> Access the power of Opal Computer Vision within the Opal app. The app allows you fine-grain tuning of your image and access to Machine Learning powered features that help you look your best.
If you have a smartphone lying around waiting to be useful, you can use OBS with OBS.Ninja. Ninja will run in the browser and it works very well on any platform. I used it a few times since Macbook camera is not great.
I have the Logitech BRIO which is quite nice for the quality. Theres this subculture that seems to have emerged where people get these super top notch mics for videoconferences now that everyone is remote, which I don't really get but this definitely seems great if not a bit overkill!
7.8 mm diagonal is basically the ballpark of a phone camera sensor (which it almost certainly is). It's not all that obvious why you'd spent 300 $ on this instead of using a smartphone as a webcam. 300 $ also gets somewhat close to being able to buy a used low-end mirrorless camera plus lens and adapter (if necessary), which is more flexible and you get a camera for free.
Might be for the "can't be bothered, but have money" market, as an all-in-one-solution to get something OK without meddling?
The only thing it has a top notch Sony sensor and a glass lens assembly, with f/1.8 equivalent aperture.
It'll have no bokeh or low light sensitivity of an FF or APS-C camera. Also, Sony A7 (first generation) comparison is rigged. Get an A7-III, A7C for $2000, and install latest webcam drivers. Its colors and fidelity will blow Opal out of water, even without trying (both have 6K sensors, too).
The only alleged improvement of Opal is microphone array however, Apple is already good at this. When Zoom & Google's noise cancellation technology is added on top, everything is more than satisfactory, for most scenarios. On this front, I'm not sure that stereo mics of a true mirrorless system would be that behind in focusing sound (if webcam driver can stream the location of the prominent face to the driver, a more advanced sound filtering can be done with a pair of mics, too).
If you're too inclined, you can just throw in a Yeti in a mix and, sound issue will be solved for once and for all.
All in all, it's a good webcam, but they're picking wrong competitors. A modern mirrorless is too powerful for them, and MacBook's pinhole webcam is too good for its size. They need better marketing and targeting IMHO.
the F number is calculated by f/D where f is the focal length and D is the diameter of entrance pupil.
For a F/1.0, 50mm lens, you need a 50mm front element.
In Opal's terms, this means their f/D ratio is 1.8. However, it doesn't mean it can capture equal number of photons with a full frame system with a f/1.8 lens, since their sensors' surface area is not equivalent.
Another difference will be in DoF. Since the sensor is smaller, there'll be a big crop factor, it'll multiply everything. Hence the resulting DoF will not be anything like a full frame system. In other words, almost everything will be in focus.
To add a cherry on top, they're not telling the T number of their lens, which defines how much light actually passes through it. F number and T number can be vastly different, intentionally or unintentionally, due to design parameters and features of a lens.
Focal distance is 4.81mm. 4.81mm/1.8 = 2.67mm. Don’t worry, there’s no such thing as “equivalent F-stop” and you also don’t have to have front lens element as wide as the aperture.
As I understand it, a larger sensor size will require longer focal lengths to match an "equivalent" view angle as a smaller sensor. As focal length increases, perceived depth of field becomes more shallow. Which is to say, a lens at f/4 on a 4x5 camera will will be much more shallow than an equivalent angle lens on a smaller film/sensor size.
> All in all, it's a good webcam, but they're picking wrong competitors. A modern mirrorless is too powerful for them, and MacBook's pinhole webcam is too good for its size. They need better marketing and targeting IMHO.
I disagree. Their target market is the person who says, "I'm tired of looking lousy in my Zoom meetings, but I know nothing about cameras. What can I do to fix this?"
Then they see the Macbook Webcam video and think, "that's how I look now", and they see the Opal and A7 videos and think, "that's how I'd like to look."
Then they see the prices, where the Opal is in the "accessory" price range, and the A7 costs more than their laptop. And they're sold on the Opal.
> Get an A7-III, A7C for $2000, and install latest webcam drivers. Its colors and fidelity will blow Opal out of water, even without trying (both have 6K sensors, too).
Colour, maybe, but fidelity absolutely not: over the USB connection, all Sony’s cameras deal in no larger than 1024×576 (citation: personal experience with an α6100, and https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/app/webcam/en/instructi... agrees this applies to all). You need to go HDMI to get 1080p or 4K, and then hopefully you’re on a desktop with a PCI-E capture card or something, because USB HDMI capture cards are a minefield with no perfect options (they all have problems with latency, compression, or colour, typically more than one of the three).
There's no "viewfinder" at all, though, just the video from the sensor, right?
What makes an SLR an SLR is the combination of mirrors and prisms that makes the light from the lens go to either the viewfinder or the film/sensor. If you don't have that, I'd argue it's just a "mirrorless", aka "a plain old digital camera".
But if we're going to nitpick about the acronym, it's only the "R" bit that refers to the mirror/prism, the "SL" bit is separate to that. A "plain old digital camera" is an example of a Digital Single Lens camera. It just doesn't do the "Reflex" trick of sending the image to the viewfinder(/autofocus/lightsensor) with a mirror/prism.
(I'm out of my camera historical terminology depth here, but I'm assuming there "SL" bit made it onto the common use SLR acronym to differentiate from cameras where the viewfinder had it's own lens, and didn't use the same "single" lens that the optical path to the film used.)
I agree that it is probably for those who want "DLSR", or "iPhone 11" if you prefer, quality, but don't want to spend the hassle beyond plugging it in and having it just work.
I like the niche that's being targeted here, and I did sign up. 300 is affordable, and who doesn't like trying new things? However, after giving my email, I scroll down to the comparison between iPhone, this, and Sony, and I'm a bit let down.
I'm not trying to be the one with the hot take here, but the depth of field is too shallow, the edges are fuzzy, and the colors are blown out. Perhaps the comparison would have been better between similar devices in a similar cost bracket, like a GoPro or actual higher end webcams.
I have to say, the comparisons don't look very favorable. It looks like they favor image processing vs lens/sensor combo. This is a modern take to be sure; just not one I'm real excited about.
Yes, their neural-net based image tuning is the core IP/feature for the vision part of the product.
The comparison images/videos look like their ISP tuning (/ neural net) is cranking up the saturation too much and metering only in the center. Might just be the way it was set for the promotional video, so time will tell. All of these can be easily integrated into Macbook webcameras via software updates/tools.
"We gave the Opal C1 the fastest neural processing chip ever on a webcam. At 4 trillion operations per second, it rips through ML models at blazing speeds"
If they want/wanted optimal lens+sensor performance, the industrial designers would need to give a bit. The 0.9" depth is tricky for all-glass wide-angle lenses and 1/2.3" format type sensors. My guess is the device would need to be ~1.4" to incorporate an all-glass lens that's fully suitable for this sensor, particularly at F/1.8. Can talk more about this offline (commonlands.com).
It sounds like they are still figuring out their lens. The writing on the camera says 3.3mm~=100deg DFoV; 19mm equivalent on 35mm full frame. The webpage indicates 4.81mm~=78.6deg DFoV; 28mm equivalent on 35mm full frame.
I agree, It looks like the main difference between the Macbook webcam and the others was the exposure. If the Opal software worked with the Mac camera allowing adjustments of exposure and white balance that would be perfect (with the lack of true depth of field & 4k)
When I read about webcams most of the comments revolve around the microphone quality, I think there should be more focus on that, for example noise reduction technology etc. Marketing could also be made towards video game streamers who often use digital cameras and dedicated mics.
Logitech is making webcams with good microphones for a very long time. Their highest end ones (e.g. Brio Ultra HD) also have build in noise cancellation IIRC
I also came here to say that the comparisons are bad wrt. exposure. If you don't believe in your product enough to give fair comparisons, then I'm not buying it.
Also, with regards to the "works in low light" point: we recently had a problem where the lights went out during a web meeting in the evening. I was surprised to see my $75 Logitech C920 took about two seconds to adjust exposure and give a perfectly good image just from the light of my monitor.
And with the amount of video compression that is used, I'm not sure anyone is able to tell the difference.
I think they're betting this is more than a niche product -- with so many jobs going remote, lots of people are going to want a good webcam for Zoom, etc.
Most people are going to look at the comparison between the Opal and A7 and not see much of a difference, but the Opal is 7x cheaper.
However, A7 test is not fair. First generation A7 is more than 8 years old. Current $2K camera is A7C and A7III, and A7III is one of the most color-accurate cameras out there.
Or just use your much better iPhone camera via Camo (https://reincubate.com/camo/) w/ great image tuning, etc. since you always have your phone with you and isn't yet another thing to deal with.
I've used Camo and other phone-as-a-webcam softwares before. My issue with them is setup is required. If I need to 2fa into something during a zoom call, I have to turn off my webcam and use my phone, then re set up my phone as a camera, turn on the software, and link it to my computer. It's too much friction, especially if you only have 1 min before a meeting to prep.
With a dedicated webcam, it's alway set up. There's no software to start up, there's no positioning the camera every time.
I can see that. In the year that I've been using Camo, I've never personally had that issue, but I can see it being problematic if you're constantly needing your phone for a second factor all day (consider a yubikey?).
I'd say that another _advantage_ (IMHO) of Camo is that I don't have my phone to use for distractions while on calls, so that's a pro in my book.
Webcams are a pain to produce. Someone here, posted a story (maybe a year or so ago), about how they wanted to make a webcam, and gave up, because logistics.
The WebEx deskcam is nice but doesn't have an option for as narrow of field of view as their previous webcams. Also Microsoft Teams hates it and will only use the lowest resolution which is a pain when you have a 4k camera.
Quick suggestion to whoever created the website. Please enable an ability to make the video comparisons full-screen-able. I can't gauge as well how good the quality actually is unless I can scale it up.
This Opal has a good quality lens. f/1.8 is a large aperture. That means it can gather a lot of light. Six glass elements probably means it has good geometric and color distortion characteristics. The specs say it has a fixed focus from 10cm to infinity. That's not bad.
Lenses like that for DSLRs retail for $100 or more.
The Dell webcam specs say nothing, but nothing, about the lens. That usually means it's a coke-bottle shard. (meaning cheap and barely acceptable.)
Opal are also bragging about a beam-forming mic array (that is, a software shotgun mic). That's worth money. No mic at all on the Dell.
Compare various smartphones. Many smartphone makers brag about their lenses.
F/1.8 is a familiar number to people only because of how that number matters for a full frame, APS-C, or 4/3 sensor. It doesn't translate well to what would produce good image quality on an 8mm sensor. The equivalent F number will be much higher. Using it in this context is just marketing. I'm not saying it's bad, just that the information they're giving isn't what people will understand it as, which I think is a bit misleading.
My friend wrote a very interesting article on the topic if you're curious - I had no idea about most of this:
There's really nothing special about an f/1.8 lens for a tiny sensor. Every smartphone has this. Many CCTV cameras have something like a 3-8 mm f/1.0 zoom on them (they're cheap).
I appreciate the honest side by side comparison. This seems like a god send for the light sensitive power can user but for the occasional one on one developer like me a waste
I had my cursor over the 'buy' button until I saw that their client was Mac-only, and it appears to be the only easy way to modify any of the settings. Seems a little silly to buy a webcam that I can only control with <10% of the computers I encounter on a daily basis.
This is very dishonest in the video comparison section. The Opal Camera video is using a software background blur filter (just like the one in Zoom or Hangouts) to make it look like it has a DSLR style lens with shallow depth of field. But in reality it has a tiny, crappy lens, just like every other terrible webcam.
Also they compare vs a $2k camera but any DSLR will put this thing to shame and there are much cheaper ones out there. Even a point-and-shoot pocket camera would be much better than this thing, if it supports a webcam mode (not sure if any do).
The DSLR felt 10x smoother and more natural to me as someone that knows nothing about cameras.
Ironically, this website made me want to go find a cheap/used DSLR because the quality is so much better.
I personally use Camo with my iPhone which does almost all of these things and uses the computer in my pocket. Would love to see a comparison with that as I think its reasonable to assume someone willing to drop $300 on a webcam has overlap with someone willing to pay a monthly fee to use their phone as one.
Mirrorless cameras are not that big these days, especially if you get a pancake lens. You're not going to carry one around with your laptop but I expect most people with a monitor on their desk could fit one directly underneath it with one of those tiny tripods ($9.99 with one day delivery on Amazon). On top would probably be possible too with the smallest ones.
Not sure why people care about DSLR or not - if you're using it as a webcam the mirror will be up all the time and you're not using the viewfinder.
But my professional Sony ZV-1 is small and light enough to rest on a monitor (I use a stand for better stability, but it could easily sit on a monitor.)
> But my professional Sony ZV-1 is small and light enough to rest on a monitor (I use a stand for better stability, but it could easily sit on a monitor.)
So, $700 and no fancy mic array? (Edit: reading up, limited to 720p? ick?)
I mean yeah I'd have a nice camera as well, but given that my need for a nice web cam is because of a pandemic where I can't go anywhere, that isn't as much of a plus as it'd normally be!
Also I need something that is proof against being knocked off the table by cats, which happens about twice a week to my current webcam.
Also $300 is already at the very top end of what I'd pay, if the Opal was $200, that'd be an almost instant buy. I imagine they don't have proper scale though to get the price down that low. Chicken and egg and all that, if they flooded the market at $150 or $200 maybe they could get the volumes needed? But problem is lots of web cam competitors have finally come onto the market, this product a year ago would've created a larger splash.
It has a mic array. Fewer microphones, but I wouldn't necessarily immediately conclude that it's worse. Testing would tell.
720p is fine for videoconferencing, it's very rare that the software and the network supports anything higher. I'll take 720p with a good lens over 4k with a crappy lens any day.
Not sure what you mean about mic? You can attach any microphone you want.
It’s 720 over USB yes but since it’s a much higher quality lens and sensor the quality is far better compared to my cheap HD webcams. I'm not sure what you're imagining 720 looks like, but it's probably far better than you're expecting for a webcam call.
No point shipping more pixels if they’re just a blurry mess.
Also worth noting that the a7 is a Mirrorless camera, not a DSLR. MUCH smaller and lighter. Though as a Full-Frame camera it's still quite a bit bigger than a webcam, Sony's a6000 line of APS-C cameras is a lot smaller.
In the 300 dollar category, a gopro hero9 black is $350 and can be used as a webcam. I have a suspicion that the gopro video quality will be better than this.
Plus then you have a gopro hero9 with hypersmooth stabilization and can take it outside to use for other purposes if you want, it's not just a webcam, it's a fairly full featured small 4K 60FPS video camera.
Somehow I expected that to be an archived copy of the working page. I feel like I got rickrolled, but it’s exactly as promised. Here’s one with text at least:
For an alternative you can buy right now: I am using a UC 70 (mokose 4k in the US / osybz 4k on AliExpress) it's around 170$ with surprisingly good image quality. It supports UVC, so you don't have to install drivers or "Ai enhance" bloatware. The included (CS-mount, interchangeable) lens is pretty good as well, although the widest field of view is not as wide as other webcams. No microphone though...
Well the website is down, but from the cache, the primary selling point is…
”An ƒ1.8, six-element, glass lens brings in 2.4x more light than any other webcam…With a 7.8mm, 4K Sony sensor”
…which granted, is better than other webcams. Except for the one in my pocket, on my iPhone. Which also has advanced noise-filtering technology.
I guess there’s a market for a fancy standalone webcam, but it cannot be huge. Most people don’t care, people who moderately care can use their smartphones with a bevy of tethering software, and if you really care you are probably a streamer or YouTube producer who has a real camera, like perhaps this Sony:
> I guess there’s a market for a fancy standalone webcam, but it cannot be huge. Most people don’t care, people who moderately care can use their smartphones ...
I think I've seen a number of times on HN people complaining that there isn't a better camera solution, given how much remote work we've been doing since covid. This is usually followed by people saying that what's really important is sound, along with their personal setups.
Based on that alone I think this company has a reasonable chance at success, especially since stuff like this is often expensed. I'd say one risk to the company is when Apple simply makes better cameras in their MacBooks, but even then it'll be a while before company's replenish their supply of new MacBooks.
Ooh, the ZV-E10 looks nice! I already have some E-mount lenses for my NEX-5, but it's too old to work with the webcam software Sony released last year, so I was thinking about upgrading.
yeah I've got a ZV-1 and been looking at the ZV-E10 reviews, it looks nice.
the only thing putting me off is that it looks like they move the USB/HDMI ports to the other side from the ZV-1 so, if you flip out the screen, the cables will obscure the screen.
> I guess there’s a market for a fancy standalone webcam, but it cannot be huge. Most people don’t care, people who moderately care can use their smartphones with a bevy of tethering software,
Hacky and annoying. Also it ties up a phone, and I'd have a phone mounted to the top of my monitor, which looks kind of stupid.
Finally, what's the latency like? virtual meetings already have terrible latency, I don't want to get near anything that'll add more. Heck tons of models of BT headsets can add hundreds of ms of latency (!!), with moderately good ones adding only around 100 (ick).
If the Opal can deliver low latency video and audio of a higher quality than other cheap webcams or laptop built-in cameras, and offer a good software experience, then it has a chance in the market.
Of course people on this site can hack something better together, that new Raspberry Pi HQ camera module is nice, but it isn't going to dominate the consumer market.
I would rather bump up a few hundred dollars and get a DSLR that can be used as a webcam. I would guess that many of the people who care about the improvements that this $300 camera claims to have either already have a DSLR, or would like to own one.
85 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] threadSo... Windows users SOL? It's a USB webcam, no?
> Access the power of Opal Computer Vision within the Opal app. The app allows you fine-grain tuning of your image and access to Machine Learning powered features that help you look your best.
So the software seems to be Mac-only.
I have the Logitech BRIO which is quite nice for the quality. Theres this subculture that seems to have emerged where people get these super top notch mics for videoconferences now that everyone is remote, which I don't really get but this definitely seems great if not a bit overkill!
> DSLR technology on a webcam
> A Mirrorless Miracle
> 7.8mm [diagonal] sensor
7.8 mm diagonal is basically the ballpark of a phone camera sensor (which it almost certainly is). It's not all that obvious why you'd spent 300 $ on this instead of using a smartphone as a webcam. 300 $ also gets somewhat close to being able to buy a used low-end mirrorless camera plus lens and adapter (if necessary), which is more flexible and you get a camera for free.
Might be for the "can't be bothered, but have money" market, as an all-in-one-solution to get something OK without meddling?
It'll have no bokeh or low light sensitivity of an FF or APS-C camera. Also, Sony A7 (first generation) comparison is rigged. Get an A7-III, A7C for $2000, and install latest webcam drivers. Its colors and fidelity will blow Opal out of water, even without trying (both have 6K sensors, too).
The only alleged improvement of Opal is microphone array however, Apple is already good at this. When Zoom & Google's noise cancellation technology is added on top, everything is more than satisfactory, for most scenarios. On this front, I'm not sure that stereo mics of a true mirrorless system would be that behind in focusing sound (if webcam driver can stream the location of the prominent face to the driver, a more advanced sound filtering can be done with a pair of mics, too).
If you're too inclined, you can just throw in a Yeti in a mix and, sound issue will be solved for once and for all.
All in all, it's a good webcam, but they're picking wrong competitors. A modern mirrorless is too powerful for them, and MacBook's pinhole webcam is too good for its size. They need better marketing and targeting IMHO.
For a F/1.0, 50mm lens, you need a 50mm front element.
In Opal's terms, this means their f/D ratio is 1.8. However, it doesn't mean it can capture equal number of photons with a full frame system with a f/1.8 lens, since their sensors' surface area is not equivalent.
Another difference will be in DoF. Since the sensor is smaller, there'll be a big crop factor, it'll multiply everything. Hence the resulting DoF will not be anything like a full frame system. In other words, almost everything will be in focus.
To add a cherry on top, they're not telling the T number of their lens, which defines how much light actually passes through it. F number and T number can be vastly different, intentionally or unintentionally, due to design parameters and features of a lens.
I disagree. Their target market is the person who says, "I'm tired of looking lousy in my Zoom meetings, but I know nothing about cameras. What can I do to fix this?"
Then they see the Macbook Webcam video and think, "that's how I look now", and they see the Opal and A7 videos and think, "that's how I'd like to look."
Then they see the prices, where the Opal is in the "accessory" price range, and the A7 costs more than their laptop. And they're sold on the Opal.
The thing is, you can't buy a new A7 (MK-I) today, and if you can buy one, it'd be around the same price of a brand new Opal.
Or you can buy an Logitech Brio Ultra, and use that one. If you buy an even modestly priced Fuji APS-C camera, it'll blow Opal out of water.
I'm not telling that Opal is bad hardware. It's modestly good hardware, ruined by bad marketing and wrong claims.
Colour, maybe, but fidelity absolutely not: over the USB connection, all Sony’s cameras deal in no larger than 1024×576 (citation: personal experience with an α6100, and https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/app/webcam/en/instructi... agrees this applies to all). You need to go HDMI to get 1080p or 4K, and then hopefully you’re on a desktop with a PCI-E capture card or something, because USB HDMI capture cards are a minefield with no perfect options (they all have problems with latency, compression, or colour, typically more than one of the three).
(I’m guessing here, the article is 404ing for me…)
What makes an SLR an SLR is the combination of mirrors and prisms that makes the light from the lens go to either the viewfinder or the film/sensor. If you don't have that, I'd argue it's just a "mirrorless", aka "a plain old digital camera".
But if we're going to nitpick about the acronym, it's only the "R" bit that refers to the mirror/prism, the "SL" bit is separate to that. A "plain old digital camera" is an example of a Digital Single Lens camera. It just doesn't do the "Reflex" trick of sending the image to the viewfinder(/autofocus/lightsensor) with a mirror/prism.
(I'm out of my camera historical terminology depth here, but I'm assuming there "SL" bit made it onto the common use SLR acronym to differentiate from cameras where the viewfinder had it's own lens, and didn't use the same "single" lens that the optical path to the film used.)
https://twitter.com/alexisohanian/status/1435709529308626946...
I'm not trying to be the one with the hot take here, but the depth of field is too shallow, the edges are fuzzy, and the colors are blown out. Perhaps the comparison would have been better between similar devices in a similar cost bracket, like a GoPro or actual higher end webcams.
The comparison images/videos look like their ISP tuning (/ neural net) is cranking up the saturation too much and metering only in the center. Might just be the way it was set for the promotional video, so time will tell. All of these can be easily integrated into Macbook webcameras via software updates/tools.
"We gave the Opal C1 the fastest neural processing chip ever on a webcam. At 4 trillion operations per second, it rips through ML models at blazing speeds"
If they want/wanted optimal lens+sensor performance, the industrial designers would need to give a bit. The 0.9" depth is tricky for all-glass wide-angle lenses and 1/2.3" format type sensors. My guess is the device would need to be ~1.4" to incorporate an all-glass lens that's fully suitable for this sensor, particularly at F/1.8. Can talk more about this offline (commonlands.com).
It sounds like they are still figuring out their lens. The writing on the camera says 3.3mm~=100deg DFoV; 19mm equivalent on 35mm full frame. The webpage indicates 4.81mm~=78.6deg DFoV; 28mm equivalent on 35mm full frame.
When I read about webcams most of the comments revolve around the microphone quality, I think there should be more focus on that, for example noise reduction technology etc. Marketing could also be made towards video game streamers who often use digital cameras and dedicated mics.
Also, with regards to the "works in low light" point: we recently had a problem where the lights went out during a web meeting in the evening. I was surprised to see my $75 Logitech C920 took about two seconds to adjust exposure and give a perfectly good image just from the light of my monitor.
And with the amount of video compression that is used, I'm not sure anyone is able to tell the difference.
Most people are going to look at the comparison between the Opal and A7 and not see much of a difference, but the Opal is 7x cheaper.
With a dedicated webcam, it's alway set up. There's no software to start up, there's no positioning the camera every time.
I'd say that another _advantage_ (IMHO) of Camo is that I don't have my phone to use for distractions while on calls, so that's a pro in my book.
Webcams are a pain to produce. Someone here, posted a story (maybe a year or so ago), about how they wanted to make a webcam, and gave up, because logistics.
> Macbook Webcam Free https://opalcamera.com/compare-macbook.mp4
> Opal C1 $300 https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4
> Sony A7 $2050 https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4
I don't even know where to buy the A7 now, but the A7II could be had for sub-$1k.
What is Opal offering over the Dell webcam for the extra $100?
Edit: Though, to be fair, apparently the Dell one doesn't support macOS?
This Opal has a good quality lens. f/1.8 is a large aperture. That means it can gather a lot of light. Six glass elements probably means it has good geometric and color distortion characteristics. The specs say it has a fixed focus from 10cm to infinity. That's not bad.
Lenses like that for DSLRs retail for $100 or more.
The Dell webcam specs say nothing, but nothing, about the lens. That usually means it's a coke-bottle shard. (meaning cheap and barely acceptable.)
Opal are also bragging about a beam-forming mic array (that is, a software shotgun mic). That's worth money. No mic at all on the Dell.
Compare various smartphones. Many smartphone makers brag about their lenses.
My friend wrote a very interesting article on the topic if you're curious - I had no idea about most of this:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equival...
Also they compare vs a $2k camera but any DSLR will put this thing to shame and there are much cheaper ones out there. Even a point-and-shoot pocket camera would be much better than this thing, if it supports a webcam mode (not sure if any do).
Despite the rigged comparison, at full resolution you can still easily tell that the video quality is nowhere near the level of the DSLR: https://opalcamera.com/compare-opal.mp4 https://opalcamera.com/compare-sony.mp4
Ironically, this website made me want to go find a cheap/used DSLR because the quality is so much better.
I personally use Camo with my iPhone which does almost all of these things and uses the computer in my pocket. Would love to see a comparison with that as I think its reasonable to assume someone willing to drop $300 on a webcam has overlap with someone willing to pay a monthly fee to use their phone as one.
Saying a DSLR is better is like saying full size speakers are better than sound bars. Of course they are, but form factor matters!
But my professional Sony ZV-1 is small and light enough to rest on a monitor (I use a stand for better stability, but it could easily sit on a monitor.)
So, $700 and no fancy mic array? (Edit: reading up, limited to 720p? ick?)
I mean yeah I'd have a nice camera as well, but given that my need for a nice web cam is because of a pandemic where I can't go anywhere, that isn't as much of a plus as it'd normally be!
Also I need something that is proof against being knocked off the table by cats, which happens about twice a week to my current webcam.
Also $300 is already at the very top end of what I'd pay, if the Opal was $200, that'd be an almost instant buy. I imagine they don't have proper scale though to get the price down that low. Chicken and egg and all that, if they flooded the market at $150 or $200 maybe they could get the volumes needed? But problem is lots of web cam competitors have finally come onto the market, this product a year ago would've created a larger splash.
720p is fine for videoconferencing, it's very rare that the software and the network supports anything higher. I'll take 720p with a good lens over 4k with a crappy lens any day.
It’s 720 over USB yes but since it’s a much higher quality lens and sensor the quality is far better compared to my cheap HD webcams. I'm not sure what you're imagining 720 looks like, but it's probably far better than you're expecting for a webcam call.
No point shipping more pixels if they’re just a blurry mess.
https://gopro.com/en/us/news/how-to-use-gopro-for-webcam
Plus then you have a gopro hero9 with hypersmooth stabilization and can take it outside to use for other purposes if you want, it's not just a webcam, it's a fairly full featured small 4K 60FPS video camera.
Sounds like a better webcam than many we’ve seen lately, but the devil is in the details.
[edit, later, page is up again] They really need to proofread this page...
"Microphones Type: MEMs"
It is "MEMS" not "MEMs", micro-electromechanical system. "S" is part of the acronym...
https://web.archive.org/web/20210813192120/https://opalcamer...
Opal is “DSLR technology on a webcam”.
and 404 page not found
”An ƒ1.8, six-element, glass lens brings in 2.4x more light than any other webcam…With a 7.8mm, 4K Sony sensor”
…which granted, is better than other webcams. Except for the one in my pocket, on my iPhone. Which also has advanced noise-filtering technology.
I guess there’s a market for a fancy standalone webcam, but it cannot be huge. Most people don’t care, people who moderately care can use their smartphones with a bevy of tethering software, and if you really care you are probably a streamer or YouTube producer who has a real camera, like perhaps this Sony:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-zv-e10-review
I think I've seen a number of times on HN people complaining that there isn't a better camera solution, given how much remote work we've been doing since covid. This is usually followed by people saying that what's really important is sound, along with their personal setups.
Based on that alone I think this company has a reasonable chance at success, especially since stuff like this is often expensed. I'd say one risk to the company is when Apple simply makes better cameras in their MacBooks, but even then it'll be a while before company's replenish their supply of new MacBooks.
the only thing putting me off is that it looks like they move the USB/HDMI ports to the other side from the ZV-1 so, if you flip out the screen, the cables will obscure the screen.
Hacky and annoying. Also it ties up a phone, and I'd have a phone mounted to the top of my monitor, which looks kind of stupid.
Finally, what's the latency like? virtual meetings already have terrible latency, I don't want to get near anything that'll add more. Heck tons of models of BT headsets can add hundreds of ms of latency (!!), with moderately good ones adding only around 100 (ick).
If the Opal can deliver low latency video and audio of a higher quality than other cheap webcams or laptop built-in cameras, and offer a good software experience, then it has a chance in the market.
Of course people on this site can hack something better together, that new Raspberry Pi HQ camera module is nice, but it isn't going to dominate the consumer market.
https://www.epiphan.com/blog/best-cameras-for-live-streaming...