And greyscale!
My first computer didnât even have proper graphics, then I moved to the C64 and was amazed by 320x200, which was better than the Apple IIe at school.
And greyscale!
My first computer didnât even have proper graphics, then I moved to the C64 and was amazed by 320x200, which was better than the Apple IIe at school.
Thatâs why I enforced the âuse headsetâ rule since the beginning of the pandemic.
This whole conversation reminds me of the âmegapixel debateâ we used to have about smartphones.
XYZ Android Phone would have a 30 megapixel camera or something bananas like that, and thereâd be all these âAndroid is better than iPhoneâ claims. Then youâd ask what the pictures looked like, andâŚwellâŚit turns out megapixels donât make as big of a difference as one might think if the glass, focus, light, etc. arenât also heavily optimized.
The thing about this particular debate, however, is why Apple would put a 720p webcam in a modern laptop. Whether or not Zoom is throttling your resolution or not, it kind of feels like a premium laptop should have what we consider to be a âpremiumâ camera - which these days is 1080p.
I seem to recall hearing somewhere that part of the reason could be that a 1080p webcam would add thickness to the camera (larger sensor, more distance required to cover it properly), which would thicken the lid, which works against what Apple is going for.
If the image processing in the hardware and/or Big Sur compensates though, it might be a non-issueâŚpractically speaking. For most people I think âlooking goodâ is better than âhaving the best specsâ.
In this case, though, Apple provides neither âlooks goodâ nor âthe best specsâ. 720p is just fine as a resolution for video conferencing in todayâs world, but Appleâs cameras produce markedly worse image quality in anything less than ideal lighting than those in other (considerably less expensive) notebooks. Weâll see if the M1 based machines can rectify this.
To be honest, on every âwebcamâ you look like crap. For conferences, I use an external camera to get the âstanding upright, looking at the audience, holding a talkâ-look instead of the âslumped over a laptopâ-look.
Right. This is the M1âs opportunity to rectify the problem. If it doesnât, then Iâll be completely in the âcâmon, this is a pricey laptop - canât we get some of that camera image enhancement love?â camp.
A number on a spec sheet doesnât make your computer feel premium enough?
What about people with great built-in microphones or earbuds?
Youâre forgetting about the Nokia Lumia 1020.
Most of those notebooks also have 720p webcams.
That tiny minority gets a pass. But who really has âgreat built-in microphonesâ that outperform a headset?
I consider it proper conference/call etiquette to make sure you have the best possible audio. I even have a TextExpander snipped along the lines of âyou mumbleâ to make participants aware that their 20+ min drift into some subtopic is barely understandable.
Or: you look to some notes on the side, therefore you are not talking towards the built-in mic. With a headset, no problem.
A headset also performs better in not so quiet environments.
Strongly agree. Once your attention is drawn to poor-quality audio you notice it even more. Those with poor audio lose a certain degree of respect and credibility.
Test this yourself. CNBC, a U.S.- based cable and streaming outlet for financial news, conducts live-stream interviews with various business leaders, financial advisors and investors. Currently many of these are home-based rather than studio-based, so the audio quality varies dramatically. View a few of these and you will quickly notice the difference between those who use appropriate microphones compared to those who use computer or webcam microphones.
Below is a link to a short YouTube video containing tips for better home-based audio and video. The segment from time mark 0:50 to 1:43 demonstrates the difference between a camera (or webcam) microphone and a lavalier microphone in a typical home situation. A headset microphone would provide audio quality equivalent to a lavalier mic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_Ho383acVE
When the number is â720pâ? Nope. 1080p feels like âtable stakesâ for a high-end laptop these days.
RightâŚbut as noted, theyâre considerably less expensive.
Thatâs the issue here.
The M1 models are $1000 and $1300 to start, so isnât it reasonable to assume that theyâd have a higher-resolution webcam than, say, a $200 Windows laptop? They donât, at least resolution-wise.
I meanâŚI just went to Appleâs website and priced out a super-high-end 16" Macbook Pro. $6699 fully loaded - but it still comes with a 720p webcam. $6700 for a âproâ computer, and if you want 1080p you *still * need to shell out another $100+ for a webcam.
It just feels like Apple should have this problem solved - especially given all the camera stuff they already have figured out on the phones.
On par? The studio quality microphones in the 13" and 16" MacBook Pro.
You live in one fancy society.
Bigger number = better!
High end Windows laptops have 720p webcams.
Yup, absolutely. Iâm in no way running down the 720p part of the webcams that Apple used in their notebooks. I am in every way running down their performance in less than almost perfect lighting. In that way Appleâs cameras are noticeably much worse than most of the competition, at least in the price range that Apple charges.
Iâve heard podcast audio recorded on the 16â MacBook Pro. I donât think it matches the quality of even a relatively inexpensive headset mic. Thereâs just no substitute for getting the mic near your mouth.
OkayâŚso maybe both types laptops need to get with the program?
When an almost-$7000 computer marketed at professionals skimps on both the resolution and the quality of the webcam, that feels wrong. And it feels very un-Apple.
And âwe do what everybody else in the industry doesâ isnât how Apple got where they are today.
As an owner of both MBPs and headsets, I disagree.
Would be nice if they would put the sensor and lenses of the iPhone 12Pro in the bezel.
They have the technologyâŚ
Agree, although I donât own an MBP. I do a lot on Zoom, and some peoplesâ laptop mics are perfectly fine - but I canât see how any microphone built in to a computer is ever going to be as good as a reasonable headset.
Ultimately, mics come down to (a) positioning and (b) the mic quality itself. And (a) is the far more important item of the two most of the time. In my experience, you just canât beat having the microphone attached to your head.
Interesting demo of this in a Zoom meeting today. Shawn Blanc started the meeting using the built-in mic. After a couple of minutes he realized and switched the input to his podcasting mic. The difference in audio quality was quite noticeable.
Would be nice if they would put the sensor and lenses of the iPhone 12Pro in the bezel.
Are you an engineer?
Visionary, without the need for stabilization the lens can be flatter. Then there is the software.