[va3uxb]

I just bought an iSight this past weekend, after wanting one for some time. Like most of Apple's stuff, they just look so good. Being firewire and having some impressive sounding specs certainly helped too. The only reason I waited so long was the price... $220 in Canada.

Well now that I've got it...I'm really dissapointed. The picture quality certainly is no better than any cheap USB 'webcam' I've seen. In fact, I'd say the image is worse! It seems every bit as lousy as the USB cameras, but it's so much darker!

I have a USB Logitec quick-cam that I bought last year for about $30 at a discount store, and the only difference between the images it makes and those of the iSight are the iSight's are too dark!

I just took side-by-side images with them both, to compare:
http://www.felesmagus.com/pictures/isight.jpg
http://www.felesmagus.com/pictures/quickcam.jpg

I guess I was expecting the quality to be more like a low-end digital camera, than a cheap webcam.

I mostly planned to use the iSight as a webcam, and perhaps an input for iMovie. Now, I'm thinking I should look into BestBuy's return policy. I've never been this dissapointed with an Apple product before.

-Stephanie

[d4nth3m4n]

i dont think those images are a fair comparison. in the second one, you have piece of the window in there, adding light to the scene...

i dont know enough about the iSight to get into this, but i had to say something about your comparison.

[Sophus]

Check the firmware revision for your iSight. it should be 1.02. If not, update. Otherwise, it is correct that the iSight requires some light to function well. Good colors and clear picture seems to be a priority over large shutter with pixelated drab pictures but better lowlight function. Get yourself a light if still not happy.

[Eug Wanker]

In low light, the iSight will suck. From what I've seen however, in adequate lighting the iSight is significantly better quality than most USB webcams. In other words, turn on your lights.

The quality is similar to a low end digital camcorder, which is to say it is not as good as a digital still camera (which is to be expected).

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
In low light, the iSight will suck. From what I've seen however, in adequate lighting the iSight is significantly better quality than most USB webcams. In other words, turn on your lights.

The ROM update for it that came out months ago helped TONS.

[Spheric Harlot]

FWIW, the image quality of the iSight screenshot you posted is *drastically* better, IMO.

It's just a little dark.

[Graymalkin]

Your comparison picture isn't even close to fair. The light bloom from the window in the Quickcam shot changes the gain in the camera which makes the whole shot brighter. Take pictures of the same object within a reasonable distance from the camera with the lighting you expect to use while webcaming and then compare the two. Even in those shots the iSight is darker but has far more detail. Look at the pattern on the couch, the iSight grabs the detail of the plaid while the Quickcam barely just barely does. When you're talking to someone this will mean the difference between them being able to just see your face and being able to see small expressions on your face.

[madmacgames]

and also I seriously doubt your walls are purple like the quickcam would have me believe. In fact, it appears the walls and pillowcase for the pillow on the couch are nearly the same color.

They are the standard off-white in the iSight one.

The quickcam one appears to have a "motion blur" effect on it. The iSight is somewhat blurrier than what I've seen from mine, but it does not have that "motion blur" effect and as already mentioned, you need good lighting (that goes without say I think for any imaging device).

[motti]

Originally posted by d4nth3m4n:
i dont think those images are a fair comparison. in the second one, you have piece of the window in there, adding light to the scene...

Wouldn't it be the other way round, with the light source making the camera adjust and therefore delivering a darker image?

[memyselfandimac]

Originally posted by motti:
Wouldn't it be the other way round, with the light source making the camera adjust and therefore delivering a darker image?

Right. To get a good picture you need to have a minimum of 120+ watts (i have 180) of good indirect light coming from in front of you, the white walls in back of you are only going to make the iSight adjust itself darker, especially if it is picking up them or any of the the direct window light. If your going VC during the day you need to blackout that window and install at least 180 watts of indirect light in front of you.

My set up is 3 can lights each with a 60 watt bulb, set on the self above my monitor casting a bright indirect light on the white ceiling in front of me.

If you give iSight the light it requires it's picture quality will blow the others away. My Logitech Quickcam pro 4000 does better than the iSight at low light levels but is no where nears as sharp. If I plug in my $700 Sony camcorder and compare it side by side to the iSight I can't tell dif between the 2 pics, they have very close to same quality of image capture but both require a lot more light than the Logitech.

[rozwado1]

Originally posted by va3uxb:
-Stephanie

First guess is that she's a web cam whore that knows little about technology other than the fact that it can make her some easy money. With proper lighting, I'm sure the iSight will showcase her nipples very well.

[madmacgames]

Originally posted by rozwado1:
First guess is that she's a web cam whore that knows little about technology other than the fact that it can make her some easy money.

That was rather uncalled for.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by madmacgames:
That was rather uncalled for.

But most likely the truth.

[subego]

Originally posted by rozwado1:
First guess is that she's a web cam whore that knows little about technology other than the fact that it can make her some easy money. With proper lighting, I'm sure the iSight will showcase her nipples very well.

First guess is that you're a big ********.

(That would be "poopy-head" by the way, damn censor)

[Steve]

Originally posted by rozwado1:
First guess is that she's a web cam whore that knows little about technology other than the fact that it can make her some easy money. With proper lighting, I'm sure the iSight will showcase her nipples very well.

Completely unnecessary. Stop it, now.

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
But most likely the truth.

Same message as above.

[Nodnarb]

Originally posted by rozwado1:
First guess is that she's a web cam whore that knows little about technology other than the fact that it can make her some easy money. With proper lighting, I'm sure the iSight will showcase her nipples very well.

What the hell? Dude she was asking a question about an iSight, just becuase she's a girl shes a web cam whore? WTF...???

As to the original poster: When I first got my iSight, I thought it was a piece of crap too. Then I realized it was a lighting issue, and that changed everything. I'm sure you've already gotten enough suggestions in here to figure out how to do it, but make sure you follow the directions so you get the best picture.

[brapper]

Originally posted by rozwado1:
First guess is that she's a web cam whore that knows little about technology other than the fact that it can make her some easy money. With proper lighting, I'm sure the iSight will showcase her nipples very well.

way to chase the girls away from the forums again...

[perbl]

Originally posted by rozwado1:
First guess is that she's a web cam whore that knows little about technology other than the fact that it can make her some easy money. With proper lighting, I'm sure the iSight will showcase her nipples very well.

If this had been posted at one of the forums I administer, I would have banned you right away. What the hell is your problem? A forum like this is made for helping people, including helping newcomers to understand the technology we discuss here better, and I really think a forum is a better place without people posting this kind of comments in response to a good relevant question, just because the original poster is a girl. (which btw is a really good thing, as a geek-forum like this obviously needs more of them based on what you manage to cough up)

[Randman]

I agree. How can the mods just let this go with a warning? This isn't the poli lounge where things often get out of hand. If not outright banned (which is what I'd also do), then at least a severe time away from this place.
The original poster had a legitimate question and this is the response. I'm embarrassed that someone was treated so poorly and that the people in charge here are doing nothing about it.

[subego]

Originally posted by perbl:
If this had been posted at one of the forums I administer, I would have banned you right away. What the hell is your problem? A forum like this is made for helping people

I like this is the kind of place where you get a warning, it goes along with the "helping people" you mentioned.

In a desperate attempt to wrestle this thread on topic, I can think of... nothing.

RFL (Request For Lockination)

[Nodnarb]

I second that request.

[bmhome1]

Vote for permanent ban. What in God's name were the other 621 posts like?

[sideus]

[Steve]

va3uxb: Sorry about how your thread turned out, and hopefully your question was answered before this got derailed.

rozwado1 and SWG have been banned from the Peripherals forum, and I'm going to lock this thread.