Comment by delta_p_delta_x

Comment by delta_p_delta_x a day ago

92 replies

View on Hacker News

Is there a reason OP can't get themselves a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable, and use OBS to capture the feed from the HDMI-out in the camera? Most decent capture cards also expose themselves as cameras to almost all applications. This is my setup, and it works perfectly. Nikon D7500 as a webcam. More professional setups use Atomos monitors with built-in NVMe drives mounted directly to the camera.

I generally find the camera manufacturers' in-house programs absolutely terrible. Nikon's webcam utility is free[1], but has significant limitations over the capture card setup. Likewise for Sony. Both have considerable resolution and framerate limits, and I'd rather feed a 4K 60 FPS stream into my meeting program and let it handle the compression than have an XGA 1024×768 15 FPS output from the camera.

[1]: https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/548/Webca...

GranPC 21 hours ago

This is hugely dependent on whether the camera supports clean HDMI output - that is, without overlays. My Canon camera for example insists on showing a focus square over HDMI no matter what, and it is impossible to disable.

Reply View 5 replies
  • archerx 21 hours ago

    You can remove it by installing magic lantern. It lets me use my old 650D as a second camera.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • GranPC 21 hours ago

      Unfortunately there is no port of ML to my specific model. I did some porting work myself by running the camera firmware in QEMU, but to be able to run it on hardware I apparently needed some signing key that only the Magic Lantern lead dev has. By the time I was doing all of this he was busy with real world stuff so ultimately I just borrowed a friend's Nikon camera.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • vr46 20 hours ago

      ML doesn't work on a lot of cameras - yet. It's quite far behind the last generation of SLRs and stays away from the flagship models.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • [removed] 20 hours ago
      [deleted]
      Reply View 0 replies
  • acjohnson55 18 hours ago

    The particular camera he's talking about, the G5 X Mark II, does support clean HDMI out. I used to use it as my webcam.

    Reply View 0 replies
brushfoot a day ago

> Is there a reason OP can't get themselves a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable, and use OBS to capture the feed?

This is how I've used my Sony camera since COVID. It works great.

I wasn't sure at first if OP was trying to do something nonstandard, because you get video to your computer with a video cable. Plus a way for your computer to capture that, which for me is CamLink.

Honestly, I'm surprised there's a relevant manufacturer app at all. Not surprised that it costs money.

This is a bit like not having power in your home to charge your camera with and asking the manufacturer for a generator. They may have a solution, but the price will be bad.

Reply View 35 replies
  • SSLy a day ago

    OP wants to just use the USB cable, which makes sense for me.

    Reply View 20 replies
    • mjevans a day ago

      USB 2.0, that bog standard version from 2000 that is assumed to be the lowest common denominator possible for any new hardware...

      Edit: 4am math correction...

      480Mbit/sec transfer; Uncompressed, that's ~333333 pixels per frame for 60FPS. Not even considering overhead, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_video_device_class 1.1 support from 2005 includes Motion JPEG (low compression, all patents probably expired given it was developed in the 90s) and MPEG2 (also sufficiently old, to be unencumbered now).

      However, if they'd use USB 3.0 ~ 5gbps, ideally over a USB-C port, the connection would be more modern, and easily able to handle even 4K video with now free from patents and well supported compression algorithms.

      Reply View 2 replies
    • brushfoot a day ago

      Why should the manufacturer raise the price of the camera for you and me just to implement something extra OP wants that they can already do through HDMI?

      Reply View 16 replies
      • dspillett a day ago

        It is already implemented, otherwise they wouldn't be able to enable it once the subscription is active.

        Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a feature that is build into the camera, that is a standard feature on other cameras and imposes no ongoing costs to the manufacturer¹? This is an example of gouging, pure and simple.

        ----

        [1] unless they are forcing the user to use their hosted service for steaming the webcam output, in which case there is some bandwidth and perhaps other processing cost, but that is on them for having not just implemented a standard that enables local-only recording

        Reply View 13 replies
      • afandian a day ago

        They have already implemented it, otherwise it wouldn't work.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • brushfoot a day ago

          The app is part of the implementation. And they're apparently subsidizing the cost by charging separately for it.

          Drop the fee and that's now baked into the camera's base price.

          Reply View 0 replies
  • baxtr a day ago

    OP expects the camera comes with some decent convenience at that price.

    Reply View 13 replies
    • brushfoot a day ago

      OP is using a camera as a webcam that's not sold as a webcam. That's fine, I do the same with mine, but it's also fine of the manufacturer to allow for that by simply providing A/V interfaces instead of trying to account for every use case.

      Reply View 11 replies
      • bhickey a day ago

        Canon advertises their cameras as webcams.

        Reply View 10 replies
    • pluc a day ago

      Convenience is always extra

      Reply View 0 replies
deskr 21 hours ago

Exactly. But why does he need to buy a USB capture card and HDMI cable? He can just hire someone to come and record the videos for him. They'll also do the post processing.

Why does he even even record the videos himself? He can just hire actors to do what he wants, probably a lot better.

And what's the whole thing with buying a camera? He should just buy a studio and hire a crew to manage all that stuff.

Reply View 5 replies
  • dmix 21 hours ago

    Buying usb capture cards is a standard accessory for content creators. It's not a big deal.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • brushfoot 21 hours ago

      Not a big deal at all.

      The outrage in this thread is incredible. Buying a couple A/V adapters to adapt a non-webcam camera into a webcam is somehow seen as a terrible burden.

      If someone doesn't want to do that, perhaps they should buy...a webcam. No adapters needed.

      A camera comes with more power at the cost of simplicity for this use case.

      Reply View 0 replies
  • delta_p_delta_x 20 hours ago

    This is what's called a slippery slope.

    A capture card and HDMI cable together cost less than $100. Hiring someone will be at least an order of magnitude more expensive—and more so the more people you hire.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • mynameisvlad 16 hours ago

      Whoosh.

      That was the entire point of the comment, to point out the slippery slope in the HDMI/cable card argument in the first place.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • delta_p_delta_x 9 hours ago

        Eh? There's no slippery slope. A capture card is standard equipment for any broadcaster.

        There is an absolutely massive gulf between a one-time supplementary purchase of $100 versus a multi-million dollar studio, film crew, actors. The comment was ludicrous, sorry.

        Reply View 0 replies
Eddy_Viscosity2 a day ago

Would this approach also give you control of camera settings? I think the OP's situation, he wanted that.

Reply View 0 replies
rozenmd a day ago

You don't even need OBS for this - capture cards show up as digital cameras in macOS

Reply View 2 replies
  • junaru a day ago

    You do, capture cards introduce latency something around 30-50ms (at least the cheaper ones) and if you are using non built in mic you need to resync everything up.

    Reply View 0 replies
michaelt a day ago

How easy and slick this setup will be depends on the camera.

For example, my camera can't operate and charge over USB at the same time, so you need a supplemental power supply. And it won't autofocus continuously or keep the exposure and white balance stable unless you're recording a video. And videos can only be so long.

So I've got a HDMI-to-USB converter, a special HDMI cable, a special power brick and adaptor, a special tripod so all those cables don't pull the whole setup over, and I've got to restart video recording every 30 minutes or so, and wipe the microsd card regularly.

Your camera's probably better suited to this than mine :)

Reply View 12 replies
  • jeswin a day ago

    I've been using a Sony mirrorless (anything above a5100 will work) for over 6 years now; it needed a "dummy battery", and an HDMI capture card (about $25 for noname brands, or $80+ for Elgato, BlackMagic etc). It auto-focuses, doesn't write to microsd, and works flawlessly.

    Even if you aren't buying Elgato, you can use Elgato's compatibility page to know which cameras work well: https://www.elgato.com/us/en/s/cam-link-camera-check

    Reply View 3 replies
    • brushfoot a day ago

      A word of warning on capture cards: I first bought a no-name off Amazon, thinking to save money. The video quality was abysmal. Artifacts everywhere.

      I returned it and got an Elgato, which has worked great from day one.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • gol706 19 hours ago

        Weirdly I had the exact opposite experience. Elgato always felt laggy. I bought a no-name USB Stick format card and it looked great (once I got my camera settings dialed in) but would disconnect when I bumped my desk. I cracked the case open and soldered a USB cable I cut in half to the pads, and 3d printed a new case and it's been rock solid for the last 4 years. Only problem is the once in a blue moon I need to use Teams my video get's horizontally squished and I can't seem to fix it.

        Reply View 0 replies
    • brushfoot a day ago

      Same setup here, down to the brand.

      For those who don't know, the dummy battery is a power cable with a battery-shaped adapter that plugs in where the battery would go to provide continuous power.

      Reply View 0 replies
  • josephg a day ago

    What camera do you have? Why can't it autofocus when its not recording?

    I believe you, but thats very silly.

    Reply View 4 replies
    • entropie 21 hours ago

      I can force my (canon) camera to autofocus while not recording but usually you want to avoid that. It really hits the battery because the lens is permanentely adjusting.

      Most mirrorless cameras a hybrids and you usually do not need this feature while takting stills.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • josephg 10 hours ago

        Makes sense. On my sony camera (a7iv), it does continuous autofocus in video mode. You don't need to hit the record button - just set the focus mode to AFC (autofocus continuous) and it does its thing.

        I also just tried connecting it as a webcam over USB, and it does continuous autofocus when set up like that too. I'm sure it uses more power, but the camera can power itself over the USB port while connected, so thats not a problem.

        Reply View 0 replies
    • vladvasiliu a day ago

      None of my stills cameras focused continuously out of the box, probably to save power (moving potentially heavy lens elements around requires energy). My Olympus mirrorless can be told to focus all the time, but it's not the default.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • FireBeyond 15 hours ago

      They -can-, they just don't, unless you specifically enable it for power reasons.

      Reply View 0 replies
  • brushfoot a day ago

    No offense, but this sounds like a terrible camera for your use case. It sounds like you know that.

    My Sony that I've been using as a webcam since COVID can do that, and it was 6 years old when I bought it. Upgrade when you can!

    Reply View 2 replies
    • delta_p_delta_x a day ago

      To be fair, I also have the dummy battery + HDMI capture + desktop clamp mount + live view faff for my D7500, but once you set it up it's just... there. I don't need to fiddle with it much further. It's a bit of a cable mess but I intend to upgrade to the Z6iii together with an upgrade to a desktop (so I can have a PCIe capture card), which will cut down the number of dongles all over.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • brushfoot a day ago

        I have that setup too. I was referring to this:

        > it won't autofocus continuously or keep the exposure and white balance stable unless you're recording a video

        That basically defeats our setup as now they're worrying about their recording time running out in the middle of a meeting.

        Reply View 0 replies
palijer a day ago

This is exactly what I do. I'm also confused by this article...

Reply View 6 replies
  • brushfoot a day ago

    It's rage bait. People hate subscriptions, understandably so, and people without A/V experience might expect a camera not sold as a webcam to easily double as a webcam since they both can capture video.

    It's just a really poor reason to be outraged at Canon (or Sony or any of the other companies whose non-webcam cameras don't seamlessly turn into webcams without some standard A/V adapters).

    Reply View 5 replies
    • bhickey a day ago

      Canon's webcam software was until recently free. It was the sole reason I bought a Cabin camera. This is a rug pull.

      Reply View 4 replies
      • brushfoot a day ago

        That's upsetting, but my point is the article itself is rage bait. It's not outrageous for Canon to charge for webcam software when there's HDMI video-out on the camera.

        Reply View 3 replies
jwr a day ago

> a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable

Are there any USB-connectable capture devices that can process 4K?

Everything I see tries really hard to hide the fact that while they can input 4K, they can only produce 1920x1080.

Reply View 3 replies
  • rmoriz a day ago

    Elgato Cam Link 4K

    Reply View 2 replies
    • jwr 6 hours ago

      Oh, good to know! I didn't manage to find this one. But this one is $100 in the US, and $120 in some other places. Which is quite a bit of additional money to pay on top of your camera, which already has USB and should just provide a video stream there…

      (this dongle is also USB-A, unfortunately)

      Reply View 0 replies
    • radicality 16 hours ago

      I’ve been using this with a Fuji XT4 for last 2 years as webcam, working great. Though for stuff like google meet, I usually set it to 1080p 60fps since that’s the max res most meeting software will accept anyways, and frame rate is more important for live meeting than res.

      Reply View 0 replies
timewizard a day ago

Sure. I can do anything. It's the principle of the thing.

Reply View 7 replies
  • brushfoot a day ago

    The principle is to use the right tool for the job.

    USB can do just about anything. Video out is one possibility. But HDMI can already do that.

    It doesn't make sense to expect the manufacturer to provide a free app to make USB do something you can already do over HDMI, and for which HDMI is intended.

    This article is rage bait where there's no real cause for outrage. But it's adjacent enough to "right to repair" and "subscription fatigue" that it sounds outrageous.

    Reply View 6 replies
    • tjoff a day ago

      The right too for the job most certainly is not HDMI.

      The video feed should (depending on usecase, sure) be compressed on the device and sent over USB.

      Sending uncompressed video just to be badly compressed in a capture device is most definitely not the right tool for the job.

      Reply View 5 replies
      • kevin_thibedeau 20 hours ago

        Realtime compression in a portable device with limited processing power is going to reduce quality. It is better to transport uncompressed video and let the receiver decide how to manage it. USB-3 has adequate bandwidth for doing this. USB-C lets you switch to DisplayPort if the receiver can handle it.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • tjoff 20 hours ago

          The camera already does realtime compression to the sdcard. It has dedicated hardware for this. USB-2 has adequate bandwidth for compressed audio+video.

          Your HDMI capture device (which is a cheap portable device with limited processing power) is probably going to do a much worse job.

          Sending uncompressed video over usb is absurd.

          Reply View 0 replies
      • brushfoot a day ago

        On these cameras, HDMI is the right tool for the job. USB video quality is often poor where it's supported, and HDMI is there for video output.

        These cameras are not made to be webcams. OP is using theirs as one, and that's fine; I do too. But device-side compression for USB video out, a webcam app, etc. are webcam features. They come at a cost, and many camera buyers don't need them.

        For those of us using these cameras in these nonstandard ways, we can reach for HDMI, which is the right tool for this particular job.

        Reply View 2 replies
roland35 a day ago

At least with my camera the feed is low resolution and has the on screen overlays on it.

Reply View 0 replies
elaus a day ago

I mean why invest $70 (and a lot of ressources) in hardware when, in theory, you have everything you need, the software is just locked behind a paywall?

Reply View 6 replies
  • delta_p_delta_x a day ago

    But you generally don't have everything you need. As I've mentioned most cameras' USB webcam output (if at all present) is quite bad, even via the official programs or gphoto. The 'correct' way to access video output is through their, well, video-out port (usually HDMI), which almost necessitates a capture card or monitor.

    Reply View 5 replies
    • morsch a day ago

      Evidently these cameras are capable of exporting high quality video via USB, if you pay 5 bucks a month. This doesn't sound like a hardware problem. It also has a control channel, unlike HDMI.

      Reply View 4 replies
      • delta_p_delta_x a day ago

        > these cameras are capable of exporting high quality video via USB

        No, they are not. The USB port is (usually) USB 2.0 and the video output, even though the application might claim 1080p 30 FPS, is a 'digital upscale'[1] from XGA or 720p. That in my view is decidedly not 'high quality'. My monitor has eight times that resolution and more than four times the framerate, totalling more than a 32× increase in bandwidth, and it is from 2021.

        If users want high-quality video out from their pro cameras, use a capture card or monitor. That's how it's always been. As another commenter said, this article is rage-bait because the OP has purposely chosen a decidedly poorly-supported way to use their camera's functionality instead of the industry standard.

        [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/1e32r51/canon_eos_we...

        Reply View 3 replies