For when the world needs to see with pristine detail your cat playing inside a paper bag in the middle of the kitchen, or every blemish on your face as you regale the exciting story of your day, Microsoft's unveiled the
LifeCam Cinema HD webcam. The USB 2.0 device captures life in 1,280 x 720 HD resolution at 30 frames per second, with auto focus, 4x digital zoom, a noise-canceling mic on top, and something called ClearFrame for smoother video, somehow. It's not without caveats, of course, requiring a dual core processor (1.6GHz minimum, 3GHz recommended) and listing for $80, but it does happily tout its Windows 7 compatibility out of the box. Interests piqued? The webcam'll be popping up in stores on September 9th, which as it turns out, is
becoming a rather busy day for tech enthusiasts.
Update: Looks like the 720p mode is capped at 15FPS. Tsk, tsk.
posted August 18th 2009 3:07AM
Here's to hoping Windows Live Messenger, etc, will support this at its highest capacity.
@Arctic Fox:
From the read link: "The system requirements are quite high though, as you need at least a dual core 1.6GHz processor, but Microsoft recommends a 3GHz dual core processor."
Please note the 3GHz dual core part, please.
I understand, no need to apologize.
That's what I am wondering. I'd like to see a webcam chat where the video doesn't looks like utter crap. I'd like to see a service that will allow the highest quality possible that the camera is capable of.
I agree, work with live messenger Is a must. Mabe if it use the new silverlight to transmit the video...
Here's to hoping that Comcast won't come to my house and bitch-slap me if I stream with this thing.
@Gadget freak
"Thats the same group that uses the wrong cropping/stretching settings on their 16:9 tv's :P )"
Umm... it's called 'aspect ratio' and no. I know what I'm doing with that as well as which renderer works best; which codecs, output colorspaces, and even how to navi admist the plethora of post processing that is FFDShow. I would also posit that I know my way around a NLVE better than you...
BTW, I run a single core 2.4Ghz OCed to 3.0ghz and am both a nerd and xp user (well, MCE 2005 XP technically). I also care what webcam; why I don't know as it's of novelty use, but the Logitech Pro 9000 nevertheless...;)
Hasty generalizations are rarely accurate and always fallacious. Just thought you might like to know!
What do it cost.... It don't come to Denmark !!!.
Br.
Mogens
Awesome-ness !
3GHz recommended?!?! Try finding a laptop on the market that will fit the bill...
That's what desktops are for.
It's still kind of rare to see a desktop processor that runs that fast. Not to mention the fact that laptops are selling far better than desktops right now so I think MS should be considering them more. Fortunately, it is only the recommended clock speed.
They are talking about a Single Core processor of 3Ghz, most laptops have dual core these days a 1.5GHz+ Dual Core processor would be more than enough.
Engadget, when I say to "E-Mail me when someone replies to this comment", I don't need to be told that I have replied to my own comment. Just to let you know...
Dual core processor requirement? Does Ballmer realize 75% of PC users are still running XP with single core?
@darren
I'll be honest with you. If someone wants to get into minor HD video editing, they pretty much need to stop being a pussy and get with the times girlfriend. Its been proven that people receive better and quicker results with multicore vs single core.
Oooh snap!
@GroovDude
This is a webcam, it's consumer-focussed. These people are not likely to be doing HD video editing. These people are likely to want better picture quality on video chats and little more from this.
It probably is too early to expect dual-core processors from people in that market.
Actually, this is a webcam for the real NERDS (like me) who have been waiting for a webcam that can pull off HD smoothly. The XP user that uses a single core won't care what webcam they have as long as it "works". ( Thats the same group that uses the wrong cropping/stretching settings on their 16:9 tv's :P ). Anyway, in the webcam market i think we can consider this be a high end product, for high end users..
@DarrenK
I'm sure MS is very aware that 80% of that 75% are office computers or POS' running XP, and thus wouldn't be connected to webcams of any sort anyway, and so are inconsequential.
90% of all statistics are made up.
There thinking the old Pentium class specs. All Core2Duos and AMDs of the last 3 years are capable.
I'm positive that a 3ghz Core 2 Duo is uber overkill for this... any standard C2D/C2Q/i7/i5 or Athlon X2/Phenom will be sufficient.
@Gadget freak
"Thats the same group that uses the wrong cropping/stretching settings on their 16:9 tv's :P )"
Umm... it's called 'aspect ratio' and no. I know what I'm doing with that as well as which renderer works best; which codecs, output colorspaces, and even how to navi admist the plethora of post processing that is FFDShow. I would also posit that I know my way around a NLVE better than you...
BTW, I run a single core 2.4Ghz OCed to 3.0ghz and am both a nerd and xp user (well, MCE 2005 XP technically). I also care what webcam; why I don't know as it's of novelty use, but the Logitech Pro 9000 nevertheless...;)
Hasty generalizations are rarely accurate and always fallacious. Just thought you might like to know!
Do want.
Do Want! NOW!
It's about bloody time we get HD webcams. I'm sick and tired of all the low quality 320x200 cap cams out there. Why have the manufacturers spent so much time coming up with a HD camera???
may be wise to wait for the usb3 version?
Nope. Wouldn't make a difference.
Only if USB3 can radically alter the latency. Which it might be able to do. Theres probably a big enough pipe to pack mildly encoded 720p video down USB2. But the latency and jitter of USB2.0 makes them painful to watch; a .5 second delay between you and the screen is half an order of magnitude worse than the latency to your friend on the other end. USB3.0's big draw for me is its more asychronous nature, which has the potential to significant reduce latency, and bring USB on par with the acting "respectable" interface, Firewire.
USB3.0 does open up interesting possibilities of 60+ fps webcams. It'll take a while for a market to realize around that, but it should provide a compelling experience.
Last time MS had their 720p webcam it was OK for the video but the sound seemed to lag, at least in 3 review videos of it, but being MS bought they didn't mention it in the article of course, but it was quite obvious in the examples.
Still, sound lag is not that bad, and maybe they learned from it.
Microsoft has awesome webcams
I want, but do not know why.
Nice, but I don't like the "HD" logo on the front or self-advertising on the rim. Looks sort of tacky.
Sort of Tacky?
How about the rest of the device?
I thought these things were extinct? Most people are picking up laptops, and those have built in Cameras.
You don't see many iSights around for that very reason, but hey, MS, go nuts with the whole 2004 throwdown thing.
Yeah we all only use laptops and like to swing them around to point the camera... genius.
Oh and they can stop making speakers and amplifiers and homecinema stuff, after all your laptop has speakers in it with an amplifier.
Oh btw, I'm told that you can get rid of annoying logo's on devices by rubbing them with a sugarcube (no really), I never tried it since I don't have sugarcubes in the house, but I heard it from more than one source.
Use the Facevision HD video conferencing PCMCIA or USB adapter for less than 100 dollars, together with a HD webcam, then no need to have any expensive dual core computer to do HD video conferencing. Just 1mbit/s upload each way is about good enough, 2mbit/s is very good. http://techvideoblog.com/cebit/facevsion-cheap-hd-video-conferencing/
Kinda cool but you'll need the express card hardware on both ends which is ok for video conferencing solutions but pants for generic video chat.
Well, I think it's more likely to add such HD video encoding/decoding chip on both ends, perhaps integrated in the webcam even on both sides, than to require people have dual core 3ghz computers on both ends. Microsoft obviously wants people to purchase expensive computers to purchase expensive Windows licences. While another HD webcam manufacturer could integrate HD 720p 1-2mbit/s encoding and decoding chip directly inside the USB webcam and work just fine on Netbooks or even on $100 ARM processor powered laptops.
Watching HD video conferencing on a HDTV is a fantastic experience which all families should have as soon as possible. With $100 embedded Linux hardware on both ends at the maximum, not with dual core 3ghz Windows computers.
Perhaps MS should get some GPU support in their drivers, that would fix it, but meh they aren't that good at software so I guess that idea's out ;)
Nice rez, but hope it's good quality (crisp and clear) after all's said and done.
Why does it look so huge?
Size is the least thing to worry. How does one attach to a flat display? That clamp doesn't go with my HP flat display!
That's what she said!
Looks nice, I might get it, I have the requirements, not to mention, it's a pretty descent price. I hope that there is an override so that it has manual focus. Auto focus blows.
3GHz Dual Core recommended?!!? That's like 70% of all PCs and Laptops straightway deemed not powerfull enough...Seriously 3GHz....2.0.-2.4GHz is more than enough!!!
I wonder how overpriced these are(or at least high price for something not so portable that takes video).
I don't get it.
Why not put a hardware based H.264 encoder in the thing so it works well with less than 3GHz dual core? Sure it would cost about as much as the rest of the camera, but it certainly would be worth it...especially if the camera was going to be used when other processor intensive tasks were being performed.
This product sounds like it's going to sell on specs (woo-hoo a 720p webcam for $80!), and then really disappoint with a poor user experience.
Helllloooo Microsoft!
regale
–verb (used with object)
1. to entertain lavishly or agreeably; delight.
the latest gadget news and expanding our vocabulary all-in-one... The writers here are too good to us. :)
bye bye logitech 9000..i'm in for one of these!
woot I can finally talk about this product. the company i work at is doing some of the design work around it and we had to keep it a hush hush. but now that it's in the open, i can say now that it shoots widescreen and will fit your screen completely in nice 720p.
and while people ask and quote the 75% of people still using single core... think of where this will be probably used best. naughty chat rooms? those ppl definitely have higher end builds and they'll be snagging these things first~
@macslut why would they support h264 when they'll probably use some window's based encoder running through silverlight? I have no clue about the software end but, if I was MS, I'd use this to pull more ppl in using their internet video based plug in.
Look, I have a nasty feeling that this will earn me some -1's, but can someone write me some Mac drivers, for the following reasons:
1. It's pretty well spec'd
2. It's pretty
3. I'm not a fan of the Webcam's I've used
4. Unlike a seeming 90% of Commentators who reference Apple in a Microsoft post I actually rate MS
kthxbye