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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 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.
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'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.
>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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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 $100 Logitech webcam that ran a web server on its ethernet interface that made available a URL that when fetched gave you a static image of whatever the camera was currently looking at. It was simple to write a script to hit that URL every 15 seconds and save the result in a file named with the current timestamp. That ran flawlessly over the weekend capturing all the images we needed.
I'd love to see stats on how many people actually still use webcams for online meetings. I rarely do, and I don't care if anyone else turns theirs on. Watching someone act like they aren't hyper-aware of what they look like on camera adds very little value to the conversation. Unless you're in sales, trying to make a good impression, or some kind of introductory meeting, who cares?
A compromise for when you want a high quality webcam without spending money or dealing with the downsides of using an "real" camera is to use your phone. A 3 year old iphone/samsung will have a built in camera that is better than any webcam you could find under 150$. 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.
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.
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.
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 :)
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] NikolaNovak|3 years ago|reply
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! :)
[+] [-] nunez|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] munificent|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ISL|3 years ago|reply
Source: Recently swapped over to a better camera, after testing it out in informal meetings and verifying reliable function...
[+] [-] mkozlows|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] __mharrison__|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] danielodievich|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] SkyMarshal|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cevn|3 years ago|reply
After that everything works flawlessly.
[+] [-] scyzoryk_xyz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neycoda|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] girvo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ldayley|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omegalulw|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deathanatos|3 years ago|reply
Heck, I've had to fight to just get the onboard to function, particularly so in MS Teams.
[+] [-] JayMickey|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DreamFlasher|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] usrn|3 years ago|reply
People built Linux over email. Having audio meetings is more than enough.
[+] [-] NamTaf|3 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] dekhn|3 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] ldayley|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bradlys|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tjpd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hamcha|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mrdonbrown|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] __mharrison__|3 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] ldayley|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KVFinn|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] BeefWellington|3 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] hammock|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callumprentice|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] klodolph|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cr3ative|3 years ago|reply
I was so impressed I bought a used iPhone to use solely as a webcam; the whole setup was cheaper than the Logitech C920 he mentions.
The picture quality is great.
[+] [-] waddlesworth|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] 867-5309|3 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] pmoriarty|3 years ago|reply
But is there a "proper camera" for under $100 that can also offer an improvement over a webcam?
[+] [-] tzs|3 years ago|reply
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 $100 Logitech webcam that ran a web server on its ethernet interface that made available a URL that when fetched gave you a static image of whatever the camera was currently looking at. It was simple to write a script to hit that URL every 15 seconds and save the result in a file named with the current timestamp. That ran flawlessly over the weekend capturing all the images we needed.
[+] [-] vlunkr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] max599|3 years ago|reply
They either work through OBS or a dedicated app that you have to start on your pc. I paid for an app (droidcam, 15$ 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.
[+] [-] aenis|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] birdman3131|3 years ago|reply
Yes the app is $20 but for me it was worth it.
[+] [-] tonyhb|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hu3|3 years ago|reply
Also I found out that the difference in image quality between a good webcam and a semi-professional camera is not that big after video compression.
[+] [-] formerly_proven|3 years ago|reply
Apart from that it's pearls before swine - any mm² of sensor area above 1/4" OF doesn't matter for MS Teams video crushing.
[+] [-] flipflipper|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adoxyz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Manuel_D|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmike84|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xdennis|3 years ago|reply
People are often misinformed about EU laws, but on the other hand the EU has no shortage of ridiculous laws that give fodder to the euroskeptics.
In this case, it DOES look like the 30 minute limit is the EU's fault[1]. Thankfully it ended in 2019.
[1]: https://www.fujirumors.com/yes-eu-import-duty-reason-fujifil...