Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:23:57 +0000 (UTC) | From | dulle <> | Subject | Re: reverse engineering pwcx |
| |
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 03:42, Paul Jakma wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Helge Hafting wrote: >> >>> There's no need for faith or speculation here. >>> Put the chip under a microscope and count the pixels, >>> or rather measure their size and estimate their number. >> >> The lavarnd guy did and counted 160x120: >> >> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119578&cid=10091208 > > Unless he explains a bit better, there's no reason > to assume he counted correctly. There may be a larger > pattern that was counted by mistake. For example, > there may be 160x120 red-sensing sub-pixels. He could > have counted only that. > > Also, there is more than one type of sensor that can > be fitted to these webcam chips. They may vary.
Yes, some have cmos, some have CCDs.
Beside, I am a bit puzzled by the credit that has been given to that slashdot comment, when a simple search on "ccd chip logitech 3000 pro" provides a link on the description of the CCD chip inside that cam in a few clicks :
http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/new_tec/ccd/icx098.html
2 more clicks on Sony's site give acces to the datasheets of the different versions of the icx098 (color or b/w).
And that was the hard way: if you search "ccd chip philips webcam" you have the reference on the result page and access to the specs on the first site returned.
http://www.astrosurf.com/benschop/APEquipment.htm
Did I mention icx098 is a 640x480 CCD chip, whatever the version ?
-- François Meyer http://dulle.free.fr/alidade/galerie.php?maxim=12 | |