Which one? Logitech Quickcam 4000 Pro or Logitech Quickcam..

[James]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Between the two webcams from Logitech, which one do you recommend and why(as
far as video/image quality/frame rate wtih MSN Messenger or Yahoo! Messenger
is concerned)?

Thanks in advance,
James

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

both of those camera's get a little use here
video, color, frame rate, everything picture wise is basically identical.
Slight mfg variance maybe, side by side 4000 looks a tad better - seperate
them you'd not know which cam was on your screen.

don't have much light where they're used, dark furniture/carpet/walls &
frame rate seems sloooow but they fit well into the low light environment
here.

Face tracking & zoom on the 4000 is usable where that feature is pretty much
unusable with Orbit in lower light. Orbit looses you it aims out into the
upper left blue yonder and parks - you'll want fresh paint on the ceiling in
the shadow area's.
4000 face tracking when enabled also does auto zooms . like it or not... I'd
rather not have the zoom with face tracking which may have been better
called auto portrait setting,, but it seems to do it well.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

I have a Quickcam 4000 Pro and agree with all the comments. I have yet to
find a way, however, to superimpose text on the picture using Logitech
software.


"bumtracks" <user@unknown.org> wrote in message
news:33qxc.267$9J4.215@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> both of those camera's get a little use here
> video, color, frame rate, everything picture wise is basically identical.
> Slight mfg variance maybe, side by side 4000 looks a tad better - seperate
> them you'd not know which cam was on your screen.
>
> don't have much light where they're used, dark furniture/carpet/walls &
> frame rate seems sloooow but they fit well into the low light environment
> here.
>
> Face tracking & zoom on the 4000 is usable where that feature is pretty
much
> unusable with Orbit in lower light. Orbit looses you it aims out into the
> upper left blue yonder and parks - you'll want fresh paint on the ceiling
in
> the shadow area's.
> 4000 face tracking when enabled also does auto zooms . like it or not...
I'd
> rather not have the zoom with face tracking which may have been better
> called auto portrait setting,, but it seems to do it well.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

The picture quality is actually better on the 4000 than the Orbit, and
if you want to use your webcam in low light, the 4000 is much better.

The TrackerPod/Logitech Pro 4000 combination, we have been told, also
has better PTZ than the Orbit because it provides a wider range of
motion and also the movements are more precise.


"James" <james_toronto@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<L9ixc.115662$Ar.18016@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> Between the two webcams from Logitech, which one do you recommend and why(as
> far as video/image quality/frame rate wtih MSN Messenger or Yahoo! Messenger
> is concerned)?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> James

 

[James]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Sounds like the 4000 Pro is the better one?

James

"James" <james_toronto@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:L9ixc.115662$Ar.18016@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Between the two webcams from Logitech, which one do you recommend and
why(as
> far as video/image quality/frame rate wtih MSN Messenger or Yahoo!
Messenger
> is concerned)?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> James
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Yes, the 4000 is the better camera (especially in low light). The
Orbit is not as good a camera but it has the pan and tilt. However,
you can get a TrackerPod to pan/tilt the Logitech QuickCam Pro 4000.



"James" <james_toronto@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<P9Xxc.157910$Ar.45926@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> Sounds like the 4000 Pro is the better one?
>
> James
>
> "James" <james_toronto@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:L9ixc.115662$Ar.18016@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > Between the two webcams from Logitech, which one do you recommend and
> why(as
> > far as video/image quality/frame rate wtih MSN Messenger or Yahoo!
> Messenger
> > is concerned)?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > James
> >
> >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

"James" <james_toronto@rogers.com> wrote in message
news9Xxc.157910$Ar.45926@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Sounds like the 4000 Pro is the better one?

http://members.fortunecity.com/bumtracks/Orbit4000.jpg
about 22kb
2- Midnight pictures acquired in psp program from exact spot best I
could. 4000 looks to have a tad wider lens.
Orbit on the left - 4000 on the right
Full Automatic ... single 9watt straight fluorescent tube / enclosed under
eave for light.
Looks like Orbit does slightly lower light, moved them around on the
patio looking at diff light levels - on the orbit grain starts to show as
light levels dropdown low.
`Yea,,, I booted & rebooted laptop because I thought something was odd with
color too.

They both look awful close when not side by side here in the house to my
eyeballs.

might have to back off the pic file name and just go to the directory,
not sure about fortune city mythology lately ,,, just a quick upload page
various snap shots - I think.

 

[James]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

And like it so far (its built quality seems a lot better than that of
Quickcam 4000 Pro, and its image/video quality is not bad, either

James

"James" <james_toronto@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:L9ixc.115662$Ar.18016@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Between the two webcams from Logitech, which one do you recommend and
why(as
> far as video/image quality/frame rate wtih MSN Messenger or Yahoo!
Messenger
> is concerned)?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> James
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

On 9 Jun 2004 16:40:24 -0700, announcement@eagletron.com (Eagletron)
wrote:

>The picture quality is actually better on the 4000 than the Orbit, and
>if you want to use your webcam in low light, the 4000 is much better.
>
>The TrackerPod/Logitech Pro 4000 combination, we have been told, also
>has better PTZ than the Orbit because it provides a wider range of
>motion and also the movements are more precise.
>
>
>"James" <james_toronto@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<L9ixc.115662$Ar.18016@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>> Between the two webcams from Logitech, which one do you recommend and why(as
>> far as video/image quality/frame rate wtih MSN Messenger or Yahoo! Messenger
>> is concerned)?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> James

You know actually my problem with my Quickcam is getting it to talk
to my ftp server correctly. So far I haven't had any problems with
the pictures themselves - just getting my ftp server and my Quickcam
software to work with one another. So far I'm halfway there....


Rose
My Webcam Page!
http://members.aol.com/Roseb441702/webcam.htm