Why are PC webcams crap? Lenovo says it knows the reason

It's not just Reg readers who recognize the less than satisfactory quality of built-in computer webcams. Appparently, the world's biggest PC maker does too. The work-from-home revolution thrust upon much of the world in 2020 forced us to stay in contact remotely, so Zoom, Teams, WebEx, and others became the medium used to keep …

[Fred Flintstone]

this author suspects he'd need some sort of integrated AI capability to make his visage look passable in the mornings. Better to keep the damn thing off.

I use the Deadpool technique. Also because I now have staple marks which take a while to heal.

:)

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

>Also because I now have staple marks which take a while to heal.

Don't touch the guy in the basement's red stapler

[NBCanuck]

Required Milton quote

“If they take my stapler, I’ll have to, I’ll set the building on fire.”

[Trigonoceps occipitalis]

Re: Required Milton quote

I'll give you my stapler when you pry it from my cold, dead hands,

[AdamK]

But the USB jobbies are still crap too...

Most of the USB cams seems to be stuck in 2004. They were a dying market before the pandemic and may go that way again.

[Sandtitz]

Re: But the USB jobbies are still crap too...

"Most of the USB cams seems to be stuck in 2004."

How so? In 2004 the USB webcams had a video resolution up to 480p.

A quick search online: a 1080p webcam costs €15. I'm sure I didn't even spot the cheapest one. At the higher end there are Logitech 4K webcams with HDR/stereo mics/bells/whistles.

What else do you need from a webcam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: But the USB jobbies are still crap too...

> How so? In 2004 the USB webcams had a video resolution up to 480p.

True, but better alternatives have arrived since then. The Logitech C920 was released in 2012, and offered very good 1080p recordings. I'm still regretting lending mine out to an friend during lockdown, since it's proven all but impossible to find a quality budget replacement.

> What else do you need from a webcam?

Some halfway decent picture and audio quality would be good...

I've recently been reviewing a bunch of tech gear, which included a £30 1080p webcam. And the image quality was frankly shocking, with very high noise visible even in a fairly well lit room.

Similar applied to the audio - there was a distinct whine in the background, which wasn't present in the real world - or when testing a dedicated microphone. Which is doubly ironic because the webcam claimed to have noise cancellation built in...

Admittedly, it's not the worst thing I've tested - there was a kid's camera, which claimed to have a 12mp sensor, but in practice appears to just be resizing the output from a 0.3mp (aka: 640*480) lens before saving. Or a "40mp" camera, which seemed to actually have a 40mp sensor, but had the visual quality of a cheap webcam. Such as the aforementioned £30 jobbie.

But fundamentally, camera optics, sensors and microphones are one of the areas where manufacturers can cheap out, and so they do. And with the vast majority of manufacturers using different combinations of the same shells/hardware/etc, it's all but impossible to find any reliable information on which ones actually provide a quality experience!

[Ian Johnston]

Re: But the USB jobbies are still crap too...

The Logitech C920 was released in 2012, and offered very good 1080p recordings. I'm still regretting lending mine out to an friend during lockdown, since it's proven all but impossible to find a quality budget replacement.

£63.98 from Amazon

I use a C270 which works fine and costs fifteen quid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: But the USB jobbies are still crap too...

> I use a C270 which works fine and costs fifteen quid.

I should clarify - the key problem was that having lent my webcam out during lockdown, I was then stuck with having to try and find a replacement *during* lockdown. And at that point, branded webcams were a bit thin on the ground...

If memory serves, the first one I bought was so atrociously bad that I sent it back; the second one was somewhat better, but had a poor quality microphone.

I ended up just using my mobile phone for the various online events I attended - unlike laptop and webcam manufacturers, there's a lot of focus paid on their cameras, so the quality was significantly better!

[eldakka]

Re: But the USB jobbies are still crap too...

You get what you pay for.

You can get some nice USB webcams for ￡300+:

https://store.insta360.com/product/link?c=1980

[Roland6]

Re: But the USB jobbies are still crap too...

And you can some really nice "webcams" from CEX - you just need to know your digital cameras to know which ones have a 1080p (or better) video output.

[Anonymous Coward]

That'll be why their performance stinks...

As a Scot, I've no idea why anyone would want "USB jobbies", but by definition you'd certainly expect them to be "crap". :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

meh

Like most technical folks, I default to camera off during meetings. Waste of bandwidth to use video (can be an issue if most of the office is on calls). If someone with enough authority demands I turn on my camera, they get what they get. If the video quality stinks, what do I care.

[Neil Barnes]

Re: meh

Camera off, and with a mechanical hand-made shutter over the damned thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: meh

Hand made shutter sounds like too much work to me. I never took the protective film off the thing, then added a bit of black electrical tape on top.

Best way to improve video conferencing productivity is treat it like thermo nuclear war, the only way to win is not to play

[Stork]

Re: meh

Mini post it here

[jmch]

Re: meh

The Lenovo laptop from my previous employer had a physical slider to block it. It's a simple bit of plastic, every laptop webcam should have it really

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: meh

My Current HP Probook does too, but I never use it, if someone sees me at work machine, am I really bothered?

[BOFH in Training]

Re: meh

I got a Lenovo Legion 7 with a physical slider / switch for the webcam, and in the pass year that I have owned it, I have only enabled the camera once.

Rest of the time, camera is disabled.

I too wish more laptops have such support.

[Snake]

Re: meh

Do what portrait photographers back in the 1920's to 50's did - smear a touch of petrolatum on the lens. If they complain that your webcam looks soft and a bit fuzzy, give them a shrug and tell them it's the best you can do :p

[Cederic]

Re: meh

Like most deaf people, I reduce the amount I draw people like you into interesting and career enhancing work.

I'll work with the people willing to communicate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: meh

You don't think that people don't have valid reasons for not wanting their webcam on? Perhaps they have low self esteem or some sort of body dysphoria.

What gives you the right to impact other people's future based on mental conditions which you have no idea about?

Luckily these days bigots, even those trying to flag that they tick diversity boxes, stand a good chance of getting booted out.

[druck]

Re: meh

We aren't talking about making an appearance on national TV, but a video call to people you work with everyday. No one is expecting you to look perfect, and it's often nice to see a friendly face - unless you don' have a friendly face that is.

[Roland6]

Re: meh

>Like most deaf people

I assume you have two screens: one for the meeting and one for signing.

Not being funny, just that that is what the deaf people I work with have, obviously, employer pays for signing service.

Also signing service tends to be iPad or equivalent - better quality camera etc. than laptop...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: meh

Interacting with deaf people in a Teams or Skype call is not a use case I've encountered (or considered). Does video really provide you with a meaningful improvement during meetings?

Asking because I generally want to know. Clearly it's a huge benefit when two people are communicating with sign language. I can't sign anything beyond enough colors to play Uno, so for a typical corporate meeting if I'm talking I suspect that your visual focus would be on an interpreter or on a transcription. That, combined with the lag in translation makes it seem that visual cues from my camera would be pretty useless to you.

If there's communication value, I'd certainty turn on a webcam during a meeting. If there's only "I just like to see my team" value for a sales weasel type, then I'm only complying if the boss says so.

[Roland6]

Re: meh

>Does video really provide you with a meaningful improvement during meetings?

For the deaf person, yes - at the most basic it allows them to better link what is being said to an individual.

For other participants, they can see their deaf colleague is signing and so can pause the conversation whilst waiting for the interpreter.

> for a typical corporate meeting if I'm talking I suspect that your visual focus would be on an interpreter or on a transcription.

That also happens in real-world meetings. In small meetings, a good interpreter will try and position themselves next to the main non-deaf speaker, to help those watching the signing to also have the speaker within their field of vision.

Basically, video, albeit for a relatively large communications overhead, does deliver a few more visual cues. However, as many have noted the quality of the video does leave much to be desired, however if the streaming service permits the use of a second display, I can recommend using a larger screen (eg. old 32-inch HD TV) to display the meeting participants - whilst it won't receive a better video feed, the size means you aren't peering into a tiny laptop screen. But having several screens etc. is probably a benefit of WfH and thus having a home office...

[rfrazier]

When I had to teach remotely (university / tutorials), I wanted a decent picture. I tried a number cameras/webcams, but ended up using a Panasonic HC-V180 camcorder with a Flint Lx capture device. Decent lens, and, especially useful, physical zoom (for framing). One downside is that is was expensive. Another is that, because of the size, I don't think it would have worked without a pretty static, studio type setting. However, really good for my use.

Best wishes,

Bob

[katrinab]

I got a Canon EOS M200 and an Elgato capture device.

Probably a Sony would have been better, but they were more expensive and not in stock.

It works fine, video quality is very good, but I don't like the Micro-HDMI + Micro USB + Dummy battery & barrel plug setup. USB-C would be so much better.

[Anonymous Coward]

Canon released a driver that lets you use most of its cameras as "webcams" - excellent quality - just it burns through batteries quickly, and thereby works best with an AC adapter which might cost you more than a good Logitech webcam.

Download it here: https://www.canon-europe.com/cameras/eos-webcam-utility/

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you use linux, gphoto2 has support directly, and you can preview and use a v4l2 loopback driver to get the stream appearing as a /dev/video device.

[rfrazier]

Or OBS Studio?

Bob

[katrinab]

OBS Studio, at least on the Mac, needs the Canon driver. I guess in Linux, you could use the gphoto thing.

[rfrazier]

I'm using a Flint Lx capture device, which takes the HDMI output of the camera and makes it available over USB3 as a UVC compatible signal. So, no special drivers needed, and gphoto not needed. (Using the Flint capture device is one reason the setup is expensive.)

Best wishes,

Bob

[katrinab]

That's pretty much what I use. But you do need the capture device, and a camera that can output clean HDMI.

[Mike 137]

Why are PC webcams crap?

The chips are cheap (even these days), but half decent lenses are expensive. If you're spending c. 1.5k on an iPhone (or at least that much in aggregate over the duration of your contract) you can legitimately expect a reasonable lens -- albeit not up to SLR standards. But the total cost of a commonplace laptop doesn't typically allow for anything except a much cheaper lens to be fitted. Consequently, a lower resolution chip may also be used to save some pennies. The result is commonly a '90s image.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Why are PC webcams crap?

The chips are cheap, the lenses are crap. There are physical limits to what you can do with a 1mm diameter lens in a 1mm deep package if you aren't allowed to change the wavelength or speed of light.

What they do have is $$$$ worth of very clever AI trickery to fix up the images. This is what you get if you use your fruit based device for instance

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair, physics.

But nothing is forcing them to user a microdot pinhole lens. As it turns out due to economies of scale, slightly larger cellphone camera parts are close to same price. The bigger optics don't actually ad meaningfully to the price, it's not the materials they aren't made of gold and diamonds after all. Literally stuff like plastic, silica, and quartz.

So the main hold-up is the capitol cost to upgrade the machines that put the screens together, or they wait for their suppliers to respond to the marked and make a slightly less horrid part that is package compatible with their existing line. The only issue is if a manufacturer insists on going to an edge to edge screen with little or no bezel at the top. That means a behind the glass camera like our friends at Apple love so much. Or god forbid, a notch.

Id go the other way, stick the whole frontside camera setup off a cellphone, along with a few mics, and some speakers and leave them in a rubberized top bar that will protect the screen from slamming down into the key caps when I slap it closed and throw it into a backpack. That would free up enough space in the main body for an actual Ethernet jack as well. (though why we don't have a magsafe style "mini-modular" ethernet plug after 30 years is maddening to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Fair, physics.

I like your thinking! The number of screen artifacts and non-removable scratches I have seen caused by keyboards is very annoying, and please, no more of those stupid folding half-size ethernet jacks! I'd far rather have a slightly thicker machine. It wouldn't add much to the weight.

[MrReynolds2U]

Re: Fair, physics.

Agreed on the ethernet jack front. It feels like I'm breaking something when I try to prise it open for use.

(Lenovo Thinkbook user)

[I could be a dog really]

Re: Fair, physics.

But unfortunately, at least for certain model ranges, us logical techies with an eye for stuff that "works" take second place to trendy marketing or artistic types for whom "appearance" is far more important. Hence ultra-slim models that don't have room for a proper ethernet port (or in many cases now, any ethernet port at all). And for those still buying Apple - an excuse for soldering in the RAM and storage to reduce size.

I have two different laptops for work (don't ask !), one has the drop-jaw ethernet, the other has no port at all so I have to remember to carry around an external adapter - and the guy that sort of manages the office (he's one of us engineers, but as he's in the office most he sort of looks after this sort of thing) keeps a stock of spares for when people turn up without. Employer too cheap to put docks on the desks for us itinerant engineers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why are PC webcams crap?

You are right that the lenses are crap, but not that they are particularly expensive.

Laptop webcams are crap because like all features on non-ultra-super-mega-premium edition machines they are specced out a as box checking exercise. That's why despite people saying the picture was shit and complaining about the lack of a mechanical off switch for years, people weren't buying a new bargain basement laptop for video chats.

They finally started putting decent ones on tablets and phones because Facetime and Skype started to become a talking point on mobile. So when the factories that made shitty cameras for feature phones started losing phone business, they found new customers across the road in the laptop ODM market. Just like feature phones, all that they cared about was checking boxes.

They tried to do the same with WiFi but people noticed that pretty fast, and since add-on cards are a thing of the past, they had to stop cheaping out on WiFi and Bluetooth modules.

Funny thing is the cost per unit for the main cameras in smartphones weren't particularly expensive either. But they still went with the cheaper user facing cameras because they are super cheap. But that's why a decent laptop isn't 5 grand anymore. But the margins at manufacturing are so low they won't even put more than a couple of USB ports on half the laptops these days. Ditto for using shit shared memory graphics for decades.

But once people started using them, the horrid cameras stand out because the picture looks like shit. So now it's a marketing point that will take another 100 out of your wallet when the up-sell you from the Wallmart special "Digital Poverty" edition.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why are PC webcams crap?

My work laptop has 3 USB ports. It's not enough for office use at all, keyboard, mouse, headset and it's full. Can't plug in a memory stick.

I have to run a USB C dongle to get an additional screen and that gives me three more.

[Roland6]

Re: Why are PC webcams crap?

>"ultra-super-mega-premium edition machines"

When I looked just after lockdown the only machines that had decent webcams were MacBooks, from memory none of the majors provided anything better than a 720p webcam on their super spec'd laptop, and as for noise cancelling microphones and reasonable audio (with or without headphones)....

Whilst Lenovo are starting to do something, I'm a little surprised it has taken them so long to talk about this and still have no product offering - the first CoVid lockdown was 2+ years back...

[GBE]

Re: Why are PC webcams crap?

The result is commonly a '90s image.

I don't think my laptop's webcam is working right. I don't remember my hair being that gray and thin in the 90s.

[NATTtrash]

Re: Why are PC webcams crap?

I don't think my laptop's webcam is working right.

Hear, hear. You must have the same one as me.

But are we sure that the quality/ resolution/ hardware of the camera is the only issue? Let's talk about this "new" software enabled, user initiated rubbish of blurring the background. And because it works so well, it shaves off parts of their hair continuously. Or head. Or even worse, selecting "that cool background" which they think is splendid, but matches behaviour of somebody taking out their privates in public. While again removing half of their head. Or placing them all, with the less creative ones (≥ 95%), in the same room, you know, that white walled Scandinavian one with the door behind them. Or the "corner office", to emphasize that in real life they never were and never will get there. While they themselves are in real life low light conditions.

But of course this backgrounds fad is picked up by the software peddlers who sell it off with several full blown version upgrades as "a feature" TM. "Now, with more productive backgrounds!" "Invite Clippy to your next Microsoft Teams meeting!" (Yes, really! FFS...)

<Takes medication>

Hmmm...

Suppose not that much changed since the 80s.

[imanidiot]

IF I were to use a webcam it's likely not going to be a screen filling image on the other end. So why do I need to have a 4K ultra super HD webcam to capture an image the other side will see in 480x320 after being compressed to bits?

[AdamWill]

on that note...

on that note, I wonder *why* video chats always seem subject to terrible compression? I've got enough bandwidth incoming and outgoing for dozens of simultaneous 4K streams, and I know some of the folks I chat with do as well. Yet we still often wind up with fuzzycam when chatting to each other. Seems weird. Video streaming services don't seem to have this problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: on that note... Shh, don't tell anyone that it's crappy because that is cheaper.

..not for you of course, but for the service and the underlying carriers.

Because the quality of your experience, much like your happiness, is a tertiary concern of the streaming service you are using. Probably no going to happen if you use a device to device connection instead of Zoom/Google/Metaface.

Remember who the customers are, and who the product is. Remember for two of those three, you are the product even if you pay them, and I'm not sure bout the third.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: on that note...

"Yet we still often wind up with fuzzycam when chatting to each other. Seems weird."

Well, it's going via TLA servers and they have tens of thousands of streams to handle, so they compress them down in transit :-)

[bertkaye]

stone-age video

I have to Zoom-meet all the time with a guy who uses terrible background-masking software. I have to suppress amusement as it makes his head morph as if he had a wobbly hairy cantaloupe growing from the back of his skull. It is most unsettling.

I look forward to the day when I can have a deep fake avatar puppet do my meetings for me. Now if I can only get the bots to stop learning bad words from my parrot.

[chivo243]

If they really need to see

The old curmudgeon who keeps their bits dancing, they can, but I'd think that a static picture of Radagast would do just fine...

https://yt3.ggpht.com/a/AATXAJzDXxtR00CspEZQdU40kNIaVx2Fvqe986pJ5w=s900-c-k-c0xffffffff-no-rj-mo

[veti]

Does not compute

I find it hard to believe that Lenovo, of all companies, is planning to make some part of a PC not be crap.

But make no mistake, if PC makers do start doing this, it's not for users' benefit - it's for employers/whoever else wants to keep an eye on them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Does not compute

Nope, nope a thousand times nope.

If I discover an employer is spying on me via the webcam in my machine I won't be coming back tomorrow.

Trust works both ways.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Why are PC webcams crap?

I can think of 3 reasons:

1. most webcam sensors are tiny (3mm-ish), as such, the sensor cannot collect a large amount of information (and unless sensor manufacturers physically increase the size of the sensor, this may not change at all)

2. most webcams on PCs use drivers, and depending on who wrote the driver, it can be well written, or an unstable mess.

3. Colour calibration isn't done automatically by software, but a human does the calibration, and mistakes will happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Plenty of UVC camera boards out there

If you don't need a fancy case around it. Try an Arducam UVC board for a Pi 12MP HQ cam. https://www.arducam.com/product/arducam-uvc-camera-adapter-board-for-12mp-imx477-raspberry-pi-hq-camera/

[Duncan Macdonald]

Use an Android phone as the webcam

Using the DroidCamX app on an android phone as a HD webcam will give better performance than many dedicated webcams for a much lower price ($5.49).

Given the price of laptops they should include a webcam that is at least the equal of that found on a £60 basic Android phone.

I treat the presence of a 720p (or worse) resolution camera on a laptop as a sign that the manufacturer has cheapened the guts of the laptop to the point where it is unlikely to have a long life. (If they have saved 50 pence by using a low spec webcam then they have probably saved more on the quality of the battery and other components.)

Icon for walking away from a laptop with a low spec camera ========>

[M.V. Lipvig]

I don't want a web camera

Not on my work computer, not on my home computers. The work one has a camera though, and it has a strip of aluminum foil taped over it. If aluminum foil is good enough to stop Martians from reading the minds of crazy people, it's good enough to keep HR from recording me playing with my cat while waiting on a test to finish.

[rcxb]

Important selfies

In phones, obviously, we know this is very important for selfies.

I find it jarring to read "selfie" and "important" in the same sentence.

Laptops are by far the most voluminous PC form factor – 54.7 million units shipped globally in calendar Q4 versus 14.7 million for desktop

Yes, I'd say desktop PCs don't get dropped, stolen, lost, or have their keyboards fail or batteries die nearly as often, necessitating fewer replacements.

[rfrazier]

Re: Important selfies

"Yes, I'd say desktop PCs don't get dropped, stolen, lost, or have their keyboards fail or batteries die nearly as often, necessitating fewer replacements."

Not to speak of the "ship of Theseus" potential (replace everthing over time -- same ship?). The spring before last, I built a new main computer for the first time since 2011. (Intel Sandy Bridge -> AMD AM4). Over those 10 years, I replaced almost everything. I put the replaced parts from my main computer in my secondary computer (shed/garden office), Over time, (almost) all the parts got moved. Is the one in the shed identical with my old main computer?

In my experience, old desktops seldom die, they just fade away.

Best wishes,

Bob

[Michael Wojcik]

Laptop cameras are generally crap

... in part because of the War on Bezels, which has caused nitwit designers to put them at the bottom of the screen, rather than the top, giving you a horrible perspective.

Though, frankly, the premise of this article baffles me. I do a lot of videoconferencing, and picture quality has never been an issue. I don't mean that it's good; I mean that it doesn't matter. Most people don't need very high resolution to interpret others' facial expressions.

There was a time when I routinely watched 200-scan-line black&white television programming, on noisy analog broadcasts. I didn't have any trouble figuring out what the actors were expressing. When I first started using videoconferencing for working, each participant's image was 320x240 with 8-bit color. It worked just as well as anything else has since.

[Roland6]

Re: Laptop cameras are generally crap

>There was a time...

I think what is important is the audio stream quality. I note Zoom for example seem to prioritise audio, so the video can be all over the place, but the audio largely remains listenable and so you can maintain the conversation thread even if occasional words are indistinct.

[John Brown (no body)]

So, to summarise the article...

...someone tells top Lenovo gut that laptop webcams and microphones are shite. Top Lenovo guy agrees.

Did I miss something?