
The body is old enough to not car about voiding warranties by using a generic battery adaptor and custom firmware.
It's a bit limited in that it only does 1080p30 and it's not the best quality either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
Standard HD (720p)
- 1-on-1 video calls: 1.2Mbps (up/down)
- Group video calls: 2.6Mbps / 1.8Mbps (up/down)
Full HD (1080p)
- 1:1 video calls:
-- Receiving 1080p HD video requires a minimum of 3.0Mbps.
-- Sending 1080p video requires a minimum of 3.8Mbps.
Group video calls:
- Receiving 1080p HD video requires a minimum of 3.0Mbps.
- Sending 1080p video requires a minimum of 3.8Mbps.
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/207347086-Using-Gr...
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.
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.
As a bonus, you can disconnect the built in mics and opt for a nice boom mic with a hardware cut off switch.
https://github.com/Kurokesu/3d_models
The github license field says: "GPL-3.0 license"
But they look great. I am tempted to buy a Brio and their kit.
Similar to how you can get mounts for phones to improve the shot options?
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.
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.
0 - https://twitter.com/__mharrison__/status/1515078084600348677
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.
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?
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AecAXinars
Regardless, I recommend capturing in 4k, and running that through OBS so you can zoom/crop the image for ideal framing, optional of course.
[1] https://caddiebuddy.com/teleprompter-for-ipads-androids-and-...
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.
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.
Deleted Comment