Hacker News Reader

Comment by martin_a | Hacker News Reader

720p webcam? I know this is complaining on a high level, but as smartphones come with 16 MP cameras, why are laptops still so behind?

View on HN

The only complaint I have with a 720p webcam is that I need to glue a cover on top of it myself.

The limiting factor on webcams in laptops is internal USB bus. On phones the camera is wired directly on the board with direct channel to the CPU so the phone can do all the computation processing as fast as possible on the fly. The laptop webcams use standard USB 2.0, which has very limited bandwidth compared to what phones have.

There's no reason this couldn't be circumvented, but some custom webcam bus would significantly increase the cost disproportionate to the value it adds. Ppl just don't care about laptop cameras enough to pay that much more money for a good one.

I don’t think this is true. You can get high quality external USB2 webcams. Even 4K ones!

I’m pretty sure the real reasons are (a) just saving money; most people don’t care and (b) there’s insufficient depth in most laptop lids for decent optics, anyway.

My guesss has to do with the "processing" part. 4K decoding/encoding takes much processing power.*

*Depends on which codec is being used.

Lower res will make you look better on video conferencing, no pimples or poores showing up and there’s considerable bandwidth savings.

Feels good enough. I'm not going to take pictures with it, just communicate.

Never did fullscreen video calls before? I'd love to have 1080p front face webcams.

No one, not even those who love me, need to see my face in High Def.

Turn your lights down low. Sometimes it's like laying in bed next to each other... ;-D

For what purpose are you people even doing video calls for? I've never understood this.

I've only had it when demanded by managers, who generally associate "work" with yakking in person because it's often the only thing they know how to do. I've never been requested by another dev to switch the cam on - what with talking, typing and screen-sharing, it's just an unnecessary thing to distract focus.

More expressive communication.

I was a bit of a sceptic initially, but now that I work in a company with a bunch of remotes (and am temporarily remote myself due to The Plague), it really helps.

Helps how?

I prefer text and voice over video, but for some situations video can be more time efficient. Several people can communicate aspects of their thoughts and opinions with facial expressiond (or head movements) simultaneous with one person talking, without interrupting.

Mostly it is a gimic, but my kids did have a class where the teacher asked them to raise their hands before speaking for which you need video. (there is a raise hand option in the call, but to explain how to use that to kids or teachers...)

Majority of my company is remote. Well, 100% of it is now, with the pandemic. That said, no one streams their face or watches anyone else talk in 1080p. 720p is fine.

Our team is 100% remote at least for the time being, but still no one uses their webcam and it doesn't really seem to be hurting. And usually there's a screen to share anyways, negating any purpose in webcams.

Do you need to broadcast everything pore and hair on your face?

Lids are thin, much thinner than a phone. You can’t really feel bigger optic in there.

The camera could protrude backwards if that was the problem. As bloody-crow mentions here, i think too that the limitation is the internal usb bus

> protrude backwards

Eww.

They do on phones though. I don't like it there either, but people buy them.

I spent 4000 USD for my MacBook Pro, and the camera is 720p.

Yeah... I think the new iPads have 720p cameras, as well.

if by ipads you mean iPad Pro, I think you might be thinking of the new MAcbook Air, the iPad pro steals the iPhone 11's 7MP front facing camera and does 1080/60 from the front facing camera.

Oh yeah, I totally mixed that up. Well, I think you get the hang of it.

> smartphones come with 16 MP cameras

Front-facing?

Oh boy, don't nail me down on the numbers but look at the image quality some of those front facing cameras can get you: https://www.dxomark.com/the-best-smartphone-front-cameras-of...

And we're mostly stuck with blurry pixel mess in devices which cost several times the price of a smartphone.

> And we're mostly stuck with blurry pixel mess in devices which cost several times the price of a smartphone.

It’s not that black and white.

These days you can get $200 laptops and $2000 smart-phones.

Well, as written in another comment: A brand new $4000 MacBook Pro will come with a lousy 720p front facing camera, while some used smartphone for $200 might be able to provide you with a better image quality.

720 is more than plenty of resolution. That's midway between DVD video and Blu-Ray. Resolution is not a major factor image quality. Lens and light sensitivity is.

Wow, I didn't realize that phones had come so far. I'm using budget phones with 2MP front cameras still; sorta missed where the market had gone.

Xiaomi Mi A3 is a $200 phone with 32 MPix front camera.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com