Who normally uses a 60fps webcam?
Our company is developing a webcam of 1080p@60fps
1.1080p@60fps
2.Autofocus
3.Smart beauty
4.With ring fill light
5.With privacy cover
Can these functions cater to special populations?
Is a 60fps Webcam Necessary?
Related Stores
closed Comments
I think someone who works online, streams or YouTubers needs a webcam like this.
YouTubers don't use webcams
Well they might if they were 1080p@60fps
@iDroid: Not for this kind of shitty webcam, it won't do anything. Most YouTubers use some kind of vlogging camera or a Sony mirrorless.
These days with everything online I would welcome a better quality webcam.
What price range are you targeting?
No more than 70 AUD
Wow, I might be very interested. Is there a name or a website I could search for later to find if its been released?
Thank you very much for your interest. We haven't released it yet and are still testing it. I'm sure we'll see it soon.
We sell our products on Amazon.com.au, our brand is Ziqian, and we currently have entry-level webcams on sale.
You can search for "ziqian Webcam" at Amazon.com.au.@Good4me: I would automatically assume that something called Ziqian is dropshipped, and that instead of paying $60 for a product worth $60, I'm paying $60 for a product worth $40.
@Jolakot: That's not true. Our new product has not been released yet.
Absolutely excellent quality and reasonable price, I am confident.@Good4me: Oh no I wasn't trying to imply that your product was bad, just that the name looks identical to names that million of Chinese drop shipping companies put on generic products to make them appear branded.
Look up webcams on Amazon and you'll see what I mean. You can't stand out with a name like that, because I know I would skip right passed.
Don't worry Microsoft Teams will automatically degrade all participants' video feeds to ensure they are streamed in a quality and latency reminiscent of MSN Messenger, even if they're capturing video via 4K Hasselblad camera.
Haha, even the best video will be compressed?
As a hobby streamer on Twitch for about 3 years I do find that using a 60 fps cam over a 24/30 fps cam results in a pretty big improvement. However as the exposure time is halved you need a well lit room otherwise the video will appear noticeably dark.
I use the Logitech Streamcam and find that even using this camera in 30 fps mode for higher exposure, the video is still very smooth with the benefits of a room looking brighter than it actually is. (compared to the Logitech C922)
Not sure how many video conferencing applications actually support 60fps, but even if they don't you will still benefit from the better quality image at 30 fps.
Streamcam is a really good camera.
However, its price makes many people flinch. I hope our product can make more people experience better video quality.
A good cheap webcam wouldn't be a bad thing for telehealth sessions.
Wait, your company is developing a product but you have no idea who would use it?
"Build it, and they will come".
- Theodore RooseveltPffft, more like a thinly veiled advert :)
OP is now testing the hypothesis.
I never understood why high webcam makers insist in making pricey, low resolution, bulky, clumsy styled cameras, when compared to higher quality 1cm compact camera modules as used in mobile phones, and ultra thin laptop screens.
I'd venture a guess that "high quality 1cm compact camera modules as used in mobile phones" are orders of magnitude more expensive to produce than a clunky USB webcam.
Could you sell it for, say, $200? Probably.
Would you make lots of profit by doing so? No.
TL;DR - similar hardware, different bus, different processing, different market segments.
The camera modules used by both phones and webcams are very similar hardware, to the point that sometimes they're the exact same part. The difference is what they're connected to, and how.
A webcam is connected to a pc via a usb cable which has a constrained bandwidth, and it sends its image complete from whatever processing hardware is on the camera board itself. There's no real way to dump raw data to a pc and guarantee it will be performant, and that is such a niche use case as to be solved by other hardware far better.
A phone camera is connected directly to the phone's cpu via a high speed bus and sends raw sensor data. All the imaging processing is done on the cpu, and these days cpus have gpus built right in so they're really good at that. That's before you get to any special sauce software from the vendor - for example, using the data from three cameras and a lidar at the same time as input for software for making the photos equivalent to or better than what you'd get out of 90% of point-and-shoots on the market.
Oooh that's interesting :)
You learn something new everyday. Though that makes sense.
USB 3.0 (A.K.A USB 3.1 Gen 1, A.K.A USB 3.2 Gen 1) has more than enough bandwidth to handle either uncompressed 1080p60 video or (e.g MJPEG) compressed 4K60.
That's the thing: uncompressed video isn't raw sensor data, it has been processed already. Dismantle a webcam and you'll see that the camera module is mounted on a PCB with componentry devoted to turning the raw data from the sensor into something that can be understood as a video stream. Unsurprisingly, PCB components that cost a couple of bucks can't compete with a CPU that costs hundreds. Of course a CPU/GPU combo that can literally run photoshop is going to do a better job making raw look better than hardware that you'd find powering your dishwasher.
Uncompressed 1080p60fps is 2.98 Gbit/s. A webcam is most certainly not doing that, and if it was somehow eating 3/5ths of the USB bandwidth I can almost guarantee that it would fall over from the unreliability of sockets, cables, latencies on the target PC, etc. There's also the fact that USB as a protocol doesn't support raw data anyway, so the best you could do would be encapsulated data. That would add overhead and mean that your device would require custom drivers and software to work (because it couldn't appear as a video device to the pc. It doesn't produce a video stream, it produces a raw data stream).
Raw is just not a use case for webcams (which is why the prosumer market uses digital cameras and either dedicated streaming hardware or an ingest workflow, merely to get to acceptable standards. Most people are working at 4K, so that immediately increases the requirements for everything). There's nothing wrong with things being the right fit for the job. If you want something as good as a mobile can be, use a mobile (if that works for you in your use case) or go further up the hardware tree and get a digital camera and some sort of capture solution. If you pay a hundred bucks at most for a webcam you get way less than a hundred bucks of hardware, and most of the time that's perfectly fine.
Way over the top for domestic use
But for corporate use with huge screens it could be a niche market opportunity
Your company is behind the ball… everything is going 4K
Can these functions cater to special populations?
As it is today most users prefer smartphones.
Webcams will need static hardware and good Broadband.
Good Broadband. Not here.Aiming to overseas market perhaps???
Also webcams for chatting or work are hated by females and some males, concerned about looks and background (scenery behind).
Sounds difficult already.
Not really a necessity, but I'm sure it'd look nice