Adjust webcam colors on Spectre X360

[proxyx]

David, appreciate your input but:

1. HP ignores the problem since the first new gen. Envy/Spectre hit the market, no improvement for over 2 years despite clear indication that webcam is below expectations.

2. I see some effort here to misguide users.

My posts are deleted and other threads are closed in an effort to derail the issue or discussion, what else? https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Poor-terrible-really-bad-x360-...

See this: roughly the same post was used to close the other thread just on the mere suggestion that gluing something onto the laptop is "the fix". Ludicrous, and quite convenient. See other threads with webcam issues, subjects are... well judge for yourself. 

Looks like blatant dishonesty, to put it lightly.

thread closed here (same day, same post, same poster). Due to the new "discovery"? Really? Is this such a breaktrough?

https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Video-Display-and-Touch/Purple-tint-to-Webcam-Need-to-turn-of...

3. despite declarations to investigate: ZERO.

...and now: "go buy an IR filter, glue it on and FIX IT YOURSELF". Are you joking David? If this is satisfactory to you, fine. It does not satisfy me. See first post: people don't buy laptops or anything, to fix them. They have warranty and tech support. But where is it in this case? Acer webcam needs no fixing. Explain that!!

PS.  you wrote: "If we look at the Quickspec of what I think is the most expensive current x360 device, the ZBook Studio x360 G5, all that is promised of the optional webcam on those devices is 720p at 30fps - it's probably the same inexpensive camera as in these Spectre x360s."  LOL, does it make any sense to you, really??? What kind of BS is this? Are we beeing punished by HP? or maybe it shows massive ignorance?

Your long lecture missed the mark. You seem confused. I've been too long around cameras and computers to fall into this trap. Didn't post all my pictures, I have plenty, and every day delivers more, like for every other HP laptop user. Just the one that clearly defines the problem even for the noob.

Re. your legal argument. Our duty is not only to ourselves. Forums such as this should objectively document issues and solutions, or lack of them. At least for the sake of informing potential buyers or those who still enjoy store return option. You may consider this a public service to some extent.

[David_J_W]

1. The majority of users simply don't care about the webcam enough for a low quality webcam to stop them from buying a particular laptop or cause them to return the laptop they've already bought - that's the harsh fact. Across these forums and the wider Internet, there's probably less than 100 people complaining about x360 webcams. I suspect there are a rather larger number of users who really aren't happy with their x360 webcam, but HP are unlikely to spend money to fit higher quality webcams unless they think they will make at least that amount back in increased sales and/or higher price for the devices they sell. All devices are a compromise somewhere. I can't be the only laptop buyer who puts webcam quality way down the list of what I am looking for.

The laptop market is very sensitive to size, device mass, price and bezel size on screens. Manufacturers fight each other on those issues. I simply don't get the 'wide bezels look ugly' complaints when it comes to larger devices intended to be held tablet style like x360s, as you need something to hold on to that isn't part of the screen. I would rather have a modest bezel than be putting my thumb over part of the screen and potentially activating the touch screen in that area. Within reason, I'm a function over form guy - but many consumers are not.

When it comes to the webcam, microphone(s) and even speakers, they're typically a 'yes/no' item in many laptop buying decisions - if a device has them, that's enough for many buyers. Laptop speakers are heavily constrained by similar issues to webcams. I suspect HP's "Bang & Olufsen" speakers are maybe more about marketing cachet than a quantum leap forwards in laptop audio. Before too much longer my primary laptop will be an HP with B&O speakers - but I'm not expecting the laptop to perform like B&O's premium hi-fi equipment as the physical limitations of the laptop form factor plus my own experience tells me that is impossible. I hope B&O's involvement means the speakers are above average for laptop speakers, as I doubt B&O would want their name associated with something that sounds dreadful. I'll still be using quality headphones or speakers through an external audio interface when I care about the audio performance. If I have nothing better available, the Bluetooth speaker I use with my phone is almost certainly a better option than the laptop's internal speakers.

Built in microphones have gradually got better over the past ten years, but they are at most good enough for conferencing and, in ideal circumstances (especially in relation to background noise), they provide reasonable speech recognition performance. Using a Bluetooth headset - which many people will already have to use with their mobile phone - often produces better results, not least as the microphone placement is so much better. For critical applications, there is no beating a properly selected quality external microphone that is correctly sited and connected to a good quality microphone preamp and external audio interface.

If you want something done about the webcams, maybe it's worth starting a factual campaign somewhere on the web to show HP that people do care about the webcam quality and that it may well be worth their while fitting better webcams. Provide comparison images from other manufacturers showing that at least some devices competing with the x360s have better webcams (Lenovo's Yogas are obvious competitors, as is Microsoft's Surface Book and Dell's 2-in-1 products).

2. I suspect HP take the view that their forums are no place for campaigning against their design and engineering decisions. Their position seems to be "the webcam performs to specification, we're not going to do anything". Again, if you post still images recorded from any webcams and phone cameras you have somewhere online, you stand a chance of persuading purchasers and potential purchasers that HP's webcams are not good enough and that they will look elsewhere if HP doesn't do something.

I'm no shill and nobody tells me what or what not to post. I think it's going to be very difficult to do a neat job of mounting an IR filter over the webcam, but that hack will be worthwhile for some users. Most will reluctantly accept the webcam as it is and try to work round its limitations.

3. As I said in my earlier post, it would be better if you posted still JPEG images direct from the webcams to take the (probably uncalibrated) laptop screens and the mobile phone camera out of the equation. You can still mask out your face if you wish.

I suspect the investigation has happened and has concluded the webcam performs to specification and there is nothing that can be done in software to improve on its limitations. It isn't in HP's interests to proclaim "we've investigated and our webcams really are not very good" or even "we hear our customers and will use better webcams on future devices". Such a statement would give certain sections of the IT press (such as the UK's The Register) free reign to write some very anti-HP headlines when HP are probably not that much worse than their competitors. I suspect any proclamation about better webcams will wait until some devices with better webcams are publicly announced.

Those who are really upset about the issues have probably been offered some sort of individual deal by HP Customer Care. If the only way to improve webcam performance is to install a replacement higher quality camera, then I very much doubt this will happen with current devices. The design engineers are already working on the next generation of devices and quite probably involved in early work on the generation after that. HP may well be in long term commitments to buy the current camera. There is essentially zero marketing gain from a mid-life improvement of a single component - the reviews for the existing generation of devices have long since been written. The handful of long term reports that are written typically start with devices in the original release specification but will install relevant BIOS, driver and software updates. Most actual and potential purchasers will never come anywhere near these forums.

It takes an extensive and expensive strip down simply to do a like for like replacement of the existing webcam (for which there isn't even a procedure in some x360 Service and Maintenance Guides - the screen electronics are spared as a complete assembly), let alone a potentially complex modification to install a filter or a better camera. Can you think of an example of a manufacturer offering to undertake such costly modifications to existing devices to improve performance? All I can think of are safety recalls (mostly to do with mains adapters and batteries), also case by case authorisation of repair outside warranty for certain well-known failures that are arguably design flaws.

I, too, have my own long history with cameras and photography. Unfortunately the image you posted show what is probably a sub US$10 camera performing like a sub US$10 camera which is disappointing for those of us not into the lomography or dated digital looks. If the likes of HP keep buying these cameras, the manufacturers will keep on making them. They could do better. The Samsung Galaxy S8+ front camera I mentioned is available as an OEM spare part for less than US$15 so the cost to Samsung of buying these cameras in bulk will be rather less than that. This may well need some interface electronics to connect to PC hardware (the camera's connector suggests that the interface is MIPI CSI or similar, meaning some of the processing appears to be being done on the phone's motherboard). MIPI CSI to USB 3.0 chips are commercially available - Cypress Semiconductor makes one (EZ-USB CX3) and there are others. None of this is state of the art, even - the S8+ is last year's model and the S10 range will probably be announced in January. The Cypress chip has been around for several years.

Premium mobile phone buyers will not tolerate poor quality cameras and the likes of Samsung know that. If HP wanted, they could probably make a premium mobile phone quality webcam for some way less than US$30 on the BOM plus some one-time engineering costs to integrate the camera and USB controller into a ready to use module. A suitable premium webcam module for laptops might already be commercially available, which will save on those one-off engineering costs. The question is whether it is worth HP's while to add perhaps US$10 to the component cost of a laptop when they are perhaps unlkely to see the same amount in additional revenue per item sold. Value engineering on mass-market electronics is often about shaving every cent off the BOM cost - not adding several dollars for better quality peripherals.

At the end of the day, I think it is a commercial decision. The market demands a webcam, so HP fit a webcam. HP's belief is that the market does not demand and will not pay for a premium quality webcam, so they fit an inexpensive webcam. It is up to laptop buyers to make it clear if they want better webcams, not least through any market research that takes place. If the manufacturers understand clearly that better webcams means better profit, they'll soon design better webcams into upcoming devices.