Oh no I am just about to receive mine. The Lumina appealed to me because of the deep amount of video settings (I am in live broadcasting so having the extra options which no one else offers, sounded really good to me.) I got it for a decent discount (150 euros incl. shipping) so I guess it's wasn't that bad. But seeing your video worries me. So much detail just gets lost like the details in the sweater/shirt and you can't just fix that by adding more sharpening either. Oh well. I'll see how it will react to my environment and hope for the better. It's going to replace my Logitech Streamcam so its bound to be at least better than that I hope.
Hopefully, newer Luminas don't suffer from the issues mine do. It's possible the early Lumina cameras weren't very good or rushed out because they were really behind schedule. I see others rave, but that hasn't been my experience.
@@jesse.mccune I can confirm that nothing of that has been fixed. I am not going to sell as I do like the extra options like curve lift gamma gain. But yeah it's a weird cam for sure. It's both better and worse than my old webcam. It's a bit less detailed and sharp but the sharpening algorithm is just terrible. It only seems to add weird white sparkling things, not actual sharpness. But the dynamic range is soo much better compared to the logitech Streamcam. Equal as noisy tho which is a bummer. The card to calibrate is absolutely useless tho. It over exposes the image by a lot and the colors are all off.
I don’t know if I should feel relieved that mine weren’t defective or frustrated that they continue to hype up this camera that doesn’t live up to it. Like you said, it was the DSLR type control they boast that made me pull the trigger.
@@jesse.mccune Yeah I have a feeling that they are using an older sensor from Sony. The newer 'DSLR' like cameras like the Facecams from Elgato or the high end one from Avermedia all use the newer Starvis sensor designed for security cameras. The sensor in the Lumina is an odd one with a fixed ISO which is why it's really noisy no matter what (and it's a bit older compared to the newer Starvis sensors.)
@annekedebruyn7797 Thank you for sharing those insights. It definitely helps clarify some things, but still leaves the question of why so many people seem to love the Lumina.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that. Since the files were all different lengths, I did the math to calculate the size per minute of video. The difference really comes down to being forced into using Riverside for the Lumina clip instead of Quicktime. • Lumina: 35MB per minute (Riverside) • Brio: 1 GB per minute (Quicktime) • Canon R8: 1 GB per minute (Quicktime)
And speaking of file sizes, when I was editing the video I had just added the video from Riverside without the raw audio and was surprised how bad the embedded audio is on the video file. I'll be doing a video that demonstrates the difference and why we should always be using the raw audio when editing.
@@jesse.mccune Wow! That's a huge difference in file size! I don't often record video, Jesse, but I'm well familiar with our security camera system and tinkering with frame rate, compression and quality settings in camera. Running 12 cameras at HD with constant bit rate at 30fps chokes the host computer, so I've done lot of playing with the camera settings to arrive at a good compromise between quality and a manageable data stream. It's amazing to me the processing power of a $75 security camera (Amcrest) - to compress and transmit 2 or 3 video streams simultaneously - one for the networked video recorder in 720P, one for my PC to watch out for bad guys in VGA, and one for my cell phone. I wouldn't be surprised if the Lumina is transmitting in H264/H265 or equivalent to get the stream (and file) size down so low.
The difference has to do with using Riverside to record rather than Quicktime. If I could record the Lumina in Quicktime, the file size would be 1GB per minute like the others. I could be wrong, but my understanding is the encoding happens during the recording stage, not at the camera stage. The cameras are simply passing the video to the computer and Quicktime or Riverside are handling the encoding.
@@jesse.mccune What I find myself wishing for, is the ability to capture or measure the data stream in raw form directly out of camera to note the differences. I looked up a page at Engineer's Garage who disassembled an older HP web cam. It was a combination of sensors, analog to digital converters (video and audio) and processors to convert that to a transmittable format. It also had a JPG encoder engine, which of course is a compressed format so it was compressing audio and video data before it was sent. I suspect we'd find there is some processing in both the camera and in the recording app on the Mac or PC. But which accounts for the blur and poor color rendering?
I haven't run into any overheating issues with it in webcam mode. Other than using it for a timelapse at a studio install I was on, I haven't used it for anything but a webcam. It's been solid for me and I've left it on for days a few times.
I’m not sure how to change the output resolution, but I know the max in webcam mode is 2k. If you want to get 4K in as a webcam, you’ll need to use the HDMI out into a capture card like an Elgato Camlink.
I've had the Lumina since November, about 6 months. I use it quite a bit and have settings for daytime and nighttime. I've also gone deep into the settings, which it seems you did not. I also have the Brio, and I can get the both looking far closer than you did. At any rate, to toss in the mirrorless as a compare is patently ridiculous, apples and kiwi's. The Lumina has worked without fail on Riverside, I have two podcasts and use it there all the time, without incidence in 6 months. I HAVE gone deeper into the settings though, where I assigned it to my alternate graphics engine, leaving my Quadra to process the design software I use in my Zooms and podcasts. The blurring function is hands down the best I've ever seen or heard of. It almost seems that you had a pre-determined outcome...
I appreciate your thoughts and wish my experience mirrored yours. I assure you I didn’t have a pre-determined outcome when I bought two of these during their crowd funding campaign. I don’t feel it’s ridiculous to compare the Lumina to a mirrorless since Lumina claims it’s a dslr-level webcam. My aim was to show what the three cameras looked like without adjusting the settings. I assure you I dig into the settings and worked with tech support over the couple years I’ve had the Luminas and it never got any better. I’m all ears if you have tips on how to make the Lumina produce a clear image instead of the noisy image it gives me now.
Oh no I am just about to receive mine.
The Lumina appealed to me because of the deep amount of video settings (I am in live broadcasting so having the extra options which no one else offers, sounded really good to me.)
I got it for a decent discount (150 euros incl. shipping) so I guess it's wasn't that bad. But seeing your video worries me. So much detail just gets lost like the details in the sweater/shirt and you can't just fix that by adding more sharpening either.
Oh well. I'll see how it will react to my environment and hope for the better. It's going to replace my Logitech Streamcam so its bound to be at least better than that I hope.
Hopefully, newer Luminas don't suffer from the issues mine do. It's possible the early Lumina cameras weren't very good or rushed out because they were really behind schedule. I see others rave, but that hasn't been my experience.
@@jesse.mccune I can confirm that nothing of that has been fixed. I am not going to sell as I do like the extra options like curve lift gamma gain. But yeah it's a weird cam for sure.
It's both better and worse than my old webcam. It's a bit less detailed and sharp but the sharpening algorithm is just terrible. It only seems to add weird white sparkling things, not actual sharpness. But the dynamic range is soo much better compared to the logitech Streamcam. Equal as noisy tho which is a bummer.
The card to calibrate is absolutely useless tho. It over exposes the image by a lot and the colors are all off.
I don’t know if I should feel relieved that mine weren’t defective or frustrated that they continue to hype up this camera that doesn’t live up to it. Like you said, it was the DSLR type control they boast that made me pull the trigger.
@@jesse.mccune Yeah I have a feeling that they are using an older sensor from Sony.
The newer 'DSLR' like cameras like the Facecams from Elgato or the high end one from Avermedia all use the newer Starvis sensor designed for security cameras.
The sensor in the Lumina is an odd one with a fixed ISO which is why it's really noisy no matter what (and it's a bit older compared to the newer Starvis sensors.)
@annekedebruyn7797 Thank you for sharing those insights. It definitely helps clarify some things, but still leaves the question of why so many people seem to love the Lumina.
The Lumina is blurry and also washes you out some. How did the recorded file sizes compare between the Lumina, Brio and R8?
Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that. Since the files were all different lengths, I did the math to calculate the size per minute of video. The difference really comes down to being forced into using Riverside for the Lumina clip instead of Quicktime.
• Lumina: 35MB per minute (Riverside)
• Brio: 1 GB per minute (Quicktime)
• Canon R8: 1 GB per minute (Quicktime)
And speaking of file sizes, when I was editing the video I had just added the video from Riverside without the raw audio and was surprised how bad the embedded audio is on the video file. I'll be doing a video that demonstrates the difference and why we should always be using the raw audio when editing.
@@jesse.mccune Wow! That's a huge difference in file size! I don't often record video, Jesse, but I'm well familiar with our security camera system and tinkering with frame rate, compression and quality settings in camera. Running 12 cameras at HD with constant bit rate at 30fps chokes the host computer, so I've done lot of playing with the camera settings to arrive at a good compromise between quality and a manageable data stream. It's amazing to me the processing power of a $75 security camera (Amcrest) - to compress and transmit 2 or 3 video streams simultaneously - one for the networked video recorder in 720P, one for my PC to watch out for bad guys in VGA, and one for my cell phone. I wouldn't be surprised if the Lumina is transmitting in H264/H265 or equivalent to get the stream (and file) size down so low.
The difference has to do with using Riverside to record rather than Quicktime. If I could record the Lumina in Quicktime, the file size would be 1GB per minute like the others. I could be wrong, but my understanding is the encoding happens during the recording stage, not at the camera stage. The cameras are simply passing the video to the computer and Quicktime or Riverside are handling the encoding.
@@jesse.mccune What I find myself wishing for, is the ability to capture or measure the data stream in raw form directly out of camera to note the differences. I looked up a page at Engineer's Garage who disassembled an older HP web cam. It was a combination of sensors, analog to digital converters (video and audio) and processors to convert that to a transmittable format. It also had a JPG encoder engine, which of course is a compressed format so it was compressing audio and video data before it was sent. I suspect we'd find there is some processing in both the camera and in the recording app on the Mac or PC. But which accounts for the blur and poor color rendering?
Any overheating issues with R8 in webcam mode? Thanks!
I haven't run into any overheating issues with it in webcam mode. Other than using it for a timelapse at a studio install I was on, I haven't used it for anything but a webcam. It's been solid for me and I've left it on for days a few times.
How can I get the r8 to output 4k as a webcam? I’m stuck in 1080😢 please help
I’m not sure how to change the output resolution, but I know the max in webcam mode is 2k. If you want to get 4K in as a webcam, you’ll need to use the HDMI out into a capture card like an Elgato Camlink.
@@jesse.mccune challenge accepted!! I really appreciate your response. Have a great day and good luck!
@@DanDansNoodle Happy to help.
I've had the Lumina since November, about 6 months. I use it quite a bit and have settings for daytime and nighttime. I've also gone deep into the settings, which it seems you did not. I also have the Brio, and I can get the both looking far closer than you did. At any rate, to toss in the mirrorless as a compare is patently ridiculous, apples and kiwi's. The Lumina has worked without fail on Riverside, I have two podcasts and use it there all the time, without incidence in 6 months. I HAVE gone deeper into the settings though, where I assigned it to my alternate graphics engine, leaving my Quadra to process the design software I use in my Zooms and podcasts. The blurring function is hands down the best I've ever seen or heard of. It almost seems that you had a pre-determined outcome...
I appreciate your thoughts and wish my experience mirrored yours. I assure you I didn’t have a pre-determined outcome when I bought two of these during their crowd funding campaign. I don’t feel it’s ridiculous to compare the Lumina to a mirrorless since Lumina claims it’s a dslr-level webcam. My aim was to show what the three cameras looked like without adjusting the settings.
I assure you I dig into the settings and worked with tech support over the couple years I’ve had the Luminas and it never got any better. I’m all ears if you have tips on how to make the Lumina produce a clear image instead of the noisy image it gives me now.