Are we over-criticizing the 720p webcam?

[AutomaticApple]

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.

8K is tech from 10 years ago. You're being ridiculous. They need to put a 12K HDR RED webcam in there. If not, Apple has lost all innovation and will die soon. /s

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

Is it rumor season? There are all these insiders like you revealing stuff like that.

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.

This forum makes Twitter look like the sweetest place on the internet.

 

[Dammit Cubs]

Get rid of the webcam and make the screen even bigger

 

[WinterWolf90]

Why would working from home still be common after the pandemic is over?

Yes, that is the point I'm trying to get across.

Yes, it is extremely ironic.

If it makes a difference, I have a Surface Pro 7 and a Chromebook that I actively use. ?

The iPhone is much thicker than the lid of a MacBook. The M1 chip has already proven to significantly improve the picture quality of the webcam. Do not let the spec sheet irk you.

How do you know that it would make a significant difference? Did you watch the video?

Yes, audio clarify is definitely important to. Great point.

If only that fact gained mainstream media attention...

External cameras are underrated.

I cannot tell if youre being sarcastic or not.

It truly is a "pick your poison" situation.

Most professionals have external cameras.

Camera humps? Can we avoid those?

Are they behind their competitors though?

Thank you for your long response and insight.

We all know how stunning it is.

Functionality over design!

No company is perfect in every single department. That mindset is not adopted often enough.

The cheaps ones do leave sticky residue, so be careful.

The iPhone is much thicker than the lid of a MacBook.

Yes, exactly!

Wouldn't you still be able to notice the bump though when glancing at the webcam?

You must be in poor lighting conditions then. Did you watch the video? The M1 chip makes things look vastly better without having to bump up the resolution. Being more open-minded when it comes to this stuff is very important, but maybe I'm asking too much from you.

Do you have an older Intel MacBook? That last part is hugely exaggerated and overblown. Nobody except us nerds who obsess at little details will purposefully look for people who have MacBook webcams during video calls, nor would we even know who in the first place due to a number of factors.

Oh give me a break lol, open Minded? You will defend anything by saying did you watch the video, they need to upgrade the camera, end of discussion.

 

[acidfast7_redux]

I used my 720p webcam yesterday and it was excellent for my 4h exec meeting. Best in the meeting by far.

I also used to last FRI to deliver a maths lecture on a whiteboard to 400 student and it was excellent. Even the video playback that I recorded was stellar.

720p for life.

Only spec-racers want more.

 

[AutomaticApple]

Get rid of the webcam and make the screen even bigger

What about the people who need the webcam?

Oh give me a break lol, open Minded? You will defend anything by saying did you watch the video, they need to upgrade the camera, end of discussion.

You really want the last say in things, don't you? No need to get so mad over a number.

Maybe bring something of value to the discussion and try to stack up to this.

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).

I used my 720p webcam yesterday and it was excellent for my 4h exec meeting. Best in the meeting by far.

I also used to last FRI to deliver a maths lecture on a whiteboard to 400 student and it was excellent. Even the video playback that I recorded was stellar.

720p for life.

Only spec-racers want more.

Exactly my point. Some people need to rethink what they're doing...

 

[WinterWolf90]

What about the people who need the webcam?

You really want the last say in things, don't you? No need to get so mad over a number.

Maybe bring something of value to the discussion and try to stack up to this.


Exactly my point. Some people need to rethink what they're doing...

Oh yeah, so mad.

 

[wytwolf]

Does the 720p camera suck for video recording? Yes.

Does the 720p camera suck for facetime videos? Questionable.

Does the 720p camera suck for heavily compressed, small windowed (think Brady Bunch) video conferences? No.

Is the 720p camera better then 90% of the competitors? Yes.

Remember Apple aims to satisfy 90% of it's audience 90% of the time.

While I would love the Macbooks to have a 1080p camera, heck I'd love to have a 4K camera, it's not a dealbreaker. Hence the reason why I have an M1 MBP on order. Now hopefully "Santa" can work his magic and deliver it the week before the suggested delivery window so I can have it before Christmas.

 

[AutomaticApple]

Oh yeah, so mad.

Okay, whatever you say.

Maybe @PickUrPoison can enlighten you.

 

[AutomaticApple]

Does the 720p camera suck for video recording? Yes.

Does the 720p camera suck for facetime videos? Questionable.

Does the 720p camera suck for heavily compressed, small windowed (think Brady Bunch) video conferences? No.

Is the 720p camera better then 90% of the competitors? Yes.

Remember Apple aims to satisfy 90% of it's audience 90% of the time.

While I would love the Macbooks to have a 1080p camera, heck I'd love to have a 4K camera, it's not a dealbreaker. Hence the reason why I have an M1 MBP on order. Now hopefully "Santa" can work his magic and deliver it the week before the suggested delivery window so I can have it before Christmas.

I was trying to get that point across earlier in the thread.

 

[bsmr]

What a shame.... the Camera sucks. And is even worse than my old rMBP from 2013.

iOS 14.2 Quietly Added FaceTime 1080p Support to iPhone 8 and Later Models

Back in early November, Apple released iOS 14.2 and announced with it a slew of new features for iPhones, but one thing it didn't mention was the...

www.macrumors.com

 

[AutomaticApple]

What a shame.... the Camera sucks. And is even worse than my old rMBP from 2013.

iOS 14.2 Quietly Added FaceTime 1080p Support to iPhone 8 and Later Models

Back in early November, Apple released iOS 14.2 and announced with it a slew of new features for iPhones, but one thing it didn't mention was the...

www.macrumors.com

How is it even worse? Something definitely isn't right... ?

 

[Jimmy James]

Is it too low? Yes. Absolutely!
Do I really care? No. Not at all.

 

[AutomaticApple]

Is it too low? Yes. Absolutely!
Do I really care? No. Not at all.

Mixed feelings? I like it!

 

[Jimmy James]

Mixed feelings? I like it!

Actually, it doesn’t really matter to me.

I can understand how it would be useful for others.

 

[WinterWolf90]

Okay, whatever you say.

Maybe @PickUrPoison can enlighten you.

i doubt it, I’m not an apologist. it’s very evident you are, I don’t need to be enlightened on anything. Enjoy the kool aid.

 

[AutomaticApple]

i doubt it, I’m not an apologist. it’s very evident you are, I don’t need to be enlightened on anything. Enjoy the kool aid.

Okay, so anyone defending the webcam in the slightest is an Apple fanboy? Give ME a break...

All you have to do is back yourself up. Seriously, it is that simple. If you're just going to continue slandering me, then you clearly don't have much to bring to the table in regards to this discussion. Just do the math! It cannot be that hard for you to compete with the quote down below, right?

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).

How about we stop beating this dead horse and end the bickering. I'm not interested in picking a fight with anybody. If you insist on continuing this nonproductive back and fourth bickering, then I really hope that you're not trolling.

 

[AutomaticApple]

Actually, it doesn’t really matter to me.

I can understand how it would be useful for others.

See? This is the kind of open minded discussion we should be having, not throwing insults at each other.

 

[MarkAtl]

Well, with respect, I disagree for the following reasons:
1. Not everyone is using their Webcams for Zoom / Skype etc. FaceTime is very capable and speaking to a loved one on full screen is not the same as having your photo appear in a small square, as it does on Zoom.
2. If Apple can claim to have improved the quality of 720p video using AI, I am pretty sure they could remove the noise using the same. I cannot believe my eyes many people here say that if Apple put a 1080p camera, the picture quality would be grainy.
3. The one and only reason Apple has kept the 720p camera is for their endless obsession with cost saving.

PS: 20+ years of a happy Mac user here.

Image quality is a function of lens size, pixel size as well as number of pixels. If you add more pixels but don‘t increase the lens size or pixel size the amount of light each pixel gets is less, and therefore is crappy in low light and subject to greater noise.

1080p has roughly 2x the pixel count over 720p, so to get the same image quality you will need to keep the pixel size the same and make the lens and assembly bigger, or sacrifice image quality by keeping the package the same and shrinking pixel size.

At some point it’s about physics. To Apple’s credit they’ve probably done everything they can to reduce noise outside the assembly. And yes, there definitely is some level of cost control, but if Apple really wanted a 1080p camera that they felt would outperform what’s in the laptop now they would spend the extra $5 or so It would probably cost.

I think back to one of my first “real” digital cameras, the Sony DSC-F707. 5 megapixels in 2001, which was huge for the day. It also had a huge lens and a big sensor by today’s standards. Took great pictures in all settings. You can’t just shrink this 1.5lb camera to a fraction of an ounce and expect the same results.

 

[polaris20]

Does the 720p camera suck for video recording? Yes.

Does the 720p camera suck for facetime videos? Questionable.

Does the 720p camera suck for heavily compressed, small windowed (think Brady Bunch) video conferences? No.

Is the 720p camera better then 90% of the competitors? Yes.

Remember Apple aims to satisfy 90% of it's audience 90% of the time.

While I would love the Macbooks to have a 1080p camera, heck I'd love to have a 4K camera, it's not a dealbreaker. Hence the reason why I have an M1 MBP on order. Now hopefully "Santa" can work his magic and deliver it the week before the suggested delivery window so I can have it before Christmas.

Yup. LOL'ing at this thread, whilst sitting on a Teams call, where even with a grid of five users, my high end HPE Elite book's camera looks like hot garbage, on a $2200 laptop.

I mean, yeah. I will still have to hold off on shooting my kid's Nutcracker performance using my MBP M1, but I can always use my iPad.

 

[AutomaticApple]

Image quality is a function of lens size, pixel size as well as number of pixels. If you add more pixels but don‘t increase the lens size or pixel size the amount of light each pixel gets is less, and therefore is crappy in low light and subject to greater noise.

1080p has roughly 2x the pixel count over 720p, so to get the same image quality you will need to keep the pixel size the same and make the lens and assembly bigger, or sacrifice image quality by keeping the package the same and shrinking pixel size.

At some point it’s about physics. To Apple’s credit they’ve probably done everything they can to reduce noise outside the assembly. And yes, there definitely is some level of cost control, but if Apple really wanted a 1080p camera that they felt would outperform what’s in the laptop now they would spend the extra $5 or so It would probably cost.

I think back to one of my first “real” digital cameras, the Sony DSC-F707. 5 megapixels in 2001, which was huge for the day. It also had a huge lens and a big sensor by today’s standards. Took great pictures in all settings. You can’t just shrink this 1.5lb camera to a fraction of an ounce and expect the same results.

Very good points!

Yup. LOL'ing at this thread, whilst sitting on a Teams call, where even with a grid of five users, my high end HPE Elite book's camera looks like hot garbage, on a $2200 laptop.

I mean, yeah. I will still have to hold off on shooting my kid's Nutcracker performance using my MBP M1, but I can always use my iPad.

Yet nobody is angry at HP... ?

 

[polaris20]

Very good points!

Yet nobody is angry at HP... ?

I guess that depends on who you ask.

 

[Six0Four]

First thing i do with a new laptop is put tape over the webcam anyway. From the reviews though it looks better than last year and didn't look too bad. I would want a better camera though if i'm spending 2k+ on a pro machine.

 

[profdraper]

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.

The laptop 'standard' out there right now is: 1080p webcam, bluetooth 5, wifi 6, edge to edge UDH touch displays & the rest. Apple sits on its designs for 4 years or so, yet buys components from the same South Korean or Taiwanese suppliers that also provide Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus etc (all selling with the base spec as per above). Apple prioritises shareholders & profit margins over customers as long as they let them get away with it. Hence the ancient, cheapo 720p webcam on a laptop with a 'pro' moniker ...

 

[AutomaticApple]

I guess that depends on who you ask.

Yeah, true. ?

First thing i do with a new laptop is put tape over the webcam anyway. From the reviews though it looks better than last year and didn't look too bad. I would want a better camera though if i'm spending 2k+ on a pro machine.

How do you take off the tape without leaving residue?

The laptop 'standard' out there right now is: 1080p webcam, bluetooth 5, wifi 6, edge to edge UDH touch displays & the rest. Apple sits on its designs for 4 years or so, yet buys components from the same South Korean or Taiwanese suppliers that also provide Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus etc (all selling with the base spec as per above). Apple prioritises shareholders & profit margins over customers as long as they let them get away with it. Hence the ancient, cheapo 720p webcam on a laptop with a 'pro' moniker ...

1080p is generally not the standard for most laptops. An older post in this thread went into detail about how most laptops still leverage a 720p webcam that manages to look worse than the recent MacBooks (mostly because resolution isn't everything).

 

[theorist9]

I think back to one of my first “real” digital cameras, the Sony DSC-F707. 5 megapixels in 2001, which was huge for the day. It also had a huge lens and a big sensor by today’s standards. Took great pictures in all settings. You can’t just shrink this 1.5lb camera to a fraction of an ounce and expect the same results.

Actually, I'd use that as an example of how, with improved technology, you can make things far smaller and get better pictures. [Of course, as I've explained in my previous posts, the thickness of laptop lids is a very restrictive constraint.]

That camera used a 2/3" sensor, which was a large sensor at the time. Yet the current Sony R1R-II is able to fit a far larger full-frame sensor (to understand just how much larger, see the pic below) in a far smaller body/

Interesting factoid about that camera, from https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1144200844/throwback-thursday-sony-dsc-f707
"NightShot is probably most famous - or infamous - for different reasons. Sony camcorders (and the F707/F717) equipped with NightShot could be modified to 'see through' clothing and other objects. So, if you happen to see an F707 with a dark IR filter on it, run the other way."