Are we over-criticizing the 720p webcam?

[abhibeckert]

The best part of these threads is the mental gymnastics some of the fanboys and girls jump through rationalizing a subpar part (aka subpart? lol).

When in reality, we would be laughing at a PC company that hadn’t changed their camera in a decade.

The obvious competitor is the Dell XPS 13... which also has a 720p webcam and one that looks far worse.

Also, enough with the semantics of a 1080p camera. No, we don’t just want increased resolution and poor performance. We want the increased sensor, the whole shebang. A new camera that will usher in a new era of what is possible to do with a MacBook. Might just be OnlyFans ?, but I’m excited for FaceTime, photos, and things we haven’t even thought of yet.

What the camera requires is to be physically larger. My iPhone is 10mm thick including the camera bump. A MacBook webcam is maybe 3mm thick.

If I can blow your mind and simultaneously annoy you: I would love a physical camera cover AND the ability to flip the camera to record the other direction.

A camera cover... so now you want to make the camera thinner by 2mm?

As far as the bump, BRING IT ON.

Uh.. no. You can't have a 10mm thick bump on a laptop screen. That is not worth the tradeoff. Just get a USB webcam. Or use your phone. Because you know, we all have a phone. There are apps to use your phone as an external webcam for a laptop - that's what I do.

 

[theorist9]

One additional thought: During COVID, laptop webcam quality issues become unimportant, because there is an easy fix: You're Zooming from home, which means you're not using your laptop as a mobile device, and thus don't need to rely on its webcam. Instead, you can just add an external device—such as the Logitech C920s Pro HD, which is available for $70 from Target. [Yes, you could also use your phone, but maybe you don't want to have to connect and unconnect your phone for every conference call.]

 

[DrV]

I was surprised to hear you say that what limits the sharpness of modern camera systems is the diffraction limit, rather than the engineering (which would include the engineering of the lens). It is my understanding that lens quality still does matter when it comes to sharpness (especially away from the center of the lens, which is important when you are shooting at wider apertures), and that diffraction-limiting only comes into play when you stop down to sufficiently small apertures.

First of all, I have not characterised the MB webcam, so I cannot guarantee it is diffraction limited. And I am not involved in small lens development, so everything I say is based on general optical knowledge. However, if the lens weren't at least close to the diffraction limit, the resolution would be much worse. And on the other hand, the engineering effort stops at the diffraction limit.

"Real" camera lenses are a bit different story when it comes to their dimensions and tolerances. There it really holds true that diffraction limits apply only when stopped down to maybe f/4 or even f/8. Actually, the same applies to the human eye, it is diffraction limited to approximately 3 mm pupil size, larger apertures are limited by optical aberrations mainly in the cornea.

But even with DSLRs the story is a bit different with smaller sensors and full frame sensors. It is more difficult to make a diffraction-limited FF lens than a diffraction-limited crop sensor lens. One way to think of this is to consider the diffraction limit size on the sensor. The diffraction limit on the image plane (sensor surface) depends only on the f-number, not on the focal length of the sensor. It is easier to make a lens which creates a 1.3 mm x 1.7 mm image diffraction-limited (where the diffraction limit of 2.5 um is in the order of 1 / 500 of the image size) than a 36 mm x 24 mm image with the same diffraction limit (where the same diffraction limit is in the order of 1 / 15,000 of the image size).

It would actually be a fun — and not a very difficult — experiment to characterise the transfer function of the webcam. Print a spoke target (google "Siemens star") and keep it at a suitable constant distance from the camera. Take a snapshot of the target (well-illuminated) and look at the softening of the star. In this case you can just print a target with a laser printer (there are PDFs available). If you vary the distance of the target, you can see the effect of the lack of auto-focus. (Spoke target is great because it is scale-invariant, i.e., you do not need to take the distance into account.)

And, of course, the resolution may be quite different in different areas of the image. The center may be (close to) diffraction-limited, but the corners may be much softer.

Also, it seems the key engineering constraint that limits picture quality for these webcams is sensor size (=image size), which is in turn limited by focal length (i.e., lens-sensor distance). Could you please give the formula for image size as a function of focal length, FOV, aperture, and aspect ratio you used in your calculations? It would be fun to play with it.

The image size per se is not a problem. It is well possible to make much smaller pixels than we have at the moment. Smallest pixels available are typically around 1.0 um x 1.0 um, and semiconductor processes would allow much smaller photosites. (There is another limit, though, and that relates to the maximum dynamic range of a pixel.)

The main problem is really the physical aperture of the lens, because that is the problem with the laws of physics. Then engineering limitations tell us something about the distance from the lens to the image plane. So, the engineering logic goes like this: need larger physical aperture (more light, less diffraction effects) -> need a longer focal length (to avoid impossible numerical apertures) -> need more distance to the sensor and a larger sensor.

The formulae for image and pixel size are quite simple in geometric terms. Let us use the following quantities:

f — focal length of the lens
? — horizontal (or vertical) FOV angle
n — number of pixels horizontally (or vertically)

Physical size of the sensor is then (distance from the lens to the image is f):

d = f * 2 * tan(? / 2)

(Draw it and revise high school trigonometry!) And pixel size:

p = d / n

So, for a 78° (horizontal) FOV webcam with 3.7 mm focal length and 1920x1080 image:

d = 3.7 mm * 2 * tan(39°) ≈ 6 mm
p ≈ 6 mm / 1920 ≈ 3.0 um

Reasonable pixel sizes are between 1 um (small phone/webcam) and 10 um (full-frame sensor).

 

[MacRealist91]

I am tired of all the Macsplaining. I want a 1080p camera because I’m paying $2000 for a laptop. Period. A trillion-dollar company can surely implement one.

 

[DrV]

For instance, Apple could use a triple-lens/triple-sensor camera module. Specifically, they could use module that has three of the current-sized 720p webcams lined up in a row, and combine the signals from the three digitally. That would reduce noise and improve dynamic range, which would give a better picture when the lighting is non-ideal.

This is a possibility. It could also be realised by having a larger image element and a lens array in front of it (thus creating multiple images on the same image sensor). This way the lateral separation between the lenses would be smaller to alleviate problems resulting from different viewing angle (i.e. one sensor sees the left side of your face and another the right side).

Theoretically speaking this arrangement would multiply the number of photons collected by the number of lenses in the system. If you have three lenses, you get threefold number of photons, and this in turn leads to noise reduction by square root of three (~1.73). In practice the reduction would be less, as combining the images taken from different angles is not very straightforward. Might not be worth the trouble, though. (OTOH, I would not overrule the possibility of something like this happening in the future.)

Another problem is that this does nothing to improve the sharpness of the image. The image is soft ultimately due to the diffraction limit. And even if the sharpness was limited by optical aberrations, combining three soft images would still give you a soft image, i.e. having three cameras with ridiculously small apertures still gives you bad images (*).

On way to increase the number of photons entering the system is to increase the exposure time. If you try to get 30 frames per second, the maximum exposure time is 33 ms. However, if you note that most parts of the frame are stationary (like my brain activity during most meetings), you can actually use much longer exposure times for those parts. Recognising those areas in real time is non-trivial, but this is quite certainly one of the tricks the new M1 image processing uses. The human eye is not good at detecting grain in fast moving parts of the image, so this helps a lot.

(*) ... unless you create a synthetic aperture camera with phase-sensitive sensors. Then the diffraction limit changes quite completely. In use with VLBI telescopes, no known solutions for small cameras.

 

[DrV]

This thread is turning into a science lecture.

Guilty as charged!

Unfortunately, it is a bit difficult to avoid the science part in this topic, as everything depends on physics. Laws of physics apply to Apple, as well. Frankly, it is quite frustrating to see people wanting improvements which are simply not possible.

 

[aleni]

720p webcam even though it's not that bad, still bad for 2020. No excuse! I understand if it's for macbook air, but for the rest of the more expensive line ups, it should be 1080p.

 

[AutomaticApple]

I just hope apple's leadership and engineering is smart enough to not listen to the whining.

I would imagine that they don't listen to a crazy forum like this one.

Sure there is, you just need to be a bit creative about it.

For instance, Apple could use a triple-lens/triple-sensor camera module. Specifically, they could use module that has three of the current-sized 720p webcams lined up in a row, and combine the signals from the three digitally. That would reduce noise and improve dynamic range, which would give a better picture when the lighting is non-ideal.

It might not even cost that much, since those 720p webcams are probably inexpensive; though it would add complexity and increase possible points of failure.

Not saying they necessarily should do this; just pointing out that there are engineering options out there to improve camera quality while staying within the current form factor.

How expensive are those solutions though compared to the 720p webcam?

Um, the “solid reason” is that it’s a 720p webcam. In 2020. ?‍♂️

You clearly have the spec sheet taped to your face if that is all you can see. Feel free to obsess over the resolution, but there are many more things that come into play. Do you just not understand?

I don't know why people are upset with 720p webcam when all of the videoconference services caps the resolutions because of the bandwidth.

BUT, we know that Apple has the 1080p webcam ready, because it's included in the iMac Pro. So please, maybe we don't need the 1080p webcam but it's OK to have it for the future.

The same 1080p webcam module in the iMac isn't going to fit into the MacBook.

it's the only negative to me as the quality is bad I normally use the iPad for FaceTime calls.

Do you often use your iPad for FaceTime in different lighting conditions?

I think it's more that people don't like the quality of the Mac laptop webcam, and they are assuming that 1080p would improve things (because they know 1080p cameras, like that on the new iMac, typically do look better), when what's really needed is more total sensor area, rather than 1080p per se. Thus, for instance, you would look better-lit and less grainy during a Zoom conference using a 1080p iMac webcam, even if the Zoom is 720p, because the the 1080p iMac camera has a better sensor, giving less noise and more dynamic range. So the question is how you could increase sensor size for the Mac laptop cameras without increasing focal length, which is limited by the thickness of the lid.

The lid is the roadblock. I don't think anybody wants Apple to make it thicker.

Uh.. no. You can't have a 10mm thick bump on a laptop screen. That is not worth the tradeoff. Just get a USB webcam. Or use your phone. Because you know, we all have a phone. There are apps to use your phone as an external webcam for a laptop - that's what I do.

Agreed. Most people should just be getting external webcams if they're not satisfied.

First of all, I have not characterised the MB webcam, so I cannot guarantee it is diffraction limited. And I am not involved in small lens development, so everything I say is based on general optical knowledge. However, if the lens weren't at least close to the diffraction limit, the resolution would be much worse. And on the other hand, the engineering effort stops at the diffraction limit.

"Real" camera lenses are a bit different story when it comes to their dimensions and tolerances. There it really holds true that diffraction limits apply only when stopped down to maybe f/4 or even f/8. Actually, the same applies to the human eye, it is diffraction limited to approximately 3 mm pupil size, larger apertures are limited by optical aberrations mainly in the cornea.

But even with DSLRs the story is a bit different with smaller sensors and full frame sensors. It is more difficult to make a diffraction-limited FF lens than a diffraction-limited crop sensor lens. One way to think of this is to consider the diffraction limit size on the sensor. The diffraction limit on the image plane (sensor surface) depends only on the f-number, not on the focal length of the sensor. It is easier to make a lens which creates a 1.3 mm x 1.7 mm image diffraction-limited (where the diffraction limit of 2.5 um is in the order of 1 / 500 of the image size) than a 36 mm x 24 mm image with the same diffraction limit (where the same diffraction limit is in the order of 1 / 15,000 of the image size).

It would actually be a fun — and not a very difficult — experiment to characterise the transfer function of the webcam. Print a spoke target (google "Siemens star") and keep it at a suitable constant distance from the camera. Take a snapshot of the target (well-illuminated) and look at the softening of the star. In this case you can just print a target with a laser printer (there are PDFs available). If you vary the distance of the target, you can see the effect of the lack of auto-focus. (Spoke target is great because it is scale-invariant, i.e., you do not need to take the distance into account.)

And, of course, the resolution may be quite different in different areas of the image. The center may be (close to) diffraction-limited, but the corners may be much softer.



The image size per se is not a problem. It is well possible to make much smaller pixels than we have at the moment. Smallest pixels available are typically around 1.0 um x 1.0 um, and semiconductor processes would allow much smaller photosites. (There is another limit, though, and that relates to the maximum dynamic range of a pixel.)

The main problem is really the physical aperture of the lens, because that is the problem with the laws of physics. Then engineering limitations tell us something about the distance from the lens to the image plane. So, the engineering logic goes like this: need larger physical aperture (more light, less diffraction effects) -> need a longer focal length (to avoid impossible numerical apertures) -> need more distance to the sensor and a larger sensor.

The formulae for image and pixel size are quite simple in geometric terms. Let us use the following quantities:

f — focal length of the lens
? — horizontal (or vertical) FOV angle
n — number of pixels horizontally (or vertically)

Physical size of the sensor is then (distance from the lens to the image is f):

d = f * 2 * tan(? / 2)

(Draw it and revise high school trigonometry!) And pixel size:

p = d / n

So, for a 78° (horizontal) FOV webcam with 3.7 mm focal length and 1920x1080 image:

d = 3.7 mm * 2 * tan(39°) ≈ 6 mm
p ≈ 6 mm / 1920 ≈ 3.0 um

Reasonable pixel sizes are between 1 um (small phone/webcam) and 10 um (full-frame sensor).

You're quite smarter than the rest of us. Maybe you should take charge of this discussion.

I am tired of all the Macsplaining. I want a 1080p camera because I’m paying $2000 for a laptop. Period. A trillion-dollar company can surely implement one.

Woah, you're... what? The 4th engineer in this thread?

Unfortunately, it is a bit difficult to avoid the science part in this topic, as everything depends on physics. Laws of physics apply to Apple, as well. Frankly, it is quite frustrating to see people wanting improvements which are simply not possible.

Yes, the varying level of knowledge of physics in this thread is very disappointing, to say the least.

720p webcam even though it's not that bad, still bad for 2020. No excuse! I understand if it's for macbook air, but for the rest of the more expensive line ups, it should be 1080p.

Okay, you seem to know your stuff. Tell us how they would fit a 1080p webcam module into the thin lid.

 

[The Game 161]

I would imagine that they don't listen to a crazy forum like this one.

How expensive are those solutions though compared to the 720p webcam?

You clearly have the spec sheet taped to your face if that is all you can see. Feel free to obsess over the resolution, but there are many more things that come into play. Do you just not understand?

The same 1080p webcam module in the iMac isn't going to fit into the MacBook.

Do you often use your iPad for FaceTime in different lighting conditions?

The lid is the roadblock. I don't think anybody wants Apple to make it thicker.

Agreed. Most people should just be getting external webcams if they're not satisfied.

You're quite smarter than the rest of us. Maybe you should take charge of this discussion.

Woah, you're... what? The 4th engineer in this thread?

Yes, the varying level of knowledge of physics in this thread is very disappointing, to say the least.

Okay, you seem to know your stuff. Tell us how they would fit a 1080p webcam module into the thin lid.

Yeah normally iPad is what I will always use for it from a quality and angle point of view. It’s not a deal breaker though as it’s mainly used just for family related calls

 

[q64ceo]

I'd rather they put in a higher refresh rate display instead

 

[Carlos_X_el_magnifco]

I usually avoid using my background as an argument, but half of my PhD was optics, and I have both designed optical systems and lectured optics. From that perspective, I would like to try to shed some light on what physics and engineering says about image quality and camera size.

Physics sets two hard limits:

1. The amount of light entering the system depends on the physical aperture (lens size in millimetres). The number of photons entering the system sets a lower limit to the quantum noise (shot noise, "graininess") of the image due to the quantum nature of light.

2. Image sharpness depends on the physical aperture ("diffraction limit") due to the wave nature of light.

Modern camera systems are diffraction-limited, i.e. they are limited by the second limit (not engineering). Modern camera elements are quite close to the theoretical maximum efficiency (a photon hitting a pixel very likely produces a charge carrier), as well, but there is a more room for improvement. Not easy and not an order of magnitude by any means.

Let's see some comparisons between the diffraction limit and the MBA camera module. I am afraid I have to guess most specifications for the module, but these are my rather optimistic guesstimates:

focal length: 1.5 mm
f-number: f/2
number of pixels: 1280 x 720
field of view: 50°

With the given f-number the diffraction limit on the sensor is approximately 2.5 um (Airy disc first minimum, green light.)

On the other hand, the image on the sensor is approximately 1.3 mm x 0.7 mm (FOV and focal length). When this is divided by the number of pixels, the pixel size should be around 1.0 um. This seems reasonable, smallest pixels sizes in any camera elements are just in that range.

Note that the pixel size is actually well below the diffraction limit. Smaller pixels would not give any more information, just more noise. No point adding pixels with such a small aperture (physical aperture 1.5 mm / 2 = 0.75 mm).

Coincidentally, the same problem (small physical aperture) causes image noise as very few photons find their way into the optical system. So, we could try to keep the focal length intact and increase the aperture. This both collects more light (less noise) and gives a sharper image.

Unfortunately, this is easier said than done, and here we enter the engineering part. With classical lens-based optics it is possible to get up to f/1 apertures depending on the field of view. However, doing that while maintaining the physical size of the optical system is very hard, and even with larger lenses the image quality usually suffers. Apple has worked extremely hard with the f/1.6 lens in iPhone 12PM.

In theory, it should be possible to use non-classical optics or combine images from a large number of sensors. Non-classical solutions (based on diffractive optics or even on negative refractive index metamaterials) are theoretically possible but years and years from being useful in this application. Combining image from several sensors is an interesting opportunity, but there would need to be a lot of them, and that would cause a lot of other problems.

It might be interesting to compare different setups. As I hate the MB webcam image "quality", I often use a Logitech StreamCam as a quick replacement. The image quality difference is day-and-night. The Logitech lens is specified as f=3.7 mm, f/2 (1.85 mm aperture). As the focal length is 3.7/1.5 = 2.5-fold and aperture number similar, the lens collects approximately 6 times (2.5^2) as much light as the built-in webcam, and the optical resolution is approximately 2.5 times better. And that shows.

Sometimes I have tried to use EpocCam and iPhone. My iPhone XSmax seems to have a f=4.25 mm, f/1.8 lens (2.4 mm aperture), which is again somewhat better than the StreamCam (more than the aperture number would indicate, but that comes from other factors). But when I really need decent image quality, I use a D7500 DSLR with a zoom lens. The lens is not a fast one, but at f=35, f/5.6 the physical aperture is 4.5 mm. The light collecting area is thus (4.5 mm / 0.75 mm)^2 = 36-fold compared to the built-in webcam. That is a huge difference, and with the 6-fold increase in sharpness, as well, it shows.

The sensor in D7500 produces a 2160p image, but I downscale it to 720p. Crisp, sharp, well-illuminated 720p is good for anything short of creating HD videos.

Now, there are things that can be done in image processing, and the M1 MBA utilises those. The image quality may become visually more pleasing, but there is no more information in the image. If someone really wants 1080p, the image can be super-scaled by using super-resolution algorithms, but it won't look any better. And noise is poison to those algorithms.

So, due to physics and known engineering limits, you can do the following:

1. Get enough light from the right direction. This makes the image tolerable.
2. Get a good webcam. Plus of course keep illuminating.
3. Get a real camera.

Apple could make the lid thicker and use a thicker module.

From my point of view there are two completely missed easy opportunities. Apple really should make it so that an iPhone could be used as a webcam without unstable third-party solutions. DSLR and compact camera manufacturers should create UVC protocol USB interfaces on their cameras; then any camera could be plugged in as a webcam. A $300/300€ compact camera would be a fabulous webcam with zoom and aperture control.

Thanks for sharing this. It’s nice to read someone talking from a position of knowledge rather than pure speculation untempered by reality.

 

[TallManNY]

I bought a webcam to add to my Mini setup recently. Lots of zoom calls these days. I bought a 720p with a narrow angle. Frankly, I don't need hi-def pictures of my face on business calls. And I don't need a wide angle view of my office. Picture looks good. No need for it to be better.

 

[Hammerd]

No

 

[Pangalactic]

I thought the 720p Macbook webcam to be underwhelming as well just based on the spec without any personal experience, but is it really? This video was quite a surprise for me. And considering how most of us are video conferencing into an almost stamp-size gallery view of zoom, I am starting to think if we are over-criticizing the 720p webcam just because of the spec.

This is like saying "Well, most of us use Microsoft Word and Zoom, so a 2013 Macbook Air is quite sufficient". Who is most of us? What about people who want to do a video stream? Or record a video without an external camera? why do they have to settle for a subpar camera? And why is Apple advertising "studio-grade microphones" on the new Macbooks and then sticks in a 720p camera from 2010? It's just a subpar component on a such an advanced laptop

 

[EdT]

Apple has a history of making changes that end up setting a standard for the entire industry. Sometimes that decision is beneficial to Apple (and by extension, other manufacturers) a lot more than it is to users.

Don’t poke Apple too hard on laptop camera resolution, you might not like what they implement as a solution.

 

[smetvid]

I don't really see what the big deal is. I see a lot of higher end PC laptops also have a 720p camera. Its also about battery life and that 1080p video conference calls are kind of a waste of bandwidth. Remember most of us has awesome download speeds but kind of crappy upload speeds. I think Apple is striking a balance between quality here and it kind of makes sense since these cameras very likely will be used on battery power.

At the end of the day I'm not sure what the big deal is. Video conferencing platforms have crappy quality no matter what kind of webcam is used. All webcams even 1080 are crappy compared to a professional camera. Resolution is not everything and I would take a cleaner 720p camera over a cheap crappy 1080p webcam any day. The new processing on the M1 helps a ton to make that 720p look cleaner.

When I want to look really good I skip the webcam on any computer and use my professional DSLR hooked up to a affordable HDMI to USB adapter that works like a webcam. No webcam on the planet even comes close to the quality and it even beats the pants off of what the iPhone can do. Again resolution isn't everything and sensor size and image processing matter so much more.

 

[deevey]

I am tired of all the Macsplaining. I want a 1080p camera because I’m paying $2000 for a laptop. Period. A trillion-dollar company can surely implement one.

Yes, Yes they could if all their customers are also willing to acccept that their laptop lid will be 3x as thick.

 

[macsound1]

Ultimately it doesn't matter what resolution your laptop camera is because the video conference software limits it.
If you're recording a video for Youtube that's obviously a different thing.

Zoom, Teams, Google Meet etc, all cap video at 360p, with a minor asterisk.
From Zoom's FAQs: meetings in 720p-quality video are only available to Pro account users or higher, and only for meetings with a maximum of 2 participants; 1080p quality is for special-use cases currently.

Saying something like "I'm buying a $2000 laptop and I want a 1080p webcam" is a lame argument.
If you're an audio guy you might say "I don't care what magical audio processing Apple is doing, I want real 5.1 audio from my laptop."

There's also the theory that Apple just designed these machines during the pandemic. I can guarantee they decided on the webcam part number, and many other "non-essential" parts atleast 1 year before it shipped. Maybe 2 years. Product development is incredibly slow and their webcam choice had 0 to do with the pandemic.

 

[bwillwall]

People aren't smart. They see 720p and think last gen. It's a webcam. It's made to be small enough to fit in Apple's thin and tiny screens and do video calls which already have poor quality generally.

 

[iKrivetko]

I can't think of a use case where 720p would be insufficient but 1080p would, to be honest. It's more than good enough for conferencing and in many cases you are going to face compression due to bandwidth anyway. If you do vlogging or something of the sort for a living then chances are you aren't going to be satisfied by a 1080p either, so what gives.

That said, I wouldn't say no to 1080p of course.

 

[magicschoolbus]

This thread can't be serious. It's 2020 on a premium laptop in a WFH environment with tech from 2008. It's trash.

 

[zipster]

One additional thought: During COVID, laptop webcam quality issues become unimportant, because there is an easy fix: You're Zooming from home, which means you're not using your laptop as a mobile device, and thus don't need to rely on its webcam. Instead, you can just add an external device—such as the Logitech C920s Pro HD, which is available for $70 from Target. [Yes, you could also use your phone, but maybe you don't want to have to connect and unconnect your phone for every conference call.]

Probably 98% of people will not do this. Whatever camera is on the laptop is going to have to do.

 

[AutomaticApple]

Yeah normally iPad is what I will always use for it from a quality and angle point of view. It’s not a deal breaker though as it’s mainly used just for family related calls

Okay, good to hear!

I'd rather they put in a higher refresh rate display instead

Maybe you should buy an iPad Pro.

Thanks for sharing this. It’s nice to read someone talking from a position of knowledge rather than pure speculation untempered by reality.

Yeah, I'm glad that at least someone in this thread actually has knowledge with webcams.

 

[PsykX]

1080p would be nice, especially since we're in 2020 and we work from home and never used our webcams as much.

But when comparing, it's easy to notice that resolution isn't everything. Pixel quality, low-light conditions, focus, color saturation, etc. are also important.
Just look at the iPhone. For a few years, it's been stuck since at 12 megapixels, yet it's one of the best cameras ever put in a smartphone.

 

[AutomaticApple]

No

Thank you for the very insightful and thoughtful answer!

Apple has a history of making changes that end up setting a standard for the entire industry. Sometimes that decision is beneficial to Apple (and by extension, other manufacturers) a lot more than it is to users.

Don’t poke Apple too hard on laptop camera resolution, you might not like what they implement as a solution.

How many times has that happened? It first happened with the floppy disk.

This is like saying "Well, most of us use Microsoft Word and Zoom, so a 2013 Macbook Air is quite sufficient". Who is most of us? What about people who want to do a video stream? Or record a video without an external camera? why do they have to settle for a subpar camera? And why is Apple advertising "studio-grade microphones" on the new Macbooks and then sticks in a 720p camera from 2010? It's just a subpar component on a such an advanced laptop

Apple is appealing to the average user, not a video streamer with a big budget who could likely buy an external camera anyways.

The webcam certainly isn't from 2010, and I wouldn't call it subpar. Do you have a MacBook with the M1 chip? If so, take a look at the webcam. It still blows away the webcams in other Windows laptops.

Maybe you can suggest to us how they would fit a better webcam in there anyways?

I don't really see what the big deal is. I see a lot of higher end PC laptops also have a 720p camera. Its also about battery life and that 1080p video conference calls are kind of a waste of bandwidth. Remember most of us has awesome download speeds but kind of crappy upload speeds. I think Apple is striking a balance between quality here and it kind of makes sense since these cameras very likely will be used on battery power.

At the end of the day I'm not sure what the big deal is. Video conferencing platforms have crappy quality no matter what kind of webcam is used. All webcams even 1080 are crappy compared to a professional camera. Resolution is not everything and I would take a cleaner 720p camera over a cheap crappy 1080p webcam any day. The new processing on the M1 helps a ton to make that 720p look cleaner.

When I want to look really good I skip the webcam on any computer and use my professional DSLR hooked up to a affordable HDMI to USB adapter that works like a webcam. No webcam on the planet even comes close to the quality and it even beats the pants off of what the iPhone can do. Again resolution isn't everything and sensor size and image processing matter so much more.

Yes, people need to factor in bandwidth!

Yes, Yes they could if all their customers are also willing to acccept that their laptop lid will be 3x as thick.

Why don't people accept it?

Ultimately it doesn't matter what resolution your laptop camera is because the video conference software limits it.
If you're recording a video for Youtube that's obviously a different thing.

Zoom, Teams, Google Meet etc, all cap video at 360p, with a minor asterisk.
From Zoom's FAQs: meetings in 720p-quality video are only available to Pro account users or higher, and only for meetings with a maximum of 2 participants; 1080p quality is for special-use cases currently.

Saying something like "I'm buying a $2000 laptop and I want a 1080p webcam" is a lame argument.
If you're an audio guy you might say "I don't care what magical audio processing Apple is doing, I want real 5.1 audio from my laptop."

There's also the theory that Apple just designed these machines during the pandemic. I can guarantee they decided on the webcam part number, and many other "non-essential" parts atleast 1 year before it shipped. Maybe 2 years. Product development is incredibly slow and their webcam choice had 0 to do with the pandemic.

One of the best arguments I have seen on this thread yet.

People aren't smart. They see 720p and think last gen. It's a webcam. It's made to be small enough to fit in Apple's thin and tiny screens and do video calls which already have poor quality generally.

"People aren't smart" is a serious understatement. What a world we live in!

I can't think of a use case where 720p would be insufficient but 1080p would, to be honest. It's more than good enough for conferencing and in many cases you are going to face compression due to bandwidth anyway. If you do vlogging or something of the sort for a living then chances are you aren't going to be satisfied by a 1080p either, so what gives.

That said, I wouldn't say no to 1080p of course.

Those kinds of people frequently use their iPhone.

This thread can't be serious. It's 2020 on a premium laptop in a WFH environment with tech from 2008. It's trash.

No, you clearly just cannot comprehend the reality of things. Take your eyes off the spec sheet for once.

Probably 98% of people will not do this. Whatever camera is on the laptop is going to have to do.

Probably more in the realm of 90%.

1080p would be nice, especially since we're in 2020 and we work from home and never used our webcams as much.

But when comparing, it's easy to notice that resolution isn't everything. Pixel quality, low-light conditions, focus, color saturation, etc. are also important.
Just look at the iPhone. For a few years, it's been stuck since at 8 megapixels, yet it's one of the best cameras ever put in a smartphone.

The iPhone hasn't been stuck at 8 megapixels since the iPhone 6s.