Re: your mail

Jason Williams (streak@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu)
Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:19:21 -0600 (CST)


On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Mark E. Hendricks wrote:
> I have heard that the Connectix cams draw alot on the CPU. Does anybody
> know which cameras are better in this regard? How do the ones that do not
> place as great a burden on the CPU compare in performance?

As I understand it:
Worst = a parallel port camera
Better = a USB camera
Best = a capture card

I haven't kept up with all the new USB cameras out besides the
Quickcam..but I've heard good things about the Hauppage and Winnov capture
cards. (I know the Winnov basic capture card runs for $99 from
http://www.winnov.com ... dunno about the others).

As far as performance...capture cards can easily do 30fps at
320x240..while parallel port cams struggle to do 15fps at 160x120 (I think
that's right). The frame rate limitation is still a moot point for
videconferencing across a modem, but the load on the processor CAN affect
the videoconferencing and the entire computer.

--
streak@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu    * Jason Williams -- Austin, Tx.  |     |
streak@mail.utexas.edu       * University of Texas at Austin  | ___ |
streak@cs.utexas.edu         * BS Computer Science             \_|_/
*************** http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~streak/ **************|