Loreaver I know but they should make it so you can tell The difference between a picture of a zoomed in potato or a robber. Make it like tesla worth something were to happen you could just press the button and it would only save the last however many hours of footage
@@othmaneaouioued8768 Yeah, they tend to be no more than $5 USD. If the webcams were similar to cameras in smartphones and tablets, you'd be forking over $50 USD for the upgrade, probably. Might take up a PCI-E lane to get the bandwidth needed for similar performance, hence the additional price to add an additional one in (and extra for that "screw you" premium).
At least give us the option to get a better webcam. Sure, not most people would care, but let us vote with our wallets, dangit! You know what would be cool? If on the MacBook Pro you could get a 4K webcam (the marketing name would be the 4K FaceTime Pro Camera with TrueDepth and Face ID or something along those lines). Imagine if when you opened your MacBook Pro, and you’re instantly logged in. Like the profile picture would be replaced with the Face ID icon or maybe above. It would work like the iPhone where you have to login with your password when you power on your MacBook. You could make it exclusive to certain MacBooks, specs, make the TrueDepth and Face ID exclusive to certain MacBooks, specs, and camera resolutions.
Yeah and then your company spends $15K on webcams and conferencing equipment for the meeting room that you're skyping into. Your colleagues looks great on your little laptop screen, and you look like a turd on the projector screen they have you stretched out across.
@@BMXaster They do plug into USB 3. I have not seen this particular webcam, but I believe generally external webcams have quite a bit of space to house processing equipment to process the video feed onboard (do they do that though?) so that may also contribute to the difference. Internal webcams may not have as much internal space for processing considering laptops are going for slim bezels and profiles.
This USB and money argument for shitty laptop webcam has little sense since: A Samsung S9 camera module cost 20$ and you can get a great 4k 60fps webcam that also use USB. Now If Skype or Teams could even handle quality over 1080o 15fps is another matter...
I think you're massively overestimating how much Laptop manufacturers are willing to spend on webcams.... "Has a webcam" is at most a checkbox they think they need to tick, so they go for the cheapest part they can get out of a crackerjack box to do it. (Or more literally, the cheapest camera module out a bucket of parts in a market in Shenzhen.)
Except it does make sense. The majority of people aren’t buying laptops or monitors because of the quality of the webcam. It may be a box to check off sure, but that’s about it for most people. So those manufacturers looking to cut costs to stay competitive/increase margins aren’t going to throw a more expensive webcam in there that few people care about. Similar to how many TVs have worse and worse speakers. Even ignoring the fact that they’re getting thinner and space is limited, most people just hook up a sound bar or other audio system. The speakers are still a box to check off for most people, but the quality doesn’t matter nearly as much as other features.
Their main answer sounds like BS. Phone do amazing with video and there's no lag. Seems to me they are just making excuses for their crap camera on machines that cost us thousands.
HP had so little incentive to improve the webcam they didn’t even bother to ship my laptop with a functional driver to use the thing :p The driver it came pre-installed with BSOD windows
Wow I have the same problem with my HP laptop, somehow the camera drivers don't exist? It worked the first two weeks but after an update the damn thing wouldn't work anymore. I've tried finding the drivers but no cigar
Mopsie haha, Some people tried to install Linux on the thing and it bricked their motherboards, guess that’s what you get for a 1500$ workstation laptop. Honestly, this laptop used to be cursed down to the bios. I’ve got to admit that HP has been working hard to get the laptop fixed with dozens of updates, having fixed almost all the issues the system had. Still, it was unacceptable the laptop was shipped with the problems it had (and to this day still has)
Sisa Musudroka have you tried installing it from the softpaq application? That’s the program I use for driver updates and repairs. It’s officially from HP, don’t worry, it’s more advanced than the standard HP support application. Also allowing driver downloads from stuff already installed on the system, useful when a driver dies.
@@HAWXLEADER My phone's camera actually does better in normal to low light as well. I've been testing it against 2 digital cameras (Nikon and Canon) and it's won each time. My phone was 140 dollars, the cameras were about 150.
Capture your webcam with OBS and add filters. Then use "OBS Camera" plugin so you can use OBS output as a source for Google Meet/Hangout, Skype, or Facebook.
@@flameshana9 that's not because the phone has a less noisy sensor, it's because it uses it differently; if you'd shoot 5 or 10 photos with the cameras and then combine result you'd get better low light performance
he is simplifiying too much... its probably not only the internal camera USB2.0 connection you saw that Threadripper video when they run Crysis on the CPU but runs so smooth with a dedicated GPU? same comparison between laptop camera and DSLR (edit :software vs hardware acceleration)
The interface to the built in Webcam is most likely USB2, and that bus itself that's connected to the Webcam is likely shared with other built in devices on the laptop. By contrast, most high-quality external webcam uses USB3, and that's dedicated for the webcam only.
01:33 I just tested it. My phone uses 350MB per minute for 4k video. That's plenty of speed available over usb 2 which maxes out around 30MB *per second.* A laptop would also have a lot more CPU power available to handle the processing.
3:45 - that's mirrorless NEX-5 which can not be used as web-cam unless you put it through HDMI input interface/device. I wanted to use that camera for that purpose once.
I always thought the real bottleneck was the need for webcams to stream video over the web over _any_ internet conenction (meaning high compression, low resolution, and for some reason, high latency), not a/the usb connection.
Usb3 can do 1080p@30fps uncompressed, and 4k @ 30fps with regular video compression. Usb3.1 doubles that. Usb seems plenty fast and not really a factor.
Type c is just more or less the physical form of the port, you can still get usb 2.0 type c ports (like my phone). You mean usb 3.xx, probably usb 3.2 gen 2x2 (stupid naming schemes). The latest has a couple Gbit/s specified, but even usb 2 had 480 Mbit/s (with real world performance lower but still a couple hundred) which I do believe should be plenty of bandwidth, but manufacturers don't give a damn about webcams. I might be wrong and usb really isn't a good fit, but there's other options as well to handle data in a computer, so there's simply no reason other than don't care.
@@SimonVaIe you're right. It's also because of the processing power needed to encode the video. Using a DSLR with an adapter is easier on the computer because the camera's processor already did all of the hard work encoding. The HDMI signal is a lot easier to pass over USB. Honestly, I'd rather manufacturers completely remove the webcam
Because flagship phone makers have no more ideas to make you pay 1000 dollars instead of a 500 dollars phone that does the exact same thing, so they started to just increase the numbers of the phone to make you believe that it's a drastic improvement when it's actually just marketing.
@UltraJeed, that's a nice take on the question. A lot of people do use their phone like computers for business or gaming. However, it's hard to imagine the average user needing all that RAM.
@UltraJeed, that is true. Android takes up way more memory than iOS and smartphone companies make this worse by adding their own skin on Android. This could warrant the need for more RAM but after a certain number, it becomes just for show.
There's another reason... Just look at the top of your Laptop and how extremely thin those things are there. For example, the part where the camera sits on a Macbook Air is only about 2mm thick. That's less than 1/4 of what a typical Smartphone even without the camera bump which adds another 1-2mm. Camera modules and lenses in phones are mostly 4-6mm thick and there's literally no possible way to fit these above the screen where the camera normally sits. Devices like the Surface Pro are MUCH thicker there and surprise - the quality is much better.
Surface pro 6 user here. It has nice Microsoft hello facial recognition, which uses multiple sensors, there's like 3 or 4 sensors there I believe. And I love that feature. But truth be told, the webcam is still shit. Like a phone from 5-10 years ago or something. And yes, it's definitely thick enough.
Logitech c920 had an h.264 encoder... The latest 4k Logitech brio cam doesn't even have one.. So you need a very powerful CPU. Lack of competition caused Logitech to stop innovating in my opinion.
@@Ronny999x how expensive would it be to build a cpu specifically for that task or use existing ones like the snapdragon.. Yeah it kind of seems like a dead market with no improvements at all since the c920
@@Many_Mirrors it would cost millions to make such a chip. But apparently Logitech makes use of Intel Amd and Nvidia hardware encoders in the GPU of your computer. So they can save money on the webcam.. The downside if that is that all the video will go uncompressed over the USB connection. They have an article on it: www.logitech.com/en-us/video-collaboration/resources/think-tank/articles/article-logitech-and-h264-encoding.html
1:24 why did you draw the line going from a hole in the screen, following the digitizer ribbon? The front camera cable and ribbon on the iPhone 6, like other phones, it’s own flex cable, you coulda got one with it in the phone and had a shorter line to the logic board on it from the very visible front camera.
*tbh ultrabooks should have a webcam upgrade because most business people use it often for video conferencing. They can keep their 720p webcam in gaming laptops*
I think not having space for a better camera is more of an issue! He mentioned in the video that “LAPTOPS HAVE MORE SPACE FOR CAMERA”, but that’s totally bullshit for the most part. Most laptops have their webcam sits on top of the screen which is at least a good 3-4 times thinner than any smartphones, which restrict the size of the camera that they can fit in the first place!
You don't understand the argument. Since shitty hardware is used, a computational approach based on multiple images is used, which causes a data transfer bottleneck. If you use a DSLR, your hardware isnt shitty, so you don't ned post processing to get a good video/picture
The main reason that laptop cameras are bad is how thin laptop screens are. Cameras have to be thick and that’s why smartphones have camera bumps on the back. Everything else you guys mentioned in the video are just excuses by cheap laptop manufacturers. They can easily put in an ISP to process photos and videos in a laptop but they don’t because the bottleneck is how thin the camera is.
1:32 - Laptops built-in webcams are connected over USB, then I am asking how come external webcams are connected also OVER USB and produce stunning results! There is no excuse for laptop manufacturers to do the same to a laptop as those companies manufacturing phones do to their phones. Nowadays the laptops are also gaming machines with high-end specs that could easily handle a bloody webcam, even if it means to connect straight to memory or any other component they could come up with for smooth true HD live streaming. Also, internet speed connections are way faster than 10 or more years ago, so it's another bollocks, to say that broadband speeds are not fast enough to handle it. And in case of a low broadband speed aren't there already implemented (automatic or manual) quality controls that help to stream in lower quality for the sake of smooth live streaming?...
Smart phones ended up as a way to replace anything that goes into your pockets, so it has to take photos, make calls, unlock your house, ring an alarm, tell time, etc, all rapidly and more efficiently than other items we used to stuff in our pockets and bags. They sort of became perfect unitaskers... while not actually being one. Laptops are not generally expected to be much beyond mobile PCs, so things like the webcam have remained ho-hum bells and whistles to fill out the spec sheet. You pop out your phone to do one thing quickly and efficiently, while typically you sit down for more complex activities on your laptop.
I never was bothered about the webcams in laptops because I'm so small that whenever I try to do a video call the another person will see me very pixelated.
Thanks. That clarified things. If one needs both good video and good sound, we have to go with the laptop with both external camera and external stereo microphones with USB audio interface. It is not so easy to attach good stereo microphones to a cell phone.
I'm willing to pay $50 more to get quality that at least matches my 5 YEARS old iPhone 6s camera that is literally dirt cheap at this point (for the entire phone) & still shoots 4k with a ton of detail 👀 Ps. Imagine how thrifty these companies are. The camera module on a 5 year old phone & they still want to save on that.
It's annoying my pedantic side that the screenshot at @3:44 is showing a mirrorless camera with DSLR as the title (DSLR is to mirrorless cameras as V8s are to Teslas)
USB 3 has plenty of bandwidth for video streams. Literally the only reason for cheaping out on laptop camera is to save a dollar or two. Which is fine for $200 laptops, but it's not nearly as excusable when they use the same grade camera on a $2000 laptop.
Keep in mind that a laptop maker doesn't need to do much R&D for the camera as they are pre-made modules. They can also do what smartphone makers do on budget devices. Source modules used on previous gen devices. A good smartphone camera dies not need a ton of computational photography. You can bypass it all by capturing a raw image which nearly all modern smartphones allow. You will see that the raw image looks far better than anything a $200+ Webcam would produce. The issue is a smartphone will use a 1/2 inch sensor while a overpriced Webcam will use a 1/4 or even 1/8 inch sensor. Thus you end up with similar quality to what you see from the front facing cameras on the $100 smartphones. The smartphone camera in normal use, does not dump the raw data to the CPU cores unless requested. Instead there is a dedicated ISP that processes the raw data from the ADC. Some camera modules will even do that in the camera module itself (which is common on lower cost smartphones where the SOC ISP is rated for a max of 8mp but they managed to stick a 16+ megapixel sensor in it. Such modules can be used in a USB Webcam, since those modules can directly output an 8 bit 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 output at a range of bit rates. Along with straight RGB 10 bit output for stills. This is common for many devices using lower end mediatek SOCs.
I find this really annoying too, pretty much ever video ltt makes changes the title so that you will accidentally watch it twice (the already-watched function on youtube is glitchy as all hells, so sadly their tactic works).
Must be something on RUclips's end, potentially with the new youtube design. I'm still one the old one (before material layout), never seen anything like this.. though I don't tend to catch videos
@@AceStrife It isn't a youtube design thing afaik (how would youtube know what to name the videos?), rather it is the uploader editing the title after uploading. As for when they do that, it differs. Usually it is within 24 hours of uploading at the very least, and while I have been unable to measure, I suspect ltt does it after an hour or two? edit: which means, as I update my subscription feed in the morning (to get reply-notifications) I might have something released "36 minutes ago" (like right now, "its already here!?" by techlinked). But I don't open the video until towards the evening, at which point the unupdated feed shows one name, but the opened video shows another. And when I update the feed, the name is changed there too.
In the world of zoom meetings and Skype meetings you think that laptop manufacturers would actually care as they tend to follow Apple but as they don’t care. The first iSight camera was introduced in 2005 and you think they could put a depth sensor . One thing I have trouble with constantly is the microphone.
well I mean they have a bigger display, can help for quick edits on the go for example and you can also see the photo better than on a small smartphone display
What about the idea screen size, or are you saying normalized between the two? It would certainly seem that it’s easier to make an image look crisp on a 4 to 6 inch screen, compared to a 20 to 30 inch screen, as well
I was just thinking about this and makes me wonder, where is the technology to use cell phones as a computers main source of webcam. Like so main ideas and thoughts on that. Going to research it. If not possible, why not? You could have files split themselves up, then once a file is finished move itself onto the computer and either keep a copy on the phone or automatically delete itself once it verifies that its on the computer.
I think another reason would be the vastly lower thickness of laptop screens compared to phones, since camera optics need a certain length to be able to project incoming light onto a reasonably sized sensor.
Nusm4 Thank you! I think this is the main issue! Software and AI can help to a certain extent, but at some point if u have a crappy sensor you’re gonna have a crappy image...
I think that people keep trying to come up with excuses, but I suspect it's simply that laptop manufacturers believe it won't make a difference in sales to go with the cheapest webcam they can put on the machine. Cell phone reviews used to almost entirely be about comparing cameras and there was a lot of money and research poured into having the "best" camera.
That's not a valid reason. Whoever they talked to at Logitech (who have a vested interest in selling computer peripheral cameras) lied to them. There are tons of USB cameras, some made by Logitech, that take great video. Either way, no one cares about laptop web cams. They're very rarely used, so they don't need to be great.
if 0:23 is supposed to be a webcam, its the best webcam i've ever seen. i've got a 720p usb webcam and its nowhere near that crisp and clear. any laptop i've ever tried webcam on it looks like one of those little $5 camera-corders from walgreens meant for kids. 640x480 at 30fps that looks like 20fps and grains all colorful-like.
There are actually a lot of Laptop/Tablet manufacturer that opt for embedded webcams that use MIPI (mipi.org/) and not USB internally, which allows for better bandwidth and therefore resolution and less compression. However, this comes at a higher cost and shorter cable length.
I'm using Kinect 2.0 captured by OBS, adding filters and and greenscreen, then use OBS Camera plugin to trick my computer into thinking that OBS output is external webcam so I can use it in hangouts.
I'd like more options to exclude it altogether when ordering, same with front facing phone cameras. Many people make zero use of them and they are a unnecessary security liability.
what about a thunderbolt connection built into the top of your screen that you can plug a little thumb sized camera into and then unplug and store in a little slot in your laptop, like a stylus pen.
Now for the actual question I thought was going to be answered. Why do EXTERNAL webcams still suck? Even Logitech (who must have like 99% of the external webcam market) have only made like 3 new webcams in the last 10 years..
whenever I watch youtubers or streamers their webcams always look very good, even when zoomed in (they sometimes make their camera fill the video, quality is still very good)
What do recommend for a webcam? All the models I saw (mainly Logitech) weren't as good as a phone, and some of the were worth more than 100 usd. For example the highest end being Logitech Brio. My aim is to use it for videocalls
![[RANT] Why Bluetooth SUCKS](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/e3eVykPNGVg/mqdefault.jpg)
You can see it as a security feature, when some creep hacks your webcam, he would have a hard time enjoying the footage
To be fair, if someone hacked my webcam they would have a hard time enjoying it even if it was prestine, uncompressed 4K.
@@SilverEye91 To be faiiiiirirrrrrrr
@@DaTT78 Wut?
@@SilverEye91 It is a Letterkenny reference....Canadian show.
@@DaTT78 Oh, I see. Never heard of it :)
It's confirmed
They use laptops as CCTV cameras in gas stations
Honestly laptops have better cameras then a lot of security cameras
@@TheBugCrafter Just take 30 screenshots per second, and stitch them back together in windows movie Maker
Nah screw that. Use power point with a transition on each slide
well if they were better quality they would take up a lot of hard drive space
Loreaver I know but they should make it so you can tell The difference between a picture of a zoomed in potato or a robber. Make it like tesla worth something were to happen you could just press the button and it would only save the last however many hours of footage
You’re paying almost $6000 dollars for a professional laptop with the works, and it has a 720p webcam.
and not even at 60hz
6000$ mostly for the internals, the webcam is always a second thought since they want you to buy a detachable webcam
@@othmaneaouioued8768 Yeah, they tend to be no more than $5 USD. If the webcams were similar to cameras in smartphones and tablets, you'd be forking over $50 USD for the upgrade, probably. Might take up a PCI-E lane to get the bandwidth needed for similar performance, hence the additional price to add an additional one in (and extra for that "screw you" premium).
At least give us the option to get a better webcam. Sure, not most people would care, but let us vote with our wallets, dangit! You know what would be cool? If on the MacBook Pro you could get a 4K webcam (the marketing name would be the 4K FaceTime Pro Camera with TrueDepth and Face ID or something along those lines). Imagine if when you opened your MacBook Pro, and you’re instantly logged in. Like the profile picture would be replaced with the Face ID icon or maybe above. It would work like the iPhone where you have to login with your password when you power on your MacBook. You could make it exclusive to certain MacBooks, specs, make the TrueDepth and Face ID exclusive to certain MacBooks, specs, and camera resolutions.
Yeah and then your company spends $15K on webcams and conferencing equipment for the meeting room that you're skyping into.
Your colleagues looks great on your little laptop screen, and you look like a turd on the projector screen they have you stretched out across.
just kidding, i film myself with a potato so they can't tell what i really look like
**said a guy speaking to an 8K red camera**
Hahaha true
And maybe even the one that is watercooled
K
@@Xenoray1 ruclips.net/video/OEUCNh5g-2I/видео.html
Let's be honest the chances of a random girl that goes on a date with him and watching tech channels like these are extremely slim.
Phones: **shoot 8k vid**
Laptops: let me introduce you to the 2000s
8K phone video is still a gimmick
Hai Dang Nguyen this joke is so many funny
Laptops cant talk
My Laptop: *Laughs in 4K*
@@haseenabadshah5381 so can your phonr
Hey that's me at 3:40 ! Nice! Now I gotta tell everyone to come watch haha.
Wow, you're right
cool!
wow, opened your comment right at 3:40 lol
it is you wtf
Coalition Gaming nice
@@litapd311 Great timing lol
Laptop Enthusiasts: Laptops are getting better quality Video, Processing, and bet-
Webcam: Are you sure about that?
no laptop enthusiast mentions good webcam without adding in a surface, or some other more specific device
Photo of other planets & cosmic entities: *very clear & smooth*
Leaked photos of a celebrity: *CCTV resolution*
i dunno those emma watson photos some years ago where pretty high res.
James: "I film myself with a potato"...What are we talking..yukon gold, russet, sweet potato.......
Sweet potato isn't really a potato tho, is it?
I think it is an Arran Pilot personally
@@ohdung I asked a sweet potato what it identifies as, and it replied, "I yam what I yam"
I would upvote your comment, but it has 69 likes. Sorry bro
Yeah. 8k red potatoes...
Mayby they should start plugging in the webcam into usb 3 slot instead of usb 2.
Bruh
Would be much better but still not fast enough if I am not wrong
@@mingyi456 Will be fast enough.
Chen Mingyi For shure fast enought, what do you think do the logitech 4k30fps webcams plug into?
@@BMXaster They do plug into USB 3. I have not seen this particular webcam, but I believe generally external webcams have quite a bit of space to house processing equipment to process the video feed onboard (do they do that though?) so that may also contribute to the difference. Internal webcams may not have as much internal
space for processing considering laptops are going for slim bezels and profiles.
Imagine using your webcam
This comment was made by tape over camera lenses gang
why tf are you here
Hello
Hey
Tape time
How is he here already???
This USB and money argument for shitty laptop webcam has little sense since:
A Samsung S9 camera module cost 20$ and you can get a great 4k 60fps webcam that also use USB.
Now If Skype or Teams could even handle quality over 1080o 15fps is another matter...
How often do you use a webcam?
I think you're massively overestimating how much Laptop manufacturers are willing to spend on webcams....
"Has a webcam" is at most a checkbox they think they need to tick, so they go for the cheapest part they can get out of a crackerjack box to do it. (Or more literally, the cheapest camera module out a bucket of parts in a market in Shenzhen.)
Link to webcams of superior quality please?
@@Cadallin wrong, its like having a barrel and scrapping the crap off the bottom
Except it does make sense. The majority of people aren’t buying laptops or monitors because of the quality of the webcam. It may be a box to check off sure, but that’s about it for most people. So those manufacturers looking to cut costs to stay competitive/increase margins aren’t going to throw a more expensive webcam in there that few people care about.
Similar to how many TVs have worse and worse speakers. Even ignoring the fact that they’re getting thinner and space is limited, most people just hook up a sound bar or other audio system. The speakers are still a box to check off for most people, but the quality doesn’t matter nearly as much as other features.
Their main answer sounds like BS. Phone do amazing with video and there's no lag. Seems to me they are just making excuses for their crap camera on machines that cost us thousands.
As long as you have an Android phone, iCrap video quality is less amazing and more large pixels!
just get an external cam for 50$
@@js0988 iphone is best in terms of dynamic range and exposure in video quality. Fyi I'm an Android user
Is it in some LMG employee handbook that everyone has to say "tiny" like Gru from that Despicable Me?
Yes, rule #16 .. rule #24 is why I declined the job offer tho
And rule #57 is you have to say FreshBooks like bwekfast
@@tenelitebrains I read this comment as he said fweshbuks
Ah thanks! It's been bothering me that I couldn't place where I've heard it and Linus keeps saying it.
I bet rule #34 is Linus's favorite!
HP had so little incentive to improve the webcam they didn’t even bother to ship my laptop with a functional driver to use the thing :p
The driver it came pre-installed with BSOD windows
Reminds me of a Sony Vaio from years back that included a BSOD ethernet driver.
Lol, this is why I don’t ever buy laptops made for windows. The manufacturers just don’t give a crap about their product
Wow I have the same problem with my HP laptop, somehow the camera drivers don't exist? It worked the first two weeks but after an update the damn thing wouldn't work anymore. I've tried finding the drivers but no cigar
Mopsie haha, Some people tried to install Linux on the thing and it bricked their motherboards, guess that’s what you get for a 1500$ workstation laptop. Honestly, this laptop used to be cursed down to the bios. I’ve got to admit that HP has been working hard to get the laptop fixed with dozens of updates, having fixed almost all the issues the system had. Still, it was unacceptable the laptop was shipped with the problems it had (and to this day still has)
Sisa Musudroka have you tried installing it from the softpaq application? That’s the program I use for driver updates and repairs. It’s officially from HP, don’t worry, it’s more advanced than the standard HP support application. Also allowing driver downloads from stuff already installed on the system, useful when a driver dies.
My logitech 720p webcam: noisy nightmare
Every other logitech 720p webcam: sharp af
Lighting.
@@gundamzerostrike not on my phone, the screen light is enough for me to look orders of magnitude better in my phone in video.
@@HAWXLEADER My phone's camera actually does better in normal to low light as well. I've been testing it against 2 digital cameras (Nikon and Canon) and it's won each time.
My phone was 140 dollars, the cameras were about 150.
Capture your webcam with OBS and add filters. Then use "OBS Camera" plugin so you can use OBS output as a source for Google Meet/Hangout, Skype, or Facebook.
@@flameshana9 that's not because the phone has a less noisy sensor, it's because it uses it differently; if you'd shoot 5 or 10 photos with the cameras and then combine result you'd get better low light performance
TLDR: they're lazy and lack finacial motivation to improve it.
pretty much this.
i thought apple, who sell their macbook so expensively, would bring better webcams to their product. But no, even they didnt bother.
TL;DW*
Emmanuel Ferguson w?
@@user-gb2ol2cp1n watch
"I hide the way i look over webcam" .... says the main adonis at LTT
This is James, not Luke.
But what about Riley!?
@@sarahrau1441 but James is still discount Luke :(
@@jefez75 you mean luke is discount jake right?
And luke is bootleg linus?
Jokes on you, I don’t have a webcam!
Add it to the LTT lore that James tries to make his wife forget what he looks like by Skyping with a potato.
3:51 calls 8k camera potato
antoniolududanu 1 it’s a joke
L
Im offended that he would call my camera a potato thats racist its a proper spud
1:35 Aren't those [ external ] HQ webcams and DSLRs connect through USB?
he is simplifiying too much... its probably not only the internal camera USB2.0 connection
you saw that Threadripper video when they run Crysis on the CPU but runs so smooth with a dedicated GPU?
same comparison between laptop camera and DSLR (edit :software vs hardware acceleration)
The interface to the built in Webcam is most likely USB2, and that bus itself that's connected to the Webcam is likely shared with other built in devices on the laptop.
By contrast, most high-quality external webcam uses USB3, and that's dedicated for the webcam only.
I upgraded my computer's webcam
.
It has much better peripheral vision now.
_My, what large... sensors you have, grandma._
*All the better to spy on you with, my pretty.*
I'm going to tell this to my friends and say I thought of it.
01:33 I just tested it. My phone uses 350MB per minute for 4k video. That's plenty of speed available over usb 2 which maxes out around 30MB *per second.*
A laptop would also have a lot more CPU power available to handle the processing.
flameshana9 screen is too thin to have a good sensor.
3:58 B-roll was meant to hide squints or smirks. You know, because FRESSSSHBOOOOOOKS.
3:45 - that's mirrorless NEX-5 which can not be used as web-cam unless you put it through HDMI input interface/device. I wanted to use that camera for that purpose once.
TL;DR it's USB 2 and lack of financial incentive
I always thought the real bottleneck was the need for webcams to stream video over the web over _any_ internet conenction (meaning high compression, low resolution, and for some reason, high latency), not a/the usb connection.
Usb3 can do 1080p@30fps uncompressed, and 4k @ 30fps with regular video compression.
Usb3.1 doubles that.
Usb seems plenty fast and not really a factor.
It's like the manufacturers forgot USB 3 exists...
I want my webcam to be at least 1080p at 60fps!
James temporarily forgot to say it like "FWAAYSSHBOOX"
you do a really good job of mimicking linus' vocal range and expressions. It might be from hours on hours of editing his footy though lol
Is it just me or that webcam photo looked better than DSLR at 3:43.😂😂😂
1:26 lol. Why did you draw the F camera going through the screen ribbon? It's a seperate ribbon
Asus Strix lineup: you can't get spied on if there's no webcam
*BIG BRAIN*
am I the only one who takes selfies in the bathroom with my laptop
Yes
Oh God it's podel don't bring your curses down upon us strange creature
Podel!!!
you may only upgrade to ipad selfies
No, you're not alone m8
'quick Skype call' lolz, that's a great joke - Me on Feb 18, 2020
why can't we use internal USB type c ports someone please explain?
Because profit.
@@Jimmy_Jones lol
Type c is just more or less the physical form of the port, you can still get usb 2.0 type c ports (like my phone). You mean usb 3.xx, probably usb 3.2 gen 2x2 (stupid naming schemes).
The latest has a couple Gbit/s specified, but even usb 2 had 480 Mbit/s (with real world performance lower but still a couple hundred) which I do believe should be plenty of bandwidth, but manufacturers don't give a damn about webcams.
I might be wrong and usb really isn't a good fit, but there's other options as well to handle data in a computer, so there's simply no reason other than don't care.
@@SimonVaIe thanks :)
@@SimonVaIe you're right. It's also because of the processing power needed to encode the video. Using a DSLR with an adapter is easier on the computer because the camera's processor already did all of the hard work encoding. The HDMI signal is a lot easier to pass over USB. Honestly, I'd rather manufacturers completely remove the webcam
It's ironic that my current internet connection means that I'm forced to watch this video in 144p. Yay steel buildings
Topic for another video: why flagship phones have more RAM than most laptops.
Because flagship phone makers have no more ideas to make you pay 1000 dollars instead of a 500 dollars phone that does the exact same thing, so they started to just increase the numbers of the phone to make you believe that it's a drastic improvement when it's actually just marketing.
@@pneumonoultramicroscopicsi4065, you summarized what a future video on this topic would have been like. Bravo!
That's what Samsung did with the S20 Ultra.
@UltraJeed, that's a nice take on the question. A lot of people do use their phone like computers for business or gaming. However, it's hard to imagine the average user needing all that RAM.
@UltraJeed, that is true. Android takes up way more memory than iOS and smartphone companies make this worse by adding their own skin on Android. This could warrant the need for more RAM but after a certain number, it becomes just for show.
There's another reason...
Just look at the top of your Laptop and how extremely thin those things are there. For example, the part where the camera sits on a Macbook Air is only about 2mm thick. That's less than 1/4 of what a typical Smartphone even without the camera bump which adds another 1-2mm. Camera modules and lenses in phones are mostly 4-6mm thick and there's literally no possible way to fit these above the screen where the camera normally sits.
Devices like the Surface Pro are MUCH thicker there and surprise - the quality is much better.
Surface pro 6 user here. It has nice Microsoft hello facial recognition, which uses multiple sensors, there's like 3 or 4 sensors there I believe. And I love that feature. But truth be told, the webcam is still shit. Like a phone from 5-10 years ago or something. And yes, it's definitely thick enough.
Every time there is a sponsor on Techquickie, there is a high chance that the sponsor is Freshbooks.
I requested this long back, maybe 2 years, Can not believe LTT listend.
1:32 USB 2.0 or USB 3.x?
There is a difference. Maybe upgrade to USB 3.x.
Why not intergrate an soc with the webcam that will do the processing
Logitech c920 had an h.264 encoder... The latest 4k Logitech brio cam doesn't even have one.. So you need a very powerful CPU. Lack of competition caused Logitech to stop innovating in my opinion.
@@Ronny999x how expensive would it be to build a cpu specifically for that task or use existing ones like the snapdragon..
Yeah it kind of seems like a dead market with no improvements at all since the c920
@@Many_Mirrors it would cost millions to make such a chip. But apparently Logitech makes use of Intel Amd and Nvidia hardware encoders in the GPU of your computer. So they can save money on the webcam.. The downside if that is that all the video will go uncompressed over the USB connection. They have an article on it: www.logitech.com/en-us/video-collaboration/resources/think-tank/articles/article-logitech-and-h264-encoding.html
@@Ronny999x that works for streamers that have powerful GPUs. But what about anyone else that has a low power laptop on the go?
Surely it's a simple problem to solve though. Slap on a USB 3 interface instead of crappy USB 2, do processing & encoding on a GPU.
but how will they sell new laptops later on?
The problem is actually the screen half of the laptop is too thin to place a decent size sensor into in the first place....
Techquickie, I really enjoyed watching this, so I hit the like button!
so because they refuse to add internal usb 3.1 connection webcam is bad ?
most people don't need a laptop webcam to be any better so no company really has any incentive to make them better
@@HearMeLearn nice pic!
Basicly yes, as all the other internal components don't require USB3 speeds and USB2 chips are almost free compared to USB3 chips.
1:24 why did you draw the line going from a hole in the screen, following the digitizer ribbon?
The front camera cable and ribbon on the iPhone 6, like other phones, it’s own flex cable, you coulda got one with it in the phone and had a shorter line to the logic board on it from the very visible front camera.
1:30 you guys do know that this is the display/touch cable and not the flex cable for the upper assembly, right?
*tbh ultrabooks should have a webcam upgrade because most business people use it often for video conferencing. They can keep their 720p webcam in gaming laptops*
I find the latency argument unacceptable when in literally the same video they mention being able to attach a DSLR camera as a webcam
i don't think it connects using a USB at least, maybe an HDMI port
@@AnkitSingh-ez5gc USB can carry HDMI signals. The whole issue with USB is that they are using ancient webcams using USB2.
I think not having space for a better camera is more of an issue! He mentioned in the video that “LAPTOPS HAVE MORE SPACE FOR CAMERA”, but that’s totally bullshit for the most part. Most laptops have their webcam sits on top of the screen which is at least a good 3-4 times thinner than any smartphones, which restrict the size of the camera that they can fit in the first place!
You don't understand the argument.
Since shitty hardware is used, a computational approach based on multiple images is used, which causes a data transfer bottleneck.
If you use a DSLR, your hardware isnt shitty, so you don't ned post processing to get a good video/picture
The main reason that laptop cameras are bad is how thin laptop screens are. Cameras have to be thick and that’s why smartphones have camera bumps on the back. Everything else you guys mentioned in the video are just excuses by cheap laptop manufacturers. They can easily put in an ISP to process photos and videos in a laptop but they don’t because the bottleneck is how thin the camera is.
1:32 - Laptops built-in webcams are connected over USB, then I am asking how come external webcams are connected also OVER USB and produce stunning results! There is no excuse for laptop manufacturers to do the same to a laptop as those companies manufacturing phones do to their phones. Nowadays the laptops are also gaming machines with high-end specs that could easily handle a bloody webcam, even if it means to connect straight to memory or any other component they could come up with for smooth true HD live streaming. Also, internet speed connections are way faster than 10 or more years ago, so it's another bollocks, to say that broadband speeds are not fast enough to handle it. And in case of a low broadband speed aren't there already implemented (automatic or manual) quality controls that help to stream in lower quality for the sake of smooth live streaming?...
Smart phones ended up as a way to replace anything that goes into your pockets, so it has to take photos, make calls, unlock your house, ring an alarm, tell time, etc, all rapidly and more efficiently than other items we used to stuff in our pockets and bags. They sort of became perfect unitaskers... while not actually being one. Laptops are not generally expected to be much beyond mobile PCs, so things like the webcam have remained ho-hum bells and whistles to fill out the spec sheet.
You pop out your phone to do one thing quickly and efficiently, while typically you sit down for more complex activities on your laptop.
I have dell xps 15. But it looks up your nose!😂
It's bad compared to MacBook Pro
it's shit, I have one
@@mistekfcio Is it? That's embarrassing to dell considering how mediocre the webcam on my macbook pro is.
@@volundrfrey896 macbook pro 2020 webcam is so trash, grainy quality
Please. Even 150$ phones these days take good pics and videos which are better than most laptops.
I never was bothered about the webcams in laptops because I'm so small that whenever I try to do a video call the another person will see me very pixelated.
Thanks. That clarified things. If one needs both good video and good sound, we have to go with the laptop with both external camera and external stereo microphones with USB audio interface. It is not so easy to attach good stereo microphones to a cell phone.
I'm willing to pay $50 more to get quality that at least matches my 5 YEARS old iPhone 6s camera that is literally dirt cheap at this point (for the entire phone) & still shoots 4k with a ton of detail 👀
Ps. Imagine how thrifty these companies are. The camera module on a 5 year old phone & they still want to save on that.
Just use your phone as a webcam then...
It's annoying my pedantic side that the screenshot at @3:44 is showing a mirrorless camera with DSLR as the title (DSLR is to mirrorless cameras as V8s are to Teslas)
iPads have cameras for:
Scanning QR codes
Scanning documents
Kids without phones
Augmented reality
Rlly
Apple 🥱
USB 3 has plenty of bandwidth for video streams. Literally the only reason for cheaping out on laptop camera is to save a dollar or two. Which is fine for $200 laptops, but it's not nearly as excusable when they use the same grade camera on a $2000 laptop.
But when’s the last time you Skyped someone on a laptop? It’s been years for me
Wow, I never knew this... Very good explanation and easy to understand.
They got this video idea after watching the 'I've been thinking about retiring' live stream
3:11 James wants to slap my dad
HELPPP!!!!
I think laptops should just remove their built-in webcams. They're seriously useless.
Or just include external ones in the box.
They cost a buck or two at the most, so why not have them in case you need to video conference?
Gat yeah! They should be an optional external solution. Not forced just so the government can watch us fapping.
Keep in mind that a laptop maker doesn't need to do much R&D for the camera as they are pre-made modules. They can also do what smartphone makers do on budget devices. Source modules used on previous gen devices. A good smartphone camera dies not need a ton of computational photography. You can bypass it all by capturing a raw image which nearly all modern smartphones allow. You will see that the raw image looks far better than anything a $200+ Webcam would produce. The issue is a smartphone will use a 1/2 inch sensor while a overpriced Webcam will use a 1/4 or even 1/8 inch sensor. Thus you end up with similar quality to what you see from the front facing cameras on the $100 smartphones.
The smartphone camera in normal use, does not dump the raw data to the CPU cores unless requested. Instead there is a dedicated ISP that processes the raw data from the ADC. Some camera modules will even do that in the camera module itself (which is common on lower cost smartphones where the SOC ISP is rated for a max of 8mp but they managed to stick a 16+ megapixel sensor in it. Such modules can be used in a USB Webcam, since those modules can directly output an 8 bit 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 output at a range of bit rates. Along with straight RGB 10 bit output for stills. This is common for many devices using lower end mediatek SOCs.
What is with the Description? Somebody fix this weird glitch.
[Intergration Video Description]
[SEO optimized video description[
2:50 is the most critical answer/reason. They "could" but don't.
Why did the title change when I clicked on the video to: "why webcams suck YT MATCH 60 75"...?
I find this really annoying too, pretty much ever video ltt makes changes the title so that you will accidentally watch it twice (the already-watched function on youtube is glitchy as all hells, so sadly their tactic works).
Must be something on RUclips's end, potentially with the new youtube design.
I'm still one the old one (before material layout), never seen anything like this.. though I don't tend to catch videos
@@AceStrife It isn't a youtube design thing afaik (how would youtube know what to name the videos?), rather it is the uploader editing the title after uploading. As for when they do that, it differs. Usually it is within 24 hours of uploading at the very least, and while I have been unable to measure, I suspect ltt does it after an hour or two?
edit: which means, as I update my subscription feed in the morning (to get reply-notifications) I might have something released "36 minutes ago" (like right now, "its already here!?" by techlinked). But I don't open the video until towards the evening, at which point the unupdated feed shows one name, but the opened video shows another. And when I update the feed, the name is changed there too.
Take 37:
Linus, off-camera: No No James its FR-EEHHH-SH Books. Try again!
In the world of zoom meetings and Skype meetings you think that laptop manufacturers would actually care as they tend to follow Apple but as they don’t care. The first iSight camera was introduced in 2005 and you think they could put a depth sensor .
One thing I have trouble with constantly is the microphone.
Never mind, I can relate. I also wanna slap people that take pictures with iPad.
Septimus Solis same, like do u not have a cell phone? Especially considering phone camera is higher quality
Smekk em’
well I mean they have a bigger display, can help for quick edits on the go for example and you can also see the photo better than on a small smartphone display
im not going insane but there are circles on the grey background in this right? look really closely
"Oh I just wanna slap 'em"
What about the idea screen size, or are you saying normalized between the two? It would certainly seem that it’s easier to make an image look crisp on a 4 to 6 inch screen, compared to a 20 to 30 inch screen, as well
Tbh they should just remove cameras from laptops and tablets altogether
҉ and phones as well front and back.
P.S.I’m not a policeman.
Then, why is not true for external webcams that connects to same slow memory of a PC?
A Nokia 3310 has a better camera than my 2018 laptop
Laptop manufacturers: I mean, who bother uses webcam anyway?
Covid-19: I'm gonna end these men whole career
1:28 EW what am I seeing?
I was just thinking about this and makes me wonder, where is the technology to use cell phones as a computers main source of webcam. Like so main ideas and thoughts on that. Going to research it. If not possible, why not? You could have files split themselves up, then once a file is finished move itself onto the computer and either keep a copy on the phone or automatically delete itself once it verifies that its on the computer.
when you're so early to comment, you don't know what to say.
I think another reason would be the vastly lower thickness of laptop screens compared to phones, since camera optics need a certain length to be able to project incoming light onto a reasonably sized sensor.
Nusm4 Thank you! I think this is the main issue! Software and AI can help to a certain extent, but at some point if u have a crappy sensor you’re gonna have a crappy image...
I think that people keep trying to come up with excuses, but I suspect it's simply that laptop manufacturers believe it won't make a difference in sales to go with the cheapest webcam they can put on the machine.
Cell phone reviews used to almost entirely be about comparing cameras and there was a lot of money and research poured into having the "best" camera.
This guy is a Tobey Maguire from another universe.
That's not a valid reason. Whoever they talked to at Logitech (who have a vested interest in selling computer peripheral cameras) lied to them. There are tons of USB cameras, some made by Logitech, that take great video. Either way, no one cares about laptop web cams. They're very rarely used, so they don't need to be great.
if 0:23 is supposed to be a webcam, its the best webcam i've ever seen. i've got a 720p usb webcam and its nowhere near that crisp and clear. any laptop i've ever tried webcam on it looks like one of those little $5 camera-corders from walgreens meant for kids. 640x480 at 30fps that looks like 20fps and grains all colorful-like.
Timestamp 3:41 dslr guide tutorial is from a youtuber called Coalition Gaming.
There are actually a lot of Laptop/Tablet manufacturer that opt for embedded webcams that use MIPI (mipi.org/) and not USB internally, which allows for better bandwidth and therefore resolution and less compression. However, this comes at a higher cost and shorter cable length.
USB? I dont buy it since external Cameras are also connected to that. How about connecting it to PCIE 2 or M.2 slots?
I'm using Kinect 2.0 captured by OBS, adding filters and and greenscreen, then use OBS Camera plugin to trick my computer into thinking that OBS output is external webcam so I can use it in hangouts.
I'd like more options to exclude it altogether when ordering, same with front facing phone cameras. Many people make zero use of them and they are a unnecessary security liability.
what about a thunderbolt connection built into the top of your screen that you can plug a little thumb sized camera into and then unplug and store in a little slot in your laptop, like a stylus pen.
Get a camlink and us a dslr cam. Way better than a webcam. Glad i made the switch
Now for the actual question I thought was going to be answered. Why do EXTERNAL webcams still suck?
Even Logitech (who must have like 99% of the external webcam market) have only made like 3 new webcams in the last 10 years..
whenever I watch youtubers or streamers their webcams always look very good, even when zoomed in (they sometimes make their camera fill the video, quality is still very good)
What do recommend for a webcam? All the models I saw (mainly Logitech) weren't as good as a phone, and some of the were worth more than 100 usd. For example the highest end being Logitech Brio. My aim is to use it for videocalls
James with back to back quality LMG videos
Buyer: purchases laptop for 3K
And web cam sucks.
Laptop manufacturer :
If the camera was any better you couldn't afford it .
Webcams? I just cover those up so that when a hacker tries to hack my laptop webcam, they're dissapointed.