capture boards v parrallel input cameras

Dr. Jonathan Crellin (crellinj@sis.port.ac.uk)
Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:49:39 +0000


I have used a number of different video inputs on different machines and I
thought these comments might be useful.

Mac
===
QuickCam on a Performa 630 (68LC40/8Mb), and on a PowerMac 5500/225(32Mb),
works fine. Both these machines have built in capture cards (fairly basic
one), and in both instances using the capture card produces a *small* but
detectable increase in performance (faster CU response and better frame
rate).

In unconnected state, cu reports average of 17 fps from the capture card,
and about 14 from QuickCam. Obviously once you connect the fps goes down a
lot, the capture card only seems to be marginally better.

Wintel
======
QuickCam on PC, I have used these on two 2?? MHz Pentiums, with 32MB, and
they have both worked well for CU-SeeMe.

I'm hoping to try a Hauppage capture board on one of these PCs soon, so may
be able to compare.

I used a NEC parrallel port camera on an IBM Activa (133/16MB), and its
performance was very marginal (even as a straight capture camera it only
gave about 2fps), maybe this camera (or software) isn't as nice quality as
the QC

Jon

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jonathan Crellin
Department of Information Science
University of Portsmouth
Milton Campus
Portsmouth
UK email: crellinj@sis.port.ac.uk
http://www.sis.port.ac.uk/~crellinj/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------