If you want a good image, especially one capability of dealing with varying light levels, you want a bigger sensor for a given resolution, not a smaller one.
Right. But weâre comparing this to the sensor in the iPhone, which is way bigger than our âminimum of 1080pâ target.
Forgive the âback of the napkinâ sort of math here, but this is how Iâm thinkingâŚ
The iPhone camera is 12MP, which means that sensor is actually bigger than 4K. 4K is about 8MP. Presumably they use the extra pixel data for image stabilization and such when shooting video.
So just 4K video, no stabilization, would require a smaller sensor than the iPhone camera sensor.
Now consider that 1080p (our camera target here) is 1/4 of a 4K video screen. Half the pixels each way, for a 75% reduction in size.
Keeping the pixels on the sensor the exact same size, just changing the resolution of the image, youâre moving from a 12MP sensor (iPhone 12) to a 2MP sensor (1080p webcam camera).
Thatâs a rough sensor size reduction of 83%, for a 1080p sensor with no image stabilization.
Arguably image stabilization isnât as big of an issue in a laptop, but if you wanted to add it back youâd add a megapixel or so and your sensor would still be massively smaller. Or you could increase pixel size somewhat to get a better image - but I feel like with the iPhone 12 as our example for what that pixel size + software can do, we probably wouldnât need a major overhaul in image quality.
Are you seeing how Iâm thinking?
The reasoning also has to start from the current 720p camera and ask what is the minimum needed to go up to 1080p and at least maintain if not improve on the current standards.
The conjecture that one could afford to loose feature X, Y, or Z in the in-built Webcam to reduce the physical size of the device is all well and good until you sell that to someone who buys a MacBook Air and starts to walk around their house with the Webcam on FaceTime to show their grandkids the Christmas decorations.
â
JJW
I was trying to find info on the built-in camera too, but I canât find much on dimensions, etc. Although starting there if everything scales proportionally I would think the assembly would increase by a maximum of maybe 33% in size
Iâm not aware of the built-in webcam on a Macbook Air having image stabilization - do you know if it does? It would increase the sensor size slightly, but the sensor would still be 75% smaller than the sensor in the iPhone 12, as opposed to close to 83%.
And that magically gave you all sorts of knowledge about physics? 
Iâve addressed this with physics-based answers above, based on sensor size and distance-to-sensor reduction.
Apple historically innovates. Itâs what they do. Nobody imagined that a teeny-tiny ultra-thin computer was possible, then Apple introduced the Macbook Air. Steve Jobs reportedly threw at least one device into the water, and when it bubbled informed the engineers to figure out how to get rid of the excess space and make it smaller. They made a phone camera thatâs getting competitive (for consumer purposes) with fancy DSLRs. We can argue about whether they hit the mark sometimes, but they push the limits of what technology can do pretty regularly.
If anybody can do it, they can. If Apple were to try it and fail, Iâll happily admit that I was wrong.
1 Like
Apple isnât going to tell us if theyâve failed to do so.
On iPhone thickness, the iPad Pro is in fact thinner.
On laptop thickness, they managed to fit a 720p camera in there. Canât be a huge leap to go to 1080p from there.
On sensor size⌠people keep saying the iPhone camera is good enough, but it has a tiny sensor thatâs very average. Itâs the software that makes it any good.
About 50% larger each in width and length, for the sensor size. If thickness scales proportionally, maybe a mm or two. 
1 Like
How can you be so sure?
Well, the M1 chip has certainly improved the webcam quality.
I canât be sure, but then can anyone else here be sure they canât fit it?
One of my colleagues has just received the 13" M1 Pro and I saw the performance of their webcam in a Skype conference for the first time earlier today. Compared to 10 other people, most of them using Windows laptops, the quality looked awful. The image was grainy and looked poor compared to all the other callers.
So, there is a need for an improved webcam IMO, despite the software improvements.
1 Like
Yes, of course.
Were those other people using external cameras? Something definitely isnât right.
That thread just shows they might need another mm or two - not that it canât be done. You could, for example, protrude the lens slightly from the screen side of the lid. They solved the rear camera problem on the iPhone in exactly this way.
And thatâs also neglecting the other viable solutions in the linked thread, like multiple lenses glued together with computational photography.
You seem to have a case of confirmation bias if youâre sure Apple canât do it, as multiple solutions are on the table even in your source link.
Whether they will is the question, as the solutions might involve tradeoffs they find unacceptable.
But theyâve already proven they can do a 1080 camera in a device 6.1mm thick total (10.5" iPad Pro), and that camera is 7MP - bigger than it has to be to do 1080p. So this â10mm thick lidâ refrain from that thread is utter nonsense.
Also noting that a number of PC laptops do have some extra lid room, so if Apple doesnât do it it wouldnât shock me at all if theyâre forced into it eventually by a PC laptop taking the initiative.
1 Like
How can you be so sure though? I donât think anybody here works as an Apple engineer who works on MacBook lids or MacBook webcams.
BecauseâŚphysics? The âhowâ - physics based explanations- has been explained multiple times already, both on this thread and on MacRumorsâŚincluding an example of a shipped, real part that would do the job with a minor (1mm-ish) case adjustment and the suggested modifications so that impact on screen thickness would be virtually nonexistent, with only a minor localized tweak. Yâknow, kind of liked how the iPhone camera wouldnât fit, then they added a 1mm or so âbumpâ?
And yet despite that, you seem pretty sure itâs not just unlikely, but impossible.
Are you an Apple hardware engineer? If not, how can you be so sure itâs impossible?
1 Like
No, almost all my colleagues use Microsoft Surface Pros. Their webcams looked far better (night and day difference) compared to the MacBook Pro M1 on the call. I donât know the specs of them though.
The Microsoft Surface Pro looks to be much thicker than a MacBook lid.
Nobody wants a camera bump on a laptop.
They didnât want it on the phone, either. There were lots of complaints. They didnât want the notch, either. Again, lots of complaints. Now itâs industry standard, and other manufacturers are copying them.
Apple weighs features / benefits against tradeoffs, and makes decisions. It may be this one isnât worth it to them. But again, weâre talking about a 1mm-ish bump, only on the part of the lid where the camera is. And that might not even be necessary, depending on other tech considerations.
But this whole time youâve been arguing that itâs physically impossible, and itâs clearly not. They could do 1080p with an existing camera part that theyâve already designed, that would blow away the current 720p camera, with about a 1mm back bump on the monitor. And I can think of a number of very Apple ways to make the industrial design work (at least in my mind).
It should be that a âProâ Mac is at least as good as the competition, not noticeably worse for work-related tasks like videoconference. The fact that it is thinner is not an advantage for most professional users, only for the fashion conscious.
On topic, I think the criticisms are absolutely justified. Aesthetics should be less of a priority for âProâ models, and the focus should be on making a product that can do its job well.
3 Likes