Are we over-criticizing the 720p webcam?

[1BadManVan]

Maybe that’s how you got off-track—that couldn’t be further from the truth.

I’ll remember to quote this post when the tech is magically there in the first half of 2021 remodels

 

[AutomaticApple]

I meant 12.
The point was that some phones have way, WAY more than that, sometimes as ridiculous as 64 megapixels, but this spec alone doesn't make the quality of the picture.

Oh, okay. You were confusing me.

Complaining about 720p when the image quality issues have almost nothing to do with resolution = drunk on Haterade

Haterade? My new favorite word!

The fact is 720p looks awesome on a 65” big screen TV. How is it not enough resolution? It seems you are just trolling. Shameful.

There are a lot of trolls around here.

That’s not your role anywhere, and definitely not at Apple ?

What is their role anyways?

Personally, i don’t care as I use an iPad Pro & not a macbook Pro. But 720 P cameras do seem kinda lame in 2020/21...especially since more people are working at home now due to Covid. I have a feeling Apple will be adding a better camera in the upcoming 15” Macbook Pros with the M1X or whatever they will call the high end version of the M1 chip. We shall see.

Compared to other Windows laptops though?

Would you rather have a low quality 1080p or a higher quality 720p? In any case, Apple chose to go with higher quality.

Apple doesn’t do spec sheet porn, the megapixel specs on iPhones for the last 12 years are proof of that.

Spec sheet porn? You're one with words! ❤️

On the Air, no.

On the Pro, yes.

The "Pro" system should have at least a 1080p webcam.

No, it isn't vital for Zoom meetings, most of which I've been on the past 9 months have had enough attendees with enough bandwidth issues that nobody will notice the difference between 480p and 720p, much less 1080p.

But I have had to give a couple "virtual conference" talks, and in those, maximum quality always helps. I use a 1080p camcorder through an HDMI capture device - but the webcam in my HP "Pro" laptop would do just fine in a pinch and not be "terrible." The webcam in my MacBook Pro? Much worse than the HP's. And I have the 16" Pro. It absolutely should have a better webcam.

You should try out one of the new M1 Macs. The neural engine really helps to make things look better.

Putting in a worse 1080p camera than a better 720p camera isn’t future proofing.

At least it'll make the spec sheet more appealing!

That’s not what Apple’s customers want, and Apple knows it.

Especially me. I really hope they don't make the lid thicker...

You seem to wanna go to the ends of the earth to defend Apple. You can’t be that naive to think that Apple doesn’t have the technology to fit in a better quality 1080p cam on their screens. It would just cut into their profits.

It’s a choice, not a lack of tech out there. Same reason why the base model iPads have the crappy front cam yet the higher end and THINNER iPads have much better resolution front cameras.

During these times where people are much more reliant on things such as zoom meetings, I think Apple could have stepped up the quality. I think it would have made a great selling feature. And they know it would have, that’s why they still tried to push the front camera quality in their presentation.

I’m not an Apple hater, but at some point this shameless defending gets to be embarrassing... for you

Anybody who likes the 720p webcam is an Apple defender? I mean... come on. It is just an opinion that came out of personal experience. ?

And why does it have to be worse exactly? There’s also the option of a better 1080p cam. Are we ignoring this fact?

You're not thinking about the sensor size or a number of other factors that have already been mentioned in this thread which would make 1080p a downgrade in aspects other than resolution.

It’s 2020 me want 4K ?

8K bare minimum! ?

We aren’t, but you might be. Given the depth constraint, the best 640 or 720p will be better than the best 1080p, 2160 or 4K.

The problem with image quality on Mac laptops is not insufficient resolution. You can’t solve the problem of relatively poor low light performance from a small sensor in a narrow assembly, simply by upping the resolution.

Wanting a better camera on the Mac makes all the sense in the world.

Wanting a 1080p camera because 1080 p’s are moar than 720 makes zero sense.

Bigger seems to always equal better to people.

It wouldn’t make sense 5 years ago. But it makes perfect sense to request this bump in 2020 when they have all the tech they need to do this. Just lacking the will to put it in just yet.

I have a feeling the next batch of MacBooks coming next year will magically have a much improved camera without having to make a thicker lid. And I don’t think that tech would have just magically dropped into their lap. I think it’s been in their back pocket for quite some time but wanted to hold out longer for the redesign.

People are getting frustrated because many of us know they have the means to do better and have for awhile and choose not to. Especially for the premium they charge (though now with the big performance boost, it’s a much better value but what was their excuse prior?)

Apple has ample camera tech at their disposal, much more then most laptop manufactures do. They can do better, and as I said in my last post addressing someone else; I guarantee there will be a big bump up in that area in their next design. And it won’t be because they made the lid thicker

Oh, you must be an insider at Apple?

i just didn’t quote every single post you made in here and take up an entire page.

Why do people have a problem with this?

I’ll remember to quote this post when the tech is magically there in the first half of 2021 remodels

Do not get cocky and place an unnecessary bet like that. It could definitely happen, but it could also definitely not happen, then everybody would poke fun at your post. Who knows though?

To say the least... pick your poison... ??

Nobody found that funny? Well... okay...

 

[1BadManVan]

Oh, okay. You were confusing me.

Haterade? My new favorite word!

There are a lot of trolls around here.

What is their role anyways?

Compared to other Windows laptops though?

Spec sheet porn? You're one with words! ❤️

You should try out one of the new M1 Macs. The neural engine really helps to make things look better.

At least it'll make the spec sheet more appealing!

Especially me. I really hope they don't make the lid thicker...

Anybody who likes the 720p webcam is an Apple defender? I mean... come on. It is just an opinion that came out of personal experience. ?

You're not thinking about the sensor size or a number of other factors that have already been mentioned in this thread which would make 1080p a downgrade in aspects other than resolution.

8K bare minimum! ?

Bigger seems to always equal better to people.


Oh, you must be an insider at Apple?

Why do people have a problem with this?

Do not get cocky and place an unnecessary bet like that. It could definitely happen, but it could also definitely not happen, then everybody would poke fun at your post. Who knows though?

To say the least... pick your poison... ??

Nobody found that funny? Well... okay...

I’m not placing money on it but I’m still fairly confident this is what’s going to happen. The tech is there, don’t need to be an insider or even an tech expert to know it’s there. Just look at some tear downs of the front selfie cams on various phones or the iPads, can easily fit current tech behind that screen.

like I said, we’ll see next round of macs. If they don’t have the tech by now, then it obviously won’t make it into the next gen models.

 

[AutomaticApple]

I’m not placing money on it but I’m still fairly confident this is what’s going to happen. The tech is there, don’t need to be an insider or even an tech expert to know it’s there. Just look at some tear downs of the front selfie cams on various phones or the iPads, can easily fit current tech behind that screen.

like I said, we’ll see next round of macs. If they don’t have the tech by now, then it obviously won’t make it into the next gen models.

Okay then. What is wrong with the comment below? ?

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).

 

[PickUrPoison]

<snip>
The tech is there, don’t need to be an insider or even an tech expert to know it’s there. Just look at some tear downs of the front selfie cams on various phones or the iPads, can easily fit current tech behind that screen.

like I said, we’ll see next round of macs. If they don’t have the tech by now, then it obviously won’t make it into the next gen models.

Those selfie cameras are nowhere near small (shallow) enough to replace what Apple, Dell, Lenovo and the others are using in their laptops.

Making up stuff (that’s 100% wrong) doesn’t improve your argument, it knocks the legs out from under it.

 

[theorist9]

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.

Thanks for the detailed reply!

So when you wrote "Modern camera systems are diffraction-limited," what you actually meant was "Modern small-lens camera systems (i.e., of webcam size) are diffraction-limited". [Since you discussed a wide range of camera systems in your post, from webcams to DSLRs, this qualifier wasn't implicitly obvious (at least not to me).]

*************

Would you happen to know how Google achieves the 1080p resolution in the webcam of their Pixelbook Go? I haven't been able to find any specs on it, other than that the lens is f/2.0. The overall thickness of the Go is 2.2 mm less than that of the 13" MBP (13.4 mm vs. 15.6 mm), but I don't know what its lid thickness is. This video, from Jonna Stern of the WSJ, shows it is noticeably sharper than the webcam in the MBP under bright light; but it also has poor dynamic range (as seen in the backlit scenes) and mediocre low light performance, suggesting Google achieved the increased resolution by decreasing pixel size. But that doesn't explain how they were able to get 1080p from the lens (assuming it actually is 1080p):

Laptop Webcam Showdown: MacBook Air? Dell XPS? They’re Pretty Bad

In our coronavirus-tainted world, we’re realizing that we depend a lot on our laptop webcams… and they’re not good. WSJ’s Joanna Stern compared the new MacBook Air to the Dell XPS 13, Google’s Pixelbook Go and Microsoft’s Surface Laptop 3.

www.wsj.com

Here are some bright-light pics. [N.B. to the thread: These are not representative of how a webcam is most commonly used, since they were taken outdoors. Indoors, with less light, the advantage moves away from higher resolution and more towards larger pixel size, i.e., if you could modestly increase the lens size and sensor size on the Mac laptop webcams, you'd probably get better results with a better 720p webcam (bigger pixels) than a 1080p webcam. Supporting this, if you watch the video, you'll see that the Pixelbook's camera loses much of its advantage indoors. OTOH, if you could significantly increase the lens and sensor size (as can be done on an iMac), then a 1080p webcam would look better.]

From looking at her hair, you can see how much sharper the Pixelbook Go is. The softest is the 2010 Macbook Pro, which is only 480p. Interestingly, if you watch the video, you'll see the 2010 MBP has the best low-light performance of all the laptops, likely because it's 480p (i.e., assuming these all have roughly the same sensor size, the 480p's pixels would be the largest, giving the strongest signal per pixel).

 

[dogslobber]

My 2014 MBP has a 720P webcam. Meanwhile, 6 years later...

 

[AutomaticApple]

Those selfie cameras are nowhere near small (shallow) enough to replace what Apple, Dell, Lenovo and the others are using in their laptops.

Making up stuff (that’s 100% wrong) doesn’t improve your argument, it knocks the legs out from under it.

Are they purposefully making incorrect statements though? ?

Thanks for the detailed reply!

So when you wrote "Modern camera systems are diffraction-limited," what you actually meant was "Modern small-lens camera systems (i.e., of webcam size) are diffraction-limited". [Since you discussed a wide range of camera systems in your post, from webcams to DSLRs, this qualifier wasn't implicitly obvious (at least not to me).]

Also, in this post you wrote "It is more difficult to make a diffraction-limited FF lens". "Difficult" might be understating things. I don't think anyone actually makes a production FF lens that is diffraction limited, period. Every FF lens I've ever seen reviewed loses sharpness towards the edges. I suspect making one would be a very expensive custom undertaking.

Would you happen to know how Google achieves the 1080p resolution in the webcam of their Pixelbook Go? I haven't been able to find any specs on it, other than that the lens is f/2.0. The overall thickness of the Go is 2.2 mm less than that of the 13" MBP (13.4 mm vs. 15.6 mm), but I don't know what its lid thickness is. This video shows it is noticeably sharper than the webcam in the MBP, but it has poor dynamic range (as seen in the backlit scenes) and mediocre low light performance, suggesting they achieved the increased resolution by decreasing pixel size. But it doesn't explain how they were able to get 1080p from the lens (assuming it actually is 1080p)
:

Laptop Webcam Showdown: MacBook Air? Dell XPS? They’re Pretty Bad

In our coronavirus-tainted world, we’re realizing that we depend a lot on our laptop webcams… and they’re not good. WSJ’s Joanna Stern compared the new MacBook Air to the Dell XPS 13, Google’s Pixelbook Go and Microsoft’s Surface Laptop 3.

www.wsj.com

From looking at her hair, you can see how much sharper the Pixelbook Go is. The softest is the 2010 Macbook Pro, which is only 480p. Interestingly, if you watch the video, you'll see the 2010 MBP has the best low-light performance of all the laptops, likely because it's 480p (i.e., assuming the sensor size of the 2010 MBP is similar to that in the 2020 MBA, the former's pixels would be larger, giving higher signal/pixel).

View attachment 1683929

View attachment 1683933

The Pixelbook Go is a Chromebook though. That must mean it is cheap, right?

Oh my...

My 2014 MBP has a 720P webcam. Meanwhile, 6 years later...

The same old nonproductive whining we've heard a thousand times brings very little significance to the discussion. Do you have anything more thoughtful to say, or are you just here to stoke the flames and troll? Most others in this thread that aren't in favor of the 720p webcam have at least said more things of significance than what you've said so far...

 

[dogslobber]

The same old nonproductive whining we've heard a thousand times brings very little significance to the discussion. Do you have anything more thoughtful to say, or are you just here to stoke the flames and troll? Most others in this thread that aren't in favor of the 720p webcam have at least said more things of significance than what you've said so far...

Why the personal attacks? That's against the ToS of this webpage.

I just pointed out that my 6 years old MBP has the same resolution webcam as shiny. That's a real problem in days of 1080p being the minimum.

 

[s66]

You don't need to make the sensor thicker to improve the camera. You can make the sensor taller and wider to accommodate more (and bigger) pixels. The thickness can remain exactly what it is now. I think you're thinking about changes to the lens.

The sensor becoming taller and wider means that the lens needs to project a larger image onto that larger sensor than it had to on a smaller sensor.
For the lens to do that it needs to become larger too. Not just a larger diameter, but also longer (physically). And then it won't fit in the lid anymore.

 

[s66]

Maybe that’s how you got off-track—that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Especially as those that keep insisting on a 1080p camera in there

1. do not own an M1 powered laptop to start with, so they have not the slightest idea of the image processing apple is throwing at the problem. They're just jumping on the bandwagon. Remember the M1 has dedicated hardware to do image processing - it can probably do much more image processing in real time than any other general purpose CPU/GPU out there. [That said: it'll still be limited to what it gets from the sensor, but it might well improve perception compared to other 720p sensors in common usage settings.]

2. do not understand the physics of lenses and sensors. Having many engineers, even having megabucks, still will not change the limits imposed by nature itself.

3. those that do have problems can fix most of it with more light on their face. It might be easier for apple to add a few bright LEDs around the camera to give the subject a bit more photons to reflect back into the sensor. It might be hard to see the screen then though ...

 

[jtrenda33]

No, we’re not being overly critical. It’s horrible in fact. I have the newest 16-inch MBP and I have resorted to a tripod, my iPhone XS, and the EpocCam Pro app for my zoom calls.

I don’t know what these other fools are talking about, I can totally see a difference between the iSight cam and the iPhone camera. And if I have to be on camera, I want to look my best, and the 720p webcam is a joke, especially in lower light conditions. If I’m not using it outside or right by a window, the grain is atrocious.

But to be honest, even if it was a phenomenal camera, I still hate the point of view of laptop webcams. I don’t want to be looking up your nose or at your dirty popcorn ceiling. Plus it makes me feel like I’m some kind of insect in a glass jar looking up wondering if I’m ever going to escape the probing eyes of my captor.

 

[theorist9]

But to be honest, even if it was a phenomenal camera, I still hate the point of view of laptop webcams. I don’t want to be looking up your nose or at your dirty popcorn ceiling. Plus it makes me feel like I’m some kind of insect in a glass jar looking up wondering if I’m ever going to escape the probing eyes of my captor.

For home use, I recommend the Rain Design MStand (https://www.raindesigninc.com/mstand.html) (or really any type of laptop stand), in combination with an external keyboard and mouse or trackpad, because it protects the laptop if you spill a drink (it's saved mine several times over the years), adds desk space, and improves ventilation.

An additional benefit, for you, would be that it raises the webcam to a non-insectoid height. [Not an issue for me, because I use a Logitech 920 USB webcam, which I can put atop my external monitor.]

 

[deevey]

Why the personal attacks? That's against the ToS of this webpage.

I just pointed out that my 6 years old MBP has the same resolution webcam as shiny. That's a real problem in days of 1080p being the minimum.

The minimum for what exactly ?? ... The MB camera is there for joining online meetings on the go which are primarily compressed to stream at 720p (or lower) not for creating YouTube content.

But to be honest, even if it was a phenomenal camera, I still hate the point of view of laptop webcams. I don’t want to be looking up your nose or at your dirty popcorn ceiling.

Huawei came up with a solution for housing a much better camera. But ...... your issue x10

Huawei’s new laptop has a mechanical pop-up webcam in the keyboard

Perfect for privacy, but less so for flattering selfies

www.theverge.com

 

[Hammerd]

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.

I would personally take the cleaner 1080p camera Apple could have included over a cleaner 720p camera.

Speaking of bandwidth, the videoconference softwares compress the video stream so it’s not a problem.

and if what you say is to be true (that 1080p uses more battery) then the effect should be tiny and be counterbalanced by the M1’s crazy low consumption by far

But hey, Thanks Apple for including 10+ yr old stuff because we look bad these days

 

[Yebubbleman]

I think it's more that the iMac Pro and 27" iMac both have 1080p cameras, and the front-facing cameras of most iPhones are even better than that. Certainly, the MacBook Pros and Airs might have less room to work with a camera (given how ridiculously thin those displays are), but on a spec sheet, it's sort of sad.

 

[PickUrPoison]

My 2014 MBP has a 720P webcam. Meanwhile, 6 years later...

... and the laws of physics have yet to yield.

And 720p HDTV still looks just as amazing this year as it did in 1998, even on a 55 inch screen.

So what’s wrong with 720p? ?

btw, have you heard that the resolution spec isn’t really the problem—or solution—with respect to relatively poor quality laptop cams?

If only it were that simple...

 

[acidfast7_redux]

gotta go to 6h of Zoom now with my ****** 720p webcam.

i just want to point out that the M1MBA will do these with a single battery charge and I will easily have the highest quality image out of everyone present.

decisions, decisions, more voting meetings ... i hope they take me seriously with such a poor webcam.

(troll mode activated for the meetings.)

 

[AutomaticApple]

Why the personal attacks? That's against the ToS of this webpage.

There almost always seems to be much worse happening on this forum. I wasn't trying to attack you, nor did I want to suggest that you're a troll, but I just want to know more specifically why you think that the webcam isn't tolerable. You weren't telling us why, other than the fact that you just really hate it. Do not pull the victim card if we can just get along for once.

Especially as those that keep insisting on a 1080p camera in there

1. do not own an M1 powered laptop to start with, so they have not the slightest idea of the image processing apple is throwing at the problem. They're just jumping on the bandwagon. Remember the M1 has dedicated hardware to do image processing - it can probably do much more image processing in real time than any other general purpose CPU/GPU out there. [That said: it'll still be limited to what it gets from the sensor, but it might well improve perception compared to other 720p sensors in common usage settings.]

2. do not understand the physics of lenses and sensors. Having many engineers, even having megabucks, still will not change the limits imposed by nature itself.

3. those that do have problems can fix most of it with more light on their face. It might be easier for apple to add a few bright LEDs around the camera to give the subject a bit more photons to reflect back into the sensor. It might be hard to see the screen then though ...

Yes, there is a varying level of knowledge on this forum. Not everybody seems to understand.

No, we’re not being overly critical. It’s horrible in fact. I have the newest 16-inch MBP and I have resorted to a tripod, my iPhone XS, and the EpocCam Pro app for my zoom calls.

I don’t know what these other fools are talking about, I can totally see a difference between the iSight cam and the iPhone camera. And if I have to be on camera, I want to look my best, and the 720p webcam is a joke, especially in lower light conditions. If I’m not using it outside or right by a window, the grain is atrocious.

But to be honest, even if it was a phenomenal camera, I still hate the point of view of laptop webcams. I don’t want to be looking up your nose or at your dirty popcorn ceiling. Plus it makes me feel like I’m some kind of insect in a glass jar looking up wondering if I’m ever going to escape the probing eyes of my captor.

Fools? Maybe you should reconsider by taking a look at the quote below.

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).

See what I mean?

The minimum for what exactly ?? ... The MB camera is there for joining online meetings on the go which are primarily compressed to stream at 720p (or lower) not for creating YouTube content.

Huawei came up with a solution for housing a much better camera. But ...... your issue x10

Huawei’s new laptop has a mechanical pop-up webcam in the keyboard

Perfect for privacy, but less so for flattering selfies

www.theverge.com

The minimum should be 720p because that is the resolution of most Windows laptop webcams.

I would personally take the cleaner 1080p camera Apple could have included over a cleaner 720p camera.

Speaking of bandwidth, the videoconference softwares compress the video stream so it’s not a problem.

and if what you say is to be true (that 1080p uses more battery) then the effect should be tiny and be counterbalanced by the M1’s crazy low consumption by far

But hey, Thanks Apple for including 10+ yr old stuff because we look bad these days

How do you know that Apple could've put a 1080p webcam module into a thin lid? Are you able to disprove previous evidence in this thread?

I think it's more that the iMac Pro and 27" iMac both have 1080p cameras, and the front-facing cameras of most iPhones are even better than that. Certainly, the MacBook Pros and Airs might have less room to work with a camera (given how ridiculously thin those displays are), but on a spec sheet, it's sort of sad.

Stop looking at the spec sheet. It is just a number. Do not hurt your eyes!

gotta go to 6h of Zoom now with my ****** 720p webcam.

i just want to point out that the M1MBA will do these with a single battery charge and I will easily have the highest quality image out of everyone present.

decisions, decisions, more voting meetings ... i hope they take me seriously with such a poor webcam.

(troll mode activated for the meetings.)

I have seen much worse on news shows. They'll definitely take you seriously.

 

[Krevnik]

Apple has ample camera tech at their disposal, much more then most laptop manufactures do.

Last time I checked, Apple doesn’t make their own sensors, but relies on manufacturers like Sony, just like everyone else. So this doesn’t really track.

 

[ian87w]

The sensor becoming taller and wider means that the lens needs to project a larger image onto that larger sensor than it had to on a smaller sensor.
For the lens to do that it needs to become larger too. Not just a larger diameter, but also longer (physically). And then it won't fit in the lid anymore.

Some people thinks the Macbooks are made in Hogwarts.

 

[Spindel]

Some people thinks the Macbooks are made in Hogwarts.

Considering the power draw and performance of M1 compared to the competition Hogwarts involvement is plausible.

 

[ian87w]

Considering the power draw and performance of M1 compared to the competition Hogwarts involvement is plausible.

Then Dumbledore forgot to shoehorn an 8K RED camera inside those MacBook lids... Such a shame. Was expecting to at least do a 4K slofies on my zoom calls.

 

[1BadManVan]

Last time I checked, Apple doesn’t make their own sensors, but relies on manufacturers like Sony, just like everyone else. So this doesn’t really track.

Where did I say they made their own? I said that have ample tech at their disposal. Which is 100% fact

 

[WhatUp?]

No one loves these Apple releases more than the basement trolls, as it's their moment to crawl out and use their momma's Dell to gripe.