Re: Is Quickcam still a good deal?

• To: benedict@netcom.com, srikaewa@vuse.vanderbilt.edu
• Subject: Re: Is Quickcam still a good deal?
• From: Randolph Bentson <bentson@grieg.bentson.aa.net>
• Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 13:47:22 -0700
• Cc: quickcam-drivers@crynwr.com
• Delivered-To: quickcam-drivers@crynwr.com

I've a complaint with the Quickcam, and it doesn't appear that
the Eggcam is much better.

With a horizontal resolution of 320 pixels, the 45 to 55 degree
viewing angle means the resolution is _much_ less than the
unaided human eye.  This means that images of distant objects
don't "look" sharp.

I'd really like the option of a different lens assembly to
bring the viewing angle down to under 10 degrees.

Has anyone located (perhaps from Edmund Scientific) different
lenses?

Randolph Bentson
bentson@grieg.seaslug.org

• Re: Is Quickcam still a good deal?
• From: jmfriedt@ens.ens-lyon.fr
• Re: Is Quickcam still a good deal?
• From: Chris Bryden <cbryden@okinawa.usmc.mil>

• Prev: Re: A first (disappointing) answer from Connectix
• Next: qcamdriver-1.1
• Index: Mail Index
• Thread: Mail Thread Index