From: Milton Aupperle <milton@outcastsoft.com>

Date: July 16, 2005 11:13:25 AM MDT

To: Astro_IIDC@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Astro_IIDC] Re: just wishing


Hi Jeff;


I think it's because of CCD cost. For example the color 1/3" CCD they use in the DSI was about 20% cheaper than the CCD used in a color 1/4" Unibrain. However the monchrome 1/4" Unibrain CCD (much lower volumes) was about 300% more expensive than the 1/3" DSI Color CCD.


That's mainly because they produce a lot of those interlaced CCD's for the video industry (camcorders, security cameras etc.). I really suspect that the boom in low light Analog CCD cameras is largely due to 911 and security fears both for home and terrorism.


HTH..


Milton J. Aupperle

President

ASC - Aupperle Services and Contracting

Mac Software (Drivers, Components and Application) Specialist

#1005 - 815 14th Avenue. S.W.

Calgary Alberta Canada T2R0N5

1-(403)-229-9456

milton@outcastsoft.com

www.outcastsoft.com




On 16-Jul-05, at 8:12 AM, jterry94 wrote:


--- In Astro_IIDC@yahoogroups.com, Milton Aupperle <milton@o...> wrote:

> Hi Tim;

>

> On 15-Jul-05, at 4:26 PM, Tim wrote:

>

>

> The DSI and other cameras that use the interlaced Sony CCD variants

> made for TV cameras are a PITA to work with if there is any motion in

> the images. If your doing interlaced video fields for TV they are

> fine, but not for full frame.

>

> All the IIDC cameras I deal with use progressive scan CCD's so they

> don't have that problem and this is the main reason I don't like

> analog cameras much at all anymore.

>

> TTYL..

>


I hate the #@@#$ interlaced chips. They progressive starlight express SXV-H9 and H9C are

so much easier to program. The M8C and M25 are a pain.


Is there a reason why interlaced chips are still the most common variant?


Jeff