Adjust webcam colors on Spectre X360

[C_Brooks]

My husband & I just Skyped on my 5 hour old Spectre 360 in the same location.  His phone camera looks Great!  It's true to color.  My brand new laptop's camera is... pitiful.  😕  Purple looks good on me, but seriously.  This is going too far.  Thankfully, we bought all the extra perks at Best Buy and I'll have them do whatever it takes to fix it.  This includes returning for another brand, if that's what it takes.  HP, you've got some fixin' to do!

Sencerely, 

Otherwise satisfied

[Beloculus]

I had the same problem on my x360 and was quite disappointed as I spend a lot of my day on video chat and try to be outdoors as much as possible, and so everyone was asking me why my trees were orange in the middle of summer.

To resolve it, I purchased an IR filter from B&H Photo (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/617653-REG/Marshall_Electronics_V_FIRC_650_650nm_IR_Cut_Filte...). Placing that over the webcam cleared the color issues right up. Still haven't figured out exactly how I'm going to attach the thing, but I'll clear that hurdle soon I'm sure 😉 

Current hypothesis is that HP cheaped out on the camera and saved themselves some money by just not including an IR filter. This does resolve the issue for $5 + shipping and some glue.

[proxyx]

This is not the hypothesis, it's a fact. Weren't the trees orange?

The IR filter will not fix noise, low resolution, color issues etc.

Take your advise elwhere, this is NOT a DIY forum. People pay some serious money for the laptop and expect it to be free from faults. Turns out that in this case, despite several critical posts and reviews, HP (this forum) is NOT interested in any solution. Zero fixes so far. I'm not going to glue anything on my laptop... and if so, HP should be doing it for me (!), don't you think?

Camera driver includes a setting to disable IR, improves nothing. This is a lowest grade camera not only the IR problem.

Post pictures for others to judge... before you claim something. Let's see your hot glue work...

Here is my picture to illustrate the issue of purple tint and overall abysmal quality of my HP Envy camera (also shared by Spectre). Good luck trying  to distinguish the lines on my sweater on the HP screen. Total pink blurry mess.

[David_J_W]

Most of us are familiar with what the front facing camera in a smartphone can do - but even a modestly priced smartphone often has a greatly superior front facing camera than the webcam in a laptop costing several times as much. The Samsung Galaxy S8+ sat next to me has a front facing camera capable of 8 megapixel stills, 1080p video with HDR and stabilisation, and 1440p video without HDR or stabilisation. The rear facing camera is more capable still. Even more modest phones often have front facing cameras of at least 4 megapixels+ that are capable of 1080p video. Meanwhile laptop webcams are usually very low end devices - 0.9 megapixel stills and 720p video at 30fps (so the same still resolution as video resolution) is still common. I'm not going to discuss issues such as viewing angle and resolving power of the lens - these are just the headline specifications based on the sensor and processing setup.

The webcam in a laptop is a facility that many users never use. When I am not at my desk I usually use my phone for videoconferencing. If I am at my desk, the setup my laptop is docked to includes an external webcam on top of the monitor that is directly in front of me.

Those that use the integrated webcam will probably only use it for video conferencing - ephemeral video that is not normally recorded. When every cent on the bill of materials counts in a price sensitive consumer marketplace, it is hard for manufacturers such as HP to specify high quality cameras, especially if that additional expenditure on the BOM doesn't translate to additional sales or marketing capital.

In the case of the Spectre x360, I am unsure whether the same camera is used for the IR functionality for Windows Hello and for visible light use. The HP web site says "HP TRUE VISION FHD IR CAMERA Log in safely through Windows Hello and video chat with an 88-degree wide-angle field of view." A single camera covering both IR and visible light is almost certain to have the problem detailed in this thread.

Why be so harsh on Beloculus, proxyx? His/her experiment with a near IR filter seems to confirm the colour cast comes about from near IR light entering the camera. It would be nice to see images with and without the filter in question, also his/her developing ideas about mounting that filter. The lack of a root cause fix from HP after all the time you've been posting about this issue seems to indicate that self-help is the only way ahead.

The image you have posted is far from ideal for comparison purposes, because I doubt you've calibrated either laptop's screen using an external colorimeter, and even if you have there will be differences. It would have been better to capture a still image from both webcams, then either post those images or make a composite of them in photo editing software. Links to the original images from the camera software are helpful for those wanting to dig deeper. If you have something like a ColorChecker, that would make an idea subject for comparison shots, as the colorimetry of the patches is well known.

If the problem is excessive near IR sensitivity of the camera, there is probably nothing HP can do unless they switch to a camera with a better IR filter built in or can upgrade the filter in the existing camera. This might not be straightforward - the engineering work on the device has been completed and if I'm looking at the correct Service and Maintenance Guide, the electronics in the lid of the laptop are spared only as an entire assembly. This means that even service centres are not expected to change the camera - if there is a camera failure in warranty, the entire display and camera assembly will be changed.

My feeling is that if the colour cast issue is excessive near IR sensitivity of the camera, it is a quality issue rather than a fault. My belief is that the English courts would probably side with HP if the matter was before a court - no specific guarantee was made as to the quality of the camera, the camera is described as for "video chat" and the device is a general purpose laptop that happens to have a camera; it is not a digital camera or a dedicated videoconferencing platform. This would mean the question before the court was whether the camera was of reasonable quality for video chat - and I would expect the court to conclude it is. The camera is reasonable, but that is the most that can be said about it. My expectations might be wrong, and other jurisdictions might take a different view entirely.

Despite the marketing bluster - which is accompanied by a notable lack of actual specifications other than a viewing angle - it looks like it is a cheap camera. You imply that the resolution is low and there's a fair amount of noise. The issues seem to run deeper than excessive near IR sensitivity whereas any change to the filters will only fix colour casts from inadequte near IR filtering.

You've posted an awful lot about the x360 cameras and I hope HP have heard your view, proxyx. I hope they'll consider something rather better for future devices - there are laptops out there with better integrated webcams despite the constraints on available space and BOM cost. Even so, I have yet to come across an laptop integrated webcam that I would regard as producing an outstanding image - often even moderately priced mobile phones can do much better. 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.

I will be very surprised if HP change anything in the current generation of devices unless there is an upgraded camera with the same form factor available at little extra cost that can be substituted as a routine engineering change when current webcam stocks are depleted. It will be cheaper for HP to accept a few returns from users unhappy with the webcam (or offer free / discounted external webcams to those that complain) than re-engineer devices that are already some way into their product lifecycle.

[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.

[BAmsterdam]

I just came off the phone with Roberto from HP Netherlands and he helped me with a solution. He ran WebcamFW.exe on my computer, a Realtek Camera firmware update tool, and after this the colors are back to normal. It's unfortunate I can't upload the file here for future users with the same problem, but I'm sure that if you call HP they can help you. Just make sure you refer to the file I described. 

[David_J_W]

---

@BAmsterdam wrote:

I just came off the phone with Roberto from HP Netherlands and he helped me with a solution. He ran WebcamFW.exe on my computer, a Realtek Camera firmware update tool, and after this the colors are back to normal. It's unfortunate I can't upload the file here for future users with the same problem, but I'm sure that if you call HP they can help you. Just make sure you refer to the file I described. 

---

That's great news that something can be done for at least one of the issues.

Approximately how old was your x360 device, and exactly what model was it? I'm guessing that, at some point, HP moved to shipping this firmware in new devices.

[BAmsterdam]

Hi David, 

Thanks for the kudos and your reply. 

I purchased my HP Spectre x360 Convertible 13-ae015 two weeks ago. The problem was there when I received it, so they don't ship the laptops with a fix. I had to run it myself. 

Tried all suggestions from this topic except the IR filter, which is a clever one I admit. Then I was about to return it to Coolblue, the shop where I purchased it. They were willing to immediately replace the laptop, but after reading this topic I was affraid this would not solve anything and would only mean I needed to configure yet another new laptop. So the servicerep suggested I'd call HP which I did. 

I think the fix I described should work for all HP Spectre webcams who show black/blue as purple/pink. 

Now it's up to HP to include this fix in the HP Support Assistant. 

[proxyx]

Regarding the "fix" with the IR filter... where is the proof?

are we supposed to take a word for it? No proof, no picture, nothing... just a statement...?

For HP, to address it, they would have to admit there's a problem. Did not see it yet.

To date there is no admission, confirmation and no attempt to come up with the fix. Looks familiar?

Obviously they cannot fix the problem they pretend doesn't exist, or deny.

Locking threads, deleting posts and ignoring users is not the way leading to a solution.

Forums like this, with participation of HP staff, are supposed to be a conduit for both sides to effectively communicate. Someone forgot about that. It has nothing to do with campaigning but rather sharing information with other users in an attempt to develop a solution, for both sides. Companies have a feedback channel here. That was the idea. So far no response from HP or any serious attempt to study the problem. LIke it or not this IS an official HP forum created for users to communicate with the company and between themselves. 

I suggest you read again what OP and C_Brooks have written in the first post. People expect HP's active participation and initiative in fixing the pink webcam issue. None to date. My green clothes are purplish blue, blue are pink and pink are white. No philosophical deliberation will fix that, period.