Webcam/Port Question

[Guest]

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

What advantages/disadvantages are there when using
a webcam made for a usb 2.0 port as opposed to a
webcam made for a 1.1 port?

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 10:52:44 GMT, "Radio Man" <puns@verizon.net>
wrote:

>What advantages/disadvantages are there when using
> a webcam made for a usb 2.0 port as opposed to a
>webcam made for a 1.1 port?
>

Depend entirely on what features the mfg designed into the web cam.

It is more likely than not that the only thing that changed is the
printing on the box, as 2.0 is backward compatible. Kind of a free
ride for the mfg to say that the camera is 2.0 compatible.

Pj

 

[Simon]

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

"Radio Man" <puns@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0amTc.3103$io1.132@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> What advantages/disadvantages are there when using
> a webcam made for a usb 2.0 port as opposed to a
> webcam made for a 1.1 port?
>
IMHO, *if* the webcam is designed to take full advantage of the increased
USB 2.0 bandwidth, and the host PC can handle USB2.0, it should result in
much better picture quality. In my experience, webcams that try to squeeze
640 x 480 x 15fps into USB 1.1 bandwidth seem to throw away picture quality
at the compression stage. This is more obvious when you look at single
frames rather than moving video.

For example, in a side-by-side comparison of a Philips Toucam (USB1.1) and
an Axis 205 (100Mbit ethernet), the 205 usually wins, even though its CMOS
sensor is probably inferior to the Toucam's CCD sensor. See
http://www.setters.demon.co.uk/lundycam/index.html, Toucam is on the left,
205 on the right.

Simon