Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
i guess there is a reason why camera like these shouldn't be used as webcams
 
Last edited:
Why can't the iPhone be used in this way? I'd much rather place some kind of camera holder on the top of my laptop (improving the angle of the camera anyway) and leveraging the much higher resolution camera in the phone. Can they be paired up this way? Seems like there should be some blend in the handoff instructions to allow for this.
This is actually a really great idea. With lots more people still working from home, this could be a great way to get around their crappy webcams. We mostly use Google Meet at work and now I wonder if I could join the meeting with video on my iPhone and present my desktop using the Mac? Might have to try that tomorrow. Though I prefer to not have Google garbage on my iPhone. I exclusively use Chrome on my Mac for using Google services to try to “sandbox” it to that.
 
Why can't the iPhone be used in this way? I'd much rather place some kind of camera holder on the top of my laptop (improving the angle of the camera anyway) and leveraging the much higher resolution camera in the phone. Can they be paired up this way? Seems like there should be some blend in the handoff instructions to allow for this.
Try EpocCam !
 
  • Like
Reactions: RammyXX
This is an awesome step forward and I was super excited - until I discovered that the driver does not support anything but Chrome. Hence, it is a nice demo, but otherwise pretty useless.
 
Wait a second... "eee-ahs" ? I've been saying "E O S" for over twenty years now.

Interesting... I thought is was EEE-ohse... I heard it in an old Canon TV commercial from decades ago.

I think Nikon is supposed to be pronounced NICK-on... though in the US it's pronounced NIGH-kon

I usually shorten camera names and just say "Canon 70D" instead of "Canon EOS 70D"

Same for Sony... it's much easier to say "Sony A7 Three" instead of "Sony Alpha 7 Mark Three"

:p
 
Canon does not get it. They only support the newest, high end cameras. There are a lot of old Canon cameras sitting in drawers that can shoot video and are cheap enough to use as webcams. But Canon don't support any of those.

Agree, but...

I tried Canon's utility with a Canon 7D and it works as expected. Camera Live + OBS also works.

They probably don't mention the old camera's as supported because they've reached EOL or whatever that's called in the camera industry.
 
Well they never did update them in the first place.
I wouldn't say that. Going from the web cam on my 2017 imac to my 16" macbook pro and it's SO much better on here. Color is more accurate and the dynamic range is wildy better. On my imac if there's any light source in frame it'll blow out, and if it's sunny my skin ends up blowing out and being over exposed. Looks a ton better doing video confrencing from my macbook pro. Not quite on the level of the rear camera from an iphone but still quite good.
 
I wouldn't say that. Going from the web cam on my 2017 imac to my 16" macbook pro and it's SO much better on here. Color is more accurate and the dynamic range is wildy better. On my imac if there's any light source in frame it'll blow out, and if it's sunny my skin ends up blowing out and being over exposed. Looks a ton better doing video confrencing from my macbook pro. Not quite on the level of the rear camera from an iphone but still quite good.

Unfortunately, the 16 inch MacBook Pro has the same 720P WebCam they’ve been using for 8 years. Mine looks pretty terrible… I’m glad yours is good though.

The only computer that has a better WebCam is iMac Pro, which is 1080P. Still not that great.
 
This is an awesome step forward and I was super excited - until I discovered that the driver does not support anything but Chrome. Hence, it is a nice demo, but otherwise pretty useless.
Both Skype and Zoom have managed to break their apps recently so programs like this don't work anymore. I know Zoom is going to provide a fix in a few days (or you can alternatively install a 4.x build of Zoom), but don't know about Skype, which I have actually used before with my Canon M6ii. This still works fine in Skye for Business, so don't know why the teams at MS can't share the code.
 
Last edited:
ahhh... this topic is one that has a sadly convoluted and history and still convoluted present. lol

Actually, unbeknownst to most, 720P was never considered an HDTV standard. It had and continues to have a special category of it’s own known as “HD Ready”.

IIRC 720P was a standard that came about simultaneously with 1080i and 1080P. And it was introduced primarily to address and appease the manufacturing limitations for Plasma televisions and Rear Projection televisions as well as the broadcast conversion limitations that 1080i signals imposed on markets not using appx 60hz for the electrical grid.


The very first HDTV signals were actually carried over analog. The shift to fully digital broadcasts were never driven by a demand in quality but rather a cheap way to cram more broadcast signals (channels) into a single analogue carrier wave, and similarly into the electrical and oddly even the digital optical carrier waves used by cabled technologies.

Bottom line is they had to have this odd mixed approach to integrating and transitioning from Analogue to fully digital that required a lot of hybridization and conversion back and forth.

a sweet spot that didn’t require as much fuss was 720P.... with one exception. It was not a multiple of either 480P / 480i or 540P/540i. This then presented another content challenge with respect to pre-existing source material and how to even offer it within and efficient 720P stream.

Thus it’s always been a bit of a Poorman’s or cheap way of getting HDTV to the masses, without having to concede that 720P was enough to warrant the standard’s bodies’ specific agenda.

oh and one more thing LOL. Since the 1930s anything more than a few hundred lines of broadcast material per frame was considered High Definition. So... if you wanna debate things further you could ground an argument in that preceding technicality. LOL
[automerge]1590625328[/automerge]
absolutely. Autofocus and Exposure control is vastly superior as are (naturally) the core lenses‘ optics and the sensor sizes. Even cramming all that in a 720P container will look far better than a shoddy webcam in a 4K container.

What I remember was:
HD Ready: can accept HD signal but will display it in Standard Definition
HD: 720P
Full HD: 1080P

This was the branding they used. PS3 games I believe ran in 720P and were considered HD.
 
Apple sells webcam for $299. Camera stand is $599 and if you want wheels on the stand it’s an extra $800. Late 2020 release date
 
These cameras with USB-C should just implement Video Out over that instead of just HDMI, make everything simpler but increases the cost. You can use software like EpocCam if you want to use your iPhone instead.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.