(no subject)

Rolf Hemmerling (hemmerling@geocities.com)
Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:57:47 +0100

Mark E. Hendricks schrieb:=20
> I have heard that the Connectix cams draw alot on the CPU. Does anybod=
> know which cameras are better in this regard? How do the ones that do =
> place as great a burden on the CPU compare in performance?
Connectix sayed on the Hannover Fair CEBIT in Spring 1997:
for 486 computers, the Connectix Graycam (b/w) is burden enough,
for 586 computers, the Color Connectix cam is o.k. (there is a special
compression mode for the transmission of color videos between the PC and
the cam, which is a special burden for the CPU)

For the COMPRO Dcam, there is no special compression transfer mode, so
the burden ist just caused by the higher data volume caused by the color
video frame, not by the decoding process. Please ask COMPRO Dcam users
for further details.

Remember, because many refs are not compatible with color videos, in
many cases people send b/w to the ref although they have a color cam. So
the CPU burden for the color cams is not lower if You send b/w to the
ref, because the cameras send color all the time to the PC. In fact, if
You send b/w to the ref, there is an additional translation burden for
converting color to b/w data to be sent to the ref). O.k., each frame
sent to the ref is worth less KBytes if it is b/w and not color, but the
real limit for video transfers are the 28.8/33.6/64K limitations of Your
Internet connection. So with b/w sending, You may get higher frame
rates, but the burden is less.

For Cu-SEEME, be glad if You transmit 1 frame per second on a heavy ref,
so the Internet transfer is not the special CPU burden, it is the same
for all cams (You can=B4t send more than 28.8/33.6/64K if you have a 28.8
or 33.6 analog connection or 64K ISDN connection, that=B4s it)

All about CU-SEEME, Iphones, refs and so on:

/ / / Alone on the data highway...
/ / like on an allee in Hannover-Herrenhausen
/ / / Rolf Hemmerling, Germany
/ / http://home.pages.de/~rolf.hemmerling/