Re: QuickCam2 vs. camcorder

Mark L. Bardenwerper (bardenwe@vbe.com)
Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:14:39 -0500


David Wolff wrote:
>
>
A camcorder is definitely better, although you will never get fluid
motion. The best I have gotten is with a video capture card and
camcorder through my 200mmx through a VERY good provider to a VERY good
ref with only a few watchers. I still couldn't use audio. The motion was
acceptably smooth. The think about a Quickcam or any parallel cam is
that they demand CPU power which robs CU. That means you will get only
half the frame rates of a card and cam under ideal conditions. I am not
going to knock the Quickcams, though, because they work and they are
cheap. If you want to enjoy the technology and not spend a bundle, They
are OK. I already had a camcorder and the Hauppauge card was a deal and
it also has a radio and a TV. Now I never have to move from this spot!
In fact, I think I'm growing roots!
-- 
CU-Seeme unsubscribe or information? 
http://cu-seeme.cornell.edu/listinfo.html
CU-Seeme list archive? 
http://www.indstate.edu/CU-SeeMe/all_archives.html
Reflector lists?  http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/streak/scan
Mark L. Bardenwerper #:?)
Technology...thoughtfully...responsibly.