Doddle! Machine Vision Basics 2005

I bought and read the title book (Image Information MOOK).
After reading it, I had the same feeling as after seeing the Image Sensing Expo and the International Technical Exhibition on Image Technology and Equipment.
Perhaps the closer you are to the "field" the more intensely uncomfortable you feel.
When looking at the catalogs of so-called "image sensor" manufacturers, I think users can imagine themselves "using" them.
I think that the catalogs of so-called "image sensor" manufacturers allow users to imagine themselves using the sensors.
I think that the "we are doing something so difficult" approach may scare users away. I'm not sure I'd call it "basic" at least...
I have been involved in various customization projects, and have had the opportunity to talk with a variety of end users, from large semiconductor manufacturers to small companies.
I have spoken with a variety of end-users, from large semiconductor manufacturers to small companies, and more than 90% of them say, "It's good if we can achieve our goals,
I have talked to a variety of end users, from large semiconductor manufacturers to small companies. I don't care what you use. Just keep the cost down.
I agree with this. I agree with this.
For reference, here are my selection criteria
Camera: Delivery time first. Cheap analog cameras are sufficient.
Lenses: Company with good salesman's footwork.
Illuminator: A company that does not ask "How many units are you expecting?
Capture board: No compatibility problems. I am not inconvenienced by analog.
Libraries: It is practically impossible to create image processing beyond "image sensors" on your own within the constraints of time and man-hours. Therefore, it is not something to be selected.
What's more, it's not a library to be selected,
If the purpose can be achieved, an image sensor is sufficient. If the price is unaffordable, it is out of the question.
This is my theory.
I wonder, "Are you sure you can afford it? I think so.