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