Hi On Saturday 29 May 2010 14:14:47 Martin Green wrote: > A follow up question: upekts returns a 200 byte identification string. > Has > > anyone tried using these for comparison purposes? > > > > I notice from Daniel's driver page that he has proved that the 200 byte > > string is a sufficient unique ID, because he uploaded to a second device > > and verify worked. I am not quite sure if this implies that we can > > use these for internal comparison though?
no, these are supposed to be some kind of hashed fingerprint info, AFAIK no one except UPEK understand its structure > > My interest is in questions of accuracy and user ease-of-use. It seems > > above that you're suggesting that the non-swipe devices are better in > > this regard? > > > > On the other hand, I've read that the upek sensors with hardware ID chip > > are a lot faster in use. > the current swipe sensors provide superior quality to touch-based sensors (simply because they are cheaper and more advanced, not because of some inherent feature of the design) if you plan on going embedded then upekts might be best choice for speed, but again it does not offer data for identification. the hardware is capable, but all linux drivers are based on closed blob driver by UPEK, which is far inferior to windows drivers and does not provide this capability Pavel Herrmann _______________________________________________ fprint mailing list [email protected] http://lists.reactivated.net/mailman/listinfo/fprint
