^^^Looks fine to me. I mean, the pic of you in video conference with one person looks quite respectable, but add another person and it looks bad. Maybe a bandwidth issue on one end or the other?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacBook iSight is poooooooor quality
- Thread starter jacobj
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
erickg said:
I agree, 640x480 isn't bad for video; we perceive it to be higher resolution than an equivalent still photograph because of the motion. Plus imagine the bandwidth required for a 1MP image: 1mp * 24bits per pixel * 30 fps (just a guess) = 86 megabytes per second. Obviously this gets compressed before going on the system bus, and compressed more before going over a network, but that's still very taxing even on the camera hardware itself.
Not to mention that 640x480 is also higher res than SDTV...I really don't understand the complaints. I wish I had one...
bandwidth?
re: the bandwidth issue
I seriously doubt this. Those photos on my page came from a solid 100mb network, and we're using Bonjour.
I just tested this with a client (one in Hollywood w/ a 6mb / 1.5 connection and the other in Texas w/ a 5mb / 400k connection), and when the multi person chat kicked in, everyone went blurry.
One has a 1.67 G4 and the other has a 15 inch 2.0 MB pro.
Could this be some kind of chat problem with the Intel chips, but might work fine on the IBM chips?
re: the bandwidth issue
I seriously doubt this. Those photos on my page came from a solid 100mb network, and we're using Bonjour.
I just tested this with a client (one in Hollywood w/ a 6mb / 1.5 connection and the other in Texas w/ a 5mb / 400k connection), and when the multi person chat kicked in, everyone went blurry.
One has a 1.67 G4 and the other has a 15 inch 2.0 MB pro.
Could this be some kind of chat problem with the Intel chips, but might work fine on the IBM chips?
MacBook iSight: 640x480 (USB 2.0, internal)
iMac iSight G5 iSight: 640x480 (USB 2.0, internal)
iMac Core Duo iSight: 0.6 mpx (USB 2.0, internal)
MacBook Pro iSight: 0.6 mpx (USB 2.0, internal)
iSight: 640x480 (FireWire400)
My sources are Wikipedia and Apple. I read somewhere when they were that the MBP and iMacs now had an iSight woth double resolution. Wikipedia apparaently agrees with me in this article about MacBook Pro.
iMac iSight G5 iSight: 640x480 (USB 2.0, internal)
iMac Core Duo iSight: 0.6 mpx (USB 2.0, internal)
MacBook Pro iSight: 0.6 mpx (USB 2.0, internal)
iSight: 640x480 (FireWire400)
My sources are Wikipedia and Apple. I read somewhere when they were that the MBP and iMacs now had an iSight woth double resolution. Wikipedia apparaently agrees with me in this article about MacBook Pro.
i assume the 0.6 mpx isight is better than the 640X480 sight? Can somebody confirm this?
I don't like how the iSights have different qualities if this is true. They might as well not use the iSight name anymore if there turns out to be like 50 different spec webcams all called iSight
I don't like how the iSights have different qualities if this is true. They might as well not use the iSight name anymore if there turns out to be like 50 different spec webcams all called iSight
Is this correct! Who in the hell has 900k upstream!!!!!!!!!!
They must mean 900k for downstream.Darwin said:Yes, iSight cameras are VGA. However when it comes to iChat you better have the horsepower and the bandwidth to get that VGA quaility.
This is a table from Apple Support. It shows the requirments to get the best resolution.
My PowerBook will only do 160x120, not even touching on VGA quaility there
More information can be found on that page here
It's important to note that Tiger uses H.264, which requires a hefty amount of CPU. In a four-way, that need is even more evident, so quality of a four-way chat is at least as dependent upon the host processor (and available RAM) as it is upon bandwidth. Likewise, the recipient/client systems need to be able to decode the H.264. If iChat detects a system incapable of that, it degrades the quality or uses a less sophisticated encryption scheme.
And, FWIW, the Apple Store networks tend to suck - too many systems on one AirPort, and lots of network usage. iChat works, but not in in indicative way if many other systems are in use.
And, FWIW, the Apple Store networks tend to suck - too many systems on one AirPort, and lots of network usage. iChat works, but not in in indicative way if many other systems are in use.
I have 2Mbps upstream at home via Verizon FIOS.jaxstate said:Is this correct! Who in the hell has 900k upstream!!!!!!!!!!
Nope... they say 900k up/down.jaxstate said:Is this correct! Who in the hell has 900k upstream!!!!!!!!!!
They must mean 900k for downstream.
Lots of people have 900k up, and in either case, it's nothing to be mad about. Video demands that much bandwidth, there's no way around it.
Not typical, but thousands and thousands of homes in the States and elsewhere have it, and the number is growing.jaxstate said:
Regardless, if you want high quality video, that's the bandwidth you need. If you think it's too much, come up with a better compression algorithm.
That would make 1.2MP... To get .6MP, it would have to be something like 896x672 for 4:3 format or 984x615 for 16:10. Somehow I doubt that.Egosphere said:
You're probably right, but do you think Apple should not allow best quality video for those who can use it just because the majority doesn't have that required bandwidth?jaxstate said:
erickg said:Ummm... to my knowledge I think you are mistaken that most of the webcams on the market are over or around 1 MP. For instance, this logitech webcam can take still images of up to 1.3 megapixels, however the video quality is still 640x480 pixels... i.e. same as Apple's built-in and regular iSights.
Also to the OP, check out photobooth to see the built-in iSights true quality. It doesn't look quite as bad in comparison to the advertisement picture.
From what I've seen of my friend's QuickCam Pro 4000, it's got poor quality in contrast to the iSight. The only problem with the built-in iSight is that it's not adjustable. On the other hand, it doesn't fall off.
New product idea: iSight "periscope"... attaches to top of screen, bottom goes over iSight lens, top swivels, pans, etc.bousozoku said:
Whoever makes their fortune off of this, remember me, will you?
Josias said:
Looking at the Wiki page it says that the camera is .6 mega pixals, it points to the MacBook Pro page but I can't see anything about the resolution being more than the standard iSight
In fact reading the Tech Overview PDF from Apple's site it says that the iSight is still 640x480
jsw said:New product idea: iSight "periscope"... attaches to top of screen, bottom goes over iSight lens, top swivels, pans, etc.
Whoever makes their fortune off of this, remember me, will you?
That would go well with torpedo tubes and underwater capabilities.
Perhaps, the MacBook swim model.
jacobj said:
I find this funny. The recent megapixel trend (hey my toaster has a 1.2Mp camera in it!) has really messed with the minds of people. I doubt a camera with standard def recording ability in the lip of your laptop (how cool is that?) is next to useless. Asking Apple for a HD camera for videoconfrencing is absolutely crazy. Its all compressed to an inch of its life in h.263 anyway (263 is the conferencing codec - talking heads - 264 is the video codec).
Heck, I'm sure its better in quality than many of those cameraphone 4mp disasters. Uugh. I hate those things.
Anyway, just ranting. Standard Def really aint bad - and its freaking awesome in a laptop edge.
jaxstate said:
I believe if you're willing to pay for business-quality lines, you can get upstream rates close to downstream rates. Comcast may offer this. Pretty sure Verizon et al. do with T1 lines and such.
Most of the home services are limited upstream to prevent webserver use.
Sedulous said:
Agreed. I guess with teh inclusion of photobooth, people are expecting a good still camera as well.