Hacker News Reader

Comment by modeless | Hacker News Reader

This is very dishonest in the video comparison section. The Opal Camera video is using a software background blur filter (just like the one in Zoom or Hangouts) to make it look like it has a DSLR style lens with shallow depth of field. But in reality it has a tiny, crappy lens, just like every other terrible webcam.

Also they compare vs a $2k camera but any DSLR will put this thing to shame and there are much cheaper ones out there. Even a point-and-shoot pocket camera would be much better than this thing, if it supports a webcam mode (not sure if any do).

Despite the rigged comparison, at full resolution you can still easily tell that the video quality is nowhere near the level of the DSLR: https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4

View on HN

The DSLR felt 10x smoother and more natural to me as someone that knows nothing about cameras.

Ironically, this website made me want to go find a cheap/used DSLR because the quality is so much better.

I personally use Camo with my iPhone which does almost all of these things and uses the computer in my pocket. Would love to see a comparison with that as I think its reasonable to assume someone willing to drop $300 on a webcam has overlap with someone willing to pay a monthly fee to use their phone as one.

In the 300 dollar category, a gopro hero9 black is $350 and can be used as a webcam. I have a suspicion that the gopro video quality will be better than this.

https://gopro.com/en/us/news/how-to-use-gopro-for-webcam

Plus then you have a gopro hero9 with hypersmooth stabilization and can take it outside to use for other purposes if you want, it's not just a webcam, it's a fairly full featured small 4K 60FPS video camera.

A DSLR doesn't rest on top of my monitor. I don't want to use up precious desk space on a tripod and a DSLR body.

Saying a DSLR is better is like saying full size speakers are better than sound bars. Of course they are, but form factor matters!

Mirrorless cameras are not that big these days, especially if you get a pancake lens. You're not going to carry one around with your laptop but I expect most people with a monitor on their desk could fit one directly underneath it with one of those tiny tripods ($9.99 with one day delivery on Amazon). On top would probably be possible too with the smallest ones.

Yep I've got a Sony ZV-1 and it sits on a small tripod behind my monitor just fine.

Not sure why people care about DSLR or not - if you're using it as a webcam the mirror will be up all the time and you're not using the viewfinder.

But my professional Sony ZV-1 is small and light enough to rest on a monitor (I use a stand for better stability, but it could easily sit on a monitor.)

> But my professional Sony ZV-1 is small and light enough to rest on a monitor (I use a stand for better stability, but it could easily sit on a monitor.)

So, $700 and no fancy mic array? (Edit: reading up, limited to 720p? ick?)

I mean yeah I'd have a nice camera as well, but given that my need for a nice web cam is because of a pandemic where I can't go anywhere, that isn't as much of a plus as it'd normally be!

Also I need something that is proof against being knocked off the table by cats, which happens about twice a week to my current webcam.

Also $300 is already at the very top end of what I'd pay, if the Opal was $200, that'd be an almost instant buy. I imagine they don't have proper scale though to get the price down that low. Chicken and egg and all that, if they flooded the market at $150 or $200 maybe they could get the volumes needed? But problem is lots of web cam competitors have finally come onto the market, this product a year ago would've created a larger splash.

Not sure what you mean about mic? You can attach any microphone you want.

It’s 720 over USB yes but since it’s a much higher quality lens and sensor the quality is far better compared to my cheap HD webcams. I'm not sure what you're imagining 720 looks like, but it's probably far better than you're expecting for a webcam call.

No point shipping more pixels if they’re just a blurry mess.

It has a mic array. Fewer microphones, but I wouldn't necessarily immediately conclude that it's worse. Testing would tell.

720p is fine for videoconferencing, it's very rare that the software and the network supports anything higher. I'll take 720p with a good lens over 4k with a crappy lens any day.

Also worth noting that the a7 is a Mirrorless camera, not a DSLR. MUCH smaller and lighter. Though as a Full-Frame camera it's still quite a bit bigger than a webcam, Sony's a6000 line of APS-C cameras is a lot smaller.

Yeah, I think I’ll wait for eposvox to get one and post his review on YouTube or elsewhere.

Sounds like a better webcam than many we’ve seen lately, but the devil is in the details.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com