Re: reverse engineering pwcx

dulle
2004-08-30T20:24:10Z

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=X-UNKNOWN; FORMAT=flowed, Size: 1643 bytes --]

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