Quoting steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Being in the local store I just decided to get one of those under $100 > cameras. Not knowing what is compatible I took a guess with Intel Pocket > camera. Turns out it's more hassle than it's worth to get it working. > > So this time around I'm going to return that one and get another. However, not > being familiar with names/models I've got no clue as to what is a decent > brand (under $100) video camera that works under USB on Linux. (I did managed > to play with a $1,200 one but that's beyond what I'm willing to spend.) > > If there's a big loss going with a video option I can stick with still > pictures for higher quality but must be color.
All depends on your definition of quality. There are no "good" USB cameras; there are satisfactory cameras that are OK more or less for videoconferencing. If you plan to shoot Star Wars, it won't be good enough. The best USB cameras are ones made by Philips, in no small part because the driver for those cameras was written with specs in hand. In most cases, you will get 320x240 image with 15-20 fps. Some cameras have 640x480 sensor, but then the frame rate drops to 1-2 per second. Some cameras have compression, this improves fps and lowers quality. Color resolution is very low in most cameras (because of cheap sensors). Cameras themselves routinely are sold for $25-30; you simply can't afford any quality parts at that price. These cameras are "consumer devices", not professional ones - meaning that they are mostly toys. Again, all depends on what you want. USB webcams are suitable at most for low-end videoconferencing, where postal stamp - sized image is all you want, and all you care to transmit. If you need better quality, you won't find it in the webcam land. See http://www.linux-usb.org/ to find a supported device before you buy. Thanks, Dmitri -- Excusing bad programming is a shooting offence, no matter _what_ the circumstances. (Linus Torvalds, to the linux-kernel list)
msg03935/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
