|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 16th, 2005, 11:02 AM | #76 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
That is why you can get cameras for $1000 USB (I said it wasn't pretty), and you can figure the rest from there.
Obin's is only going to be one of many systems. A secondhand f1.2 35mm lens is $50 (or cheap CCTV lens) and make an adaptor. Rob's software (when finished) is supposed to be $100 (I think), and he Sumix system will hopefully have the software in their system, and for their existing $1000 camera. But well see what happens. Of course the editing system might add some price, but that is not the camera system. |
March 25th, 2006, 03:16 PM | #77 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
Quote:
I'm sorry I missed this back then, I was getting so overloaded with links I still haven't read hundreds of them. I have just been looking for hours (now morning) for a link to a Astro site listing all cameras and there performances, I thought posted by Ronald in the Technical thread, but I haven't been able to find it. I mention a list in this thread, but I can't find one in this thread, would anybody here know where it is? Thanks Wayne. |
|
March 28th, 2006, 12:03 AM | #78 |
New Boot
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: BG
Posts: 19
|
|
March 28th, 2006, 04:15 AM | #79 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
Yes, something similar to that but for all sorts of cameras, not just web cams. I tried googling for hours, and lots of useless hits. Do you know some good Astrology sites with a good links list, that you could refer me too, they might have a link?
What I am trying to do is find is sensors/cameras with the most sensitivity and latitude for a uncompressed camera experiment. The cameras have to be at least 426 pixels across, 640 or 720 pixels across preferably. Web cams are far to limited in range. I have found a nice imager, for satellite use, but the truth is that it is probably goign to cost a fortune in a camera, and might not be they best either. |
March 28th, 2006, 09:02 AM | #80 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
I have been following the links on those pages and have come across some stuff and started another thread on the web-cam mods with the new links:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...118#post455118 I did not find what I was looking for (lists of info on all cameras and sensors, not just web-cam or firewire), but I did find some helpful short lists (0.00015 lux cameras and a 200K -ev well capacity sensor) that might help. |
March 28th, 2006, 11:43 AM | #81 | |
New Boot
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: BG
Posts: 19
|
Quote:
About the high sensitivity camera - DXB-9200EX is a good one on paper and theoretically you can replace the sensor in a CCD webcam with this one and use the USB2(IEEE1394) connection already on webcam. Two examples: a Sony ICX414 onto the front end of a standard modified webcam replacing the ICX098 CCD in the Phillips Toucam with a ICX424 Be aware that the Philips SPC900NC (one of the most expensive webcams today) is a USB1.1 device! VERY BAD because the sensor is quite good - Philips SPC900NC Some e-shop sites claim that this webcam is USB2.0 and capable of 90fps,but when i see the screen shots from the drivers interface, I see 640x480@15fps is the maximum! |
|
March 29th, 2006, 04:59 AM | #82 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
Thanks for the links and advice, I will have to leave it for today, as I am not feeling the best.
About those web ads advertising 90 fps, they might have confused a small sub windowing rate with the full frame rate. |
| ||||||
|
|