Some of Our Sources
- BoingBoing
- Engadget
- Techcrunch
- TutsPlus - Code
- Six Revisions
- Stylized Web
- CSS Tricks
- Design Modo
- Android Dissected
- The Verge
Help Webnuz
Referal links:
February 2, 2021 07:31 pm
Original Link: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/rFFYS-IWwg4/why-webcams-arent-good-enough
Why Webcams Aren't Good Enough
Jeff Carlson, writes in a post: After consulting numerous webcam buying guides and reviews, purchasing a handful of the most popular models, and testing them in varying lighting situations, I can't escape the grim truth: there are no good webcams. Even webcams recommended by reputable outlets produce poor quality imagery -- a significant failing, given it's the one job they're supposed to provide. Uneven color. Blown highlights. Smudgy detail, especially in low light. Any affordable webcam (even at the high end of affordability, $100+), uses inadequate and typically years-old hardware backed by mediocre software that literally makes you look bad. You might not notice this if you're using video software that makes your own image small, but it will be obvious to other people on the call. [...] Why are webcams like this? [...] Two main factors currently hinder serious webcam innovations, one a technical limitation and one a business shortcoming. As with all photography, the way to create better images is to capture more light, and the method of capturing more light is to use larger image sensors and larger lenses. That's why a consumer DSLR or mirrorless camera produces much better images than a webcam. Primarily this is about size: webcams are designed as small devices that need to fit onto existing monitors or laptop lids, so they use small camera modules with tiny image sensors. These modules have been good enough for years, generating accolades, so there's little incentive to change. The StreamCam appears to have a better camera and sensor, with an aperture of f/2.0; aperture isn't listed for the other cameras. Contrast this technology with the iPhone, which also includes small camera modules by necessity to fit them into a phone form factor. Apple includes better components, but just as important, incorporates dedicated hardware and software solely to the task of creating images. When you're taking a photo or video with an iOS device, it's processing the raw data and outputting an edited version of the scene. Originally, Logitech's higher-end webcams, such as the C920, also included dedicated MPEG processing hardware to decode the video signal, but removed it at some point. The company justified the change because of the power of modern computers, stating, "there is no longer a need for in-camera encoding in today's computers," but that just shifts the processing burden to the computer's CPU, which must decode raw video instead of an optimized stream. It's equally likely Logitech made the change to reduce component costs and no longer pay to license the H.264 codec from MPEG LA, the group that owns MPEG patents. That brings us to the other factor keeping webcam innovation restrained: manufacturers aren't as invested in what has been a low margin business catering to a relatively small niche of customers.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Original Link: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/rFFYS-IWwg4/why-webcams-arent-good-enough
Share this article:
Tweet
View Full Article
Slashdot
Slashdot was originally created in September of 1997 by Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda. Today it is owned by Geeknet, Inc..More About this Source Visit Slashdot