Are we over-criticizing the 720p webcam?

[Hexley]

For FaceTime specifically, what is the highest camera megapixel the service allows?

For image quality to improve you need a larger and better image sensor, lens optics quality and quality of light.

 

[dogslobber]

Exactly, so what position are you in to assume that they can stuff a slightly better 1080p webcam module into such a thin lid?

The role of consumer and user. The 720p camera is a piece of junk and is insulting to Mac users in 2020. Apple needs to actually do some real engineering and make a proper resolution camera for the prices they charged. Perhaps if folks were willing to actually speak up about such short cuts rather than accept the inferior products then Apple would actually listen.

 

[akbarali.ch]

higher is better and one cannot deny that, but then how much does it improve in real world is another matter. I would prefer higher frame rate and better understanding and adjusting of lighting condition and smooth streaming and after i get all that, if i can get the higher res too, i'll take it. 720p is more than adequate for me. I want image to be better lit in whatever lighting condition i'm in. Low lighting had been really worse in some of the older macs.

 

[acidfast7_redux]

The role of consumer and user. The 720p camera is a piece of junk and is insulting to Mac users in 2020. Apple needs to actually do some real engineering and make a proper resolution camera for the prices they charged. Perhaps if folks were willing to actually speak up about such short cuts rather than accept the inferior products then Apple would actually listen.

I don't think it's a short cut at all.

Most video conference does 720p max anyway. In addition recording of lectures in 720p is the max (Panopto) that I'd waste bandwidth on.

I wouldn't take anyone seriously that had an issue with the camera.

I usually talk to between 500 and 1000 undergrads a week and between 5 and 20 gradstudents. Along, with between 3 and 6 CEOs depending on the week.

I don't see anyone complaining or any real difference in the video quality between this machine and everyone else's. The exception being that low-light performance is pretty solid in Zoom compared to most other people.

Over the last few months, I've been online with video about 10-15h/week.

I DON'T FEEL INSULTED IN THE SLIGHTEST, ESPECIALLY AT THE SUB-£900 PRICEPOINT.

No one busy with give a toss as it's about information/content transfer. Even my architect doesn't care and he's super-precise.

 

[Hoo Doo Dude]

higher is better and one cannot deny that, but then how much does it improve in real world is another matter. I would prefer higher frame rate and better understanding and adjusting of lighting condition and smooth streaming and after i get all that, if i can get the higher res too, i'll take it. 720p is more than adequate for me. I want image to be better lit in whatever lighting condition i'm in. Low lighting had been really worse in some of the older macs.

Higher is only better if the sensor size is increased. Higher is worse in many ways when you try to cram pixels too close together. Increased sensor size requires more physical space. Limitations of how thin screens are limit the size of the sensor.

 

[k2k koos]

720p is fine for most of the video conferencing I've been in, in fact I'm happy if the whole chat goes without a glitch, that no one's link is dropping out, sound or video feeds etc... there usually is at least one....

 

[acidfast7_redux]

Also, there's a ton of people ITT that have no idea of photographic physics and are simply end-users.

Those people tend to complain the loudest.

 

[KittyKatta]

Over quarantine then do you know how many times a news interview or late-nite talk show globally broadcast their blocky faces on a MacBook Pro?

That MacBook 720 camera has become so "distinctive" that you can watch TV and immediately say "yeah, that celeb has a MacBook". That is NOT a badge of honor for Apple and it is not something that Apple defnders should make excuses for. Theres a reason that "FaceTime Camera" has showed up in the Cons column of every MacBook review from the last decade. A quality built-in facetime camera is important and Apple should care that we aren't seeing our relatives or our news scientists clearly because they use MacBooks.

 

[deevey]

It's that cheap now? I received both cameras a week before its local release over 5 years ago.

What I'm saying is if you have these cameras now then use them with your video conferencing so it becomes useful again.

Now if you want to buy them then that's something all together different.

TBH Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al should have offered software to use these large image sensor cameras as webcams over a decade go. It would have increased sales.

Those large sensors + sense will fit in the 1.5mm space of the facetime webcam right ?

 

[deevey]

If you have ample lighting, the 720p webcam feels better, but if you don’t it shows how bad the camera is.

This is the only thing I hate about M1 - for all the goodness Apple gave us with M1, they couldn’t for one put a nicer webcam for us, especially during the pandemic! Sigh!

Yes they could have made the screen a lot thicker.

 

[acidfast7_redux]

Over quarantine then do you know how many times a news interview or late-nite talk show globally broadcast their blocky faces on a MacBook Pro?

That MacBook 720 camera has become so "distinctive" that you can watch TV and immediately say "yeah, that celeb has a MacBook". That is NOT a badge of honor for Apple and it is not something that Apple defnders should make excuses for. Theres a reason that "FaceTime Camera" has showed up in the Cons column of every MacBook review from the last decade. A quality built-in facetime camera is important and Apple should care that we aren't seeing our relatives or our news scientists clearly because they use MacBooks.

Honestly, no one cares, at least not in the UK/Europe. We have more important things to worry about.

We even get our PM over FaceTime on national news. Perhaps, this is an American-centric complaint, which would make sense.

 

[Optheduim]

The camera needed a spec bump before COVID, regardless of device. The app du jour for video conferencing also needs to figure out their compression ratios.

 

[deevey]

If you have ample lighting, the 720p webcam feels better, but if you don’t it shows how bad the camera is.

This is the only thing I hate about M1 - for all the goodness Apple gave us with M1, they couldn’t for one put a nicer webcam for us, especially during the pandemic! Sigh!

Physics is a pain in the butt right ?

Theres a reason that the cheapest Logitech 1080p camera is 15mm thick.

 

[Hexley]

Those large sensors + sense will fit in the 1.5mm space of the facetime webcam right ?

Reread what I wrote. I never said put a full frame sensor and L lens into a facetime selfie camera.

 

[acidfast7_redux]

Physics is a pain in the butt right ?

Theres a reason that the cheapest Logitech 1080p camera is 15mm thick.

technically, physics doesn't necessarily dictate thicker cameras for higher resolution. however, given the thickness limitation of the MB lid, there is nothing to be gained from going to 1080p from 720p.

 

[acidfast7_redux]

Reread what I wrote. I never said put a full frame sensor and L lens into a facetime selfie camera.

I don't think you're using the full-frame terminology correctly. Nor, do I think you appreciate the DX/FF difference when using FF in this context.

 

[acidfast7_redux]

I think you've never owned a full frame camera or much used one.

When replying to any post take the effort to understand English before replying in it.

My first FF camera was a D3. So, I think you better think before you type. Get it together, man, you shaming yourself with a distinct lack of knowledge/experience. No one reasonably discusses FF/DX outside of a dSLR body, let alone anything used for video. You need to get over yourself. If you'd prefer to change language just let me know and I'll have you handled.

 

[EvilEvil]

What years is this? It's crazy that Apple refuses to put a 1080p or higher webcam in their macs and iPhones. 720p is no longer considered HD.

 

[GiantKiwi]

What years is this? It's crazy that Apple refuses to put a 1080p or higher webcam in their macs and iPhones. 720p is no longer considered HD.

Actually, no. Most of the world would be more than happy to get a 720p and regard it as HD. Only entitled westerners disagree.

 

[acidfast7_redux]

Actually, no. Most of the world would be more than happy to get a 720p and regard it as HD. Only entitled westerners disagree.

I agree. There's a ton of spec-racing going on here. Probably by bored undergrads sitting in on useless lectures delivered by under-trained, under-qualified faculty. I can't blame them really but anyone spending significant time on "video calls" is much more interested in the background of the other party than they tend to be in the actual content transferred.

 

[Hexley]

My first FF camera was a D3. So, I think you better think before you type. Get it together, man, you shaming yourself with a distinct lack of knowledge/experience. No one reasonably discusses FF/DX outside of a dSLR body, let alone anything used for video. You need to get over yourself. If you'd prefer to change language just let me know and I'll have you handled.

Sure keyboard warrior. I will send my jedis and klingon to apprehend you

As you appear to be unawares that Canon and other cameras makers released apps to allow for select cameras sold within the decade to be used as webcams.

Unofficially I was able to use a firewire camcorder like the XL1S as a webcam. It blew the iSight away in image quality even at the same streaming resolution.

 

[ab225]

The iPad Pro is thicker.

The fact is, if Apple had the will, they could implement a higher quality 1080p camera. I don't think it's an issue of it being technically achievable, it's just a question of economics. They want high margins and it's less profitable to put a more expensive component in there. Especially when consumers aren't particularly demanding it.

But, I'm curious if all the working from home this year will change their priorities...

 

[GiantKiwi]

I agree. There's a ton of spec-racing going on here. Probably by bored undergrads sitting in on useless lectures delivered by under-trained, under-qualified faculty. I can't blame them really but anyone spending significant time on "video calls" is much more interested in the background of the other party than they tend to be in the actual content transferred.

The one thing we learned quickly at the beginning of the lockdown, actually being able to supply webcams for video calls was a damn sight more important than obsessing over whether it was truly HD or not. Every single laptop with a webcam saved us £30-100, just in "cheap HD" cameras, we probably spent close to 40 grand.

 

[acidfast7_redux]

Sure keyboard warrior. I will send my jedis and klingon to apprehend you

As you appear to be unawares that Canon and other cameras makers released apps to allow for select cameras sold within the decade to be used as webcams.

Unofficially I was able to use a firewire camcorder like the XL1S as a webcam. It blew the iSight away in image quality even at the same streaming resolution.

I am aware of that, but you'd you have be either poor (by Western standards), and/or a hobbiest making YT videos hoping for subscribers to employ a FF in that manner. And, yes, for the record, I don't consider someone running a YT channel with few hundred K subscribers as useful/successful or contributing to society in a meaningful way. Thus, at a hobbiest level, which is also the class of people worrying about 1080p/720p webcams.

 

[AutomaticApple]

Definitely makes a huge difference for things like pre-recorded lessons or making physical text legible when showing a white board. Video meetings are just a small part of what a lot of us have to do in the remote COVID era. Bring on the 1080p+ webcams.

Video meetings outshine pre-recorded lessons. If youre doing a pre-recorded lesson, you should use your iPhone camera.

it's a disgrace. They can and should be doing better.

You're an engineer too?

Yup. Was waiting for this justification thread to pop up. Such justifications are why Apple shows us the courage to remove 3.5 mm jacks from the iPhones, remove SD card slots from the notebooks (I was always happy about USB-C but lack of SDXC slot, no), hype up 20W charging from MagSafe and then not deliver (where people begin to justify that they'd be happy with 10W even from a 20W charger) or deliver with riders and conditions. People are somehow simply afraid to call things for what they are - that the new notebooks are great in all other aspects but the camera could have and should have been upgraded to 1080p by now. Saying that is not going to make the notebooks look bad. It is just going to make them look how they are - vastly improved at some things, less improved in another, and passable at a few other.

Well, can you justify fitting a 1080p webcam module in a thin lid?

Did you watch the video?

I have a feeling that many people in this thread have been hesitant to watch the video. Obsessing over the spec sheet is more important to some people.

Okay, at the risk of getting banned, people who want 4k cameras on their laptop are probably making videos for their OnlyFans or something. Couldn't be anything else.

Part of me doesn't doubt that.

No, it makes the user look like a processed potato.

Are you capable of telling us why it looks like a processed potato? I hope that you actually watched the video.

Nope. They are bad.

Okay, could you at least tell us why then? Watch the video first and give us a bigger answer as to why you do/don't like the webcam.

When I see someone using a better camera quality it shows. And my MacBook camera does not seem too great.

Have you tried different lighting conditions and environments?

I don't think the problem is the fact that the camera is 720p. The problem is the fact that Apple puts a 720p camera on a £1,300++ laptop.

I would like to bet that the money is going somewhere else. Just a hunch though.

No, it sucks, and I think even Apple knows it. I’m sure it’s a design decision, and I believe the next generation will improve upon it. I think it’s also possible the engineers love trying to optimize cheaper/lower grade hardware to the maximum. That’s kinda cool.

Yes, exactly. Resolution isn't a main priority when it comes to webcams.

Am I really the only one who would be happier if there was no webcam at all lol. I’m so glad the trend of putting cams on TVs died so fast.

on my windows machine step 1 is disabling the cam in bios.

Maybe after the pandemic ends.

Increasing the resolution of the sensor all else remaining equal would lower the effective resolution of the camera system because of increased noise, and that regardless of price. You’d get less details with a 1080p sensor, not more.
What’s needed is for the “else” to change at some point, but even if Apple managed to increase the size of the sensor by some decent amount you’d still be better off with 720p worth of pixels if what you want is to actually increase details instead of filling a spec sheet.
What could happen in the future is that Apple may manage to design a Face ID system that’s shallow enough to fit in a MacBook’s lid and this could be coming with a chassis redesign and this could be the occasion for them to change the “else”.

A Face ID redesign could definitely allow for a higher resolution webcam. I'm not against a higher resolution webcam, but I think that people get way too overworked over it.

While I wouldn't say I would prefer no cams at all, the cam is certainly not what I would check when choosing the device. In fact, when I bought the 16" MacBook Pro, when most reviewers agreed on one of the only cons being 720p webcam, I knew the device was really good otherwise.

Yeah, consumers do not think about the resolution of a webcam when purchasing a MacBook.

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.

Finally, someone respectful and civilized! That is rare around these parts.

720p is just pathetic in 2020. If Steve Jobs was still here, we would be on 4K resolution now. He'll have figured out a way to cramp much better optics into the shallow lid area. Tim and his lazy ass

Why do people still obsess over this "if Steve Jobs was still here" stigma? Let the guy rest. He has been dead for nine years and it is petty to bring him up in a ridiculous debate on an online forum claiming that the resolution of the webcam would magically be 4K now. Some people just dont know what they're talking about...

I think this is only true since August 2020; before that it also took a long time until Apple changed something since 2011 (before that we used VGA).

View attachment 1682491

The main issue with poor image quality these days in real world is still the limited bandwidth.

I have daily experience with this in transcontinental connections between the USA and Europe.
Apple tries quite intelligently to compensate (audio and) video for fluctuations in the server chain.
Sometimes it works perfectly, sometimes miserably. Sometimes VPN or a line rebuild or rooter reset helps.

Apple has of course done the best possible with the new variable HEVC encoding. AI can of course work a little bit on the color and the microcontrast after decompression, I am curious to see what this will do.

Other software (Skype) still limits the bandwidth to 720p, so a different camera there makes no sense.
And the camera lens and light sensitivity are essential for photographers, here rather not that much.

Yes, everybody in this thread is completely forgetting about bandwidth. It is baffling.

With such disparagement you show how little technical knowledge and appreciation you have. I'm sorry to say this, but this is how you devalue your comment this time.

This!

More important than moving past 720P are larger pixels (because people have terrible lighting) and autofocus (because cameras this thin use Fixed Focus)

Other important factors that few seem to recognise are that we all look worse if a camera is close enough to touch and worse again if it is looking up at us from below.

All of us can solve ALL of these problems using our phone’s 2x camera instead.

Apple (if they develop much much better camera technology that fits in a thin laptop lid or with a camera bump) can solve ½ of these issues).

Camera bump on a MacBook? No thanks! ?

this is the best point i’ve seen. lower res is generally better for vchat session stability. vocal clarity is more important anyway and apple knows this, hence the comparatively substantial mic array upgrade

Thanks!

And who cares? Really, what are actual use cases of a better camera? Most people don't even enable the camera if they don't have to. Then they enable virtual backgrounds so their home doesn't have to be perfect. And in Zoom they enable "touch up my appearance" to deliberately filter out unwanted high definition face features. Meetings are about getting things done, not about the perfect look and lighting on camera.

Certainly there is the occasional person with their expensive equipment. But at least to me all it does is signaling wrong priorities. "Oh nice, you bought a microphone and expensive camera and set up your desk and lights like a studio.. AND WHEN DO I GET THE RESULTS YOU PROMISED LAST WEEK?!!!"

Very good points!

I’d go with a significantly lower resolution, unbelievably low bit rates and terrible codecs, so people don’t have to see my ugly mug in high definition

Part of me would do the same thing.

Completely agree.
They position themselves as a premium brand, they should deliver better quality for that price.

Engineering difficulties always triumph over other factors.

Even if some softwares limit the bandwith to 720p, Apple always tried to justify their higher price tag with putting great technology into their products (even if not currently 100% supported). You have to consider the fact, people are buying these premium priced machines for 5 years+, not for a couple of months,...

That doesn't change the bandwidth limits though. Technology is hampered.

A lot of people care. Apple took notice and put a 720p camera on the 2020 iMac.

No they didn't. They put a 1080p webcam on the 2020 iMac.

For FaceTime specifically, what is the highest camera megapixel the service allows?

Not sure about the megapixels, but 720p is the resolution cap due to bandwidth.

The role of consumer and user. The 720p camera is a piece of junk and is insulting to Mac users in 2020. Apple needs to actually do some real engineering and make a proper resolution camera for the prices they charged. Perhaps if folks were willing to actually speak up about such short cuts rather than accept the inferior products then Apple would actually listen.

It is only an insult to people who obsess over numbers. Apple doesn't care about a random forum.

higher is better and one cannot deny that, but then how much does it improve in real world is another matter. I would prefer higher frame rate and better understanding and adjusting of lighting condition and smooth streaming and after i get all that, if i can get the higher res too, i'll take it. 720p is more than adequate for me. I want image to be better lit in whatever lighting condition i'm in. Low lighting had been really worse in some of the older macs.

Yes, I hope that Apple prioritizes other factors rather than resolution when it comes to the webcam.

I don't think it's a short cut at all.

Most video conference does 720p max anyway. In addition recording of lectures in 720p is the max (Panopto) that I'd waste bandwidth on.

I wouldn't take anyone seriously that had an issue with the camera.

I usually talk to between 500 and 1000 undergrads a week and between 5 and 20 gradstudents. Along, with between 3 and 6 CEOs depending on the week.

I don't see anyone complaining or any real difference in the video quality between this machine and everyone else's. The exception being that low-light performance is pretty solid in Zoom compared to most other people.

Over the last few months, I've been online with video about 10-15h/week.

I DON'T FEEL INSULTED IN THE SLIGHTEST, ESPECIALLY AT THE SUB-£900 PRICEPOINT.

No one busy with give a toss as it's about information/content transfer. Even my architect doesn't care and he's super-precise.

Even an architect? Wow!

Higher is only better if the sensor size is increased. Higher is worse in many ways when you try to cram pixels too close together. Increased sensor size requires more physical space. Limitations of how thin screens are limit the size of the sensor.

Yes, and that is this obscure thing called engineering.

720p is fine for most of the video conferencing I've been in, in fact I'm happy if the whole chat goes without a glitch, that no one's link is dropping out, sound or video feeds etc... there usually is at least one....

I would definitely prefer a stable video chat. Good point!

Also, there's a ton of people ITT that have no idea of photographic physics and are simply end-users.

Those people tend to complain the loudest.

People that don't know what theyre talking about will complain the loudest. That doesn't just apply to webcams. The minority is always the most vocal.

Over quarantine then do you know how many times a news interview or late-nite talk show globally broadcast their blocky faces on a MacBook Pro?

That MacBook 720 camera has become so "distinctive" that you can watch TV and immediately say "yeah, that celeb has a MacBook". That is NOT a badge of honor for Apple and it is not something that Apple defnders should make excuses for. Theres a reason that "FaceTime Camera" has showed up in the Cons column of every MacBook review from the last decade. A quality built-in facetime camera is important and Apple should care that we aren't seeing our relatives or our news scientists clearly because they use MacBooks.

Okay, so you somehow know for a fact that these people aren't just using a crappy Windows laptop webcam (again, the 720p bandwidth limit...)? There is no factual basis to that, so I don't think I'm going to even bother.

Those large sensors + sense will fit in the 1.5mm space of the facetime webcam right ?

No, they will not fit.

Yes they could have made the screen a lot thicker.

That would be a downgrade. Nobody wants to see an ugly thick lid.

Honestly, no one cares, at least not in the UK/Europe. We have more important things to worry about.

We even get our PM over FaceTime on national news. Perhaps, this is an American-centric complaint, which would make sense.

American-centric is certainly right. ?

The camera needed a spec bump before COVID, regardless of device. The app du jour for video conferencing also needs to figure out their compression ratios.

Nobody could've predicted that the world would be dealing with a pandemic in 2020.

Physics is a pain in the butt right ?

Theres a reason that the cheapest Logitech 1080p camera is 15mm thick.

The less it costs, the thicker it is.

Reread what I wrote. I never said put a full frame sensor and L lens into a facetime selfie camera.

Yes, but would a 1080p webcam module still fit, even it it wasn't a full frame sensor?

technically, physics doesn't necessarily dictate thicker cameras for higher resolution. however, given the thickness limitation of the MB lid, there is nothing to be gained from going to 1080p from 720p.

The latter is very much true.

I think you've never owned a full frame camera or much used one.

When replying to any post take the effort to understand English before replying in it.

There is no need for both parties to get so aggressive towards each other over a camera, nor should we make any random judgments that certain people don't have full frame cameras or don't take an effort to understand English. That is just a nasty insult.

My first FF camera was a D3. So, I think you better think before you type. Get it together, man, you shaming yourself with a distinct lack of knowledge/experience. No one reasonably discusses FF/DX outside of a dSLR body, let alone anything used for video. You need to get over yourself. If you'd prefer to change language just let me know and I'll have you handled.

We should calm down you guys.

What years is this? It's crazy that Apple refuses to put a 1080p or higher webcam in their macs and iPhones. 720p is no longer considered HD.

Impoverished nations would like to disagree with that statement.

Actually, no. Most of the world would be more than happy to get a 720p and regard it as HD. Only entitled westerners disagree.

Yes, very true.

I agree. There's a ton of spec-racing going on here. Probably by bored undergrads sitting in on useless lectures delivered by under-trained, under-qualified faculty. I can't blame them really but anyone spending significant time on "video calls" is much more interested in the background of the other party than they tend to be in the actual content transferred.

You said it better than I could.

Sure keyboard warrior. I will send my jedis and klingon to apprehend you

As you appear to be unawares that Canon and other cameras makers released apps to allow for select cameras sold within the decade to be used as webcams.

Unofficially I was able to use a firewire camcorder like the XL1S as a webcam. It blew the iSight away in image quality even at the same streaming resolution.

Again, can we stop it with the name calling? This isn't a school...

The fact is, if Apple had the will, they could implement a higher quality 1080p camera. I don't think it's an issue of it being technically achievable, it's just a question of economics. They want high margins and it's less profitable to put a more expensive component in there. Especially when consumers aren't particularly demanding it.

But, I'm curious if all the working from home this year will change their priorities...

They have been cutting back on their margins lately. Take the App Store fee cut for example.

The one thing we learned quickly at the beginning of the lockdown, actually being able to supply webcams for video calls was a damn sight more important than obsessing over whether it was truly HD or not. Every single laptop with a webcam saved us £30-100, just in "cheap HD" cameras, we probably spent close to 40 grand.

We should focus on the supply of webcams rather than their resolution.

I am aware of that, but you'd you have be either poor (by Western standards), and/or a hobbiest making YT videos hoping for subscribers to employ a FF in that manner. And, yes, for the record, I don't consider someone running a YT channel with few hundred K subscribers as useful/successful or contributing to society in a meaningful way. Thus, at a hobbiest level, which is also the class of people worrying about 1080p/720p webcams.

That last sentence is definitely true.