Read camera industry trends on your own.
ovitHaving actually used a variety of cameras, I can say that whether a change in camera or connection method makes a big difference in inspection results is a negative. I think it must be difficult for camera manufacturers to differentiate their products.
I ALWAYS WISH THEY WOULD QUIT MAKING SO MANY DIFFERENT CAMERAS AND PUT THEIR RESOURCES INTO "MAKING A CLASSIC AT A REASONABLE PRICE" I WANT A COST EFFECTIVE CAMERA LIKE THE SONY XC-HR50 OR XC-HR70. I ALSO HOPE FOR AN IEEE1394 THAT CAN AIM FOR "BOARDLESS".
But then the XC-HR90 came out, with SXGA (1280 x 1024 pixels) and 30 fps. The cost performance of this camera is destructive. It is almost double that of conventional cameras. No other camera in its class can be used anymore.
Then, other camera makers will only be able to compete with 2 megapixels or more and line sensors. I think we are in a difficult situation. (C-mount 5-megapixel cameras have recently started to appear, but I feel that the optical capabilities of their lenses have not kept up. It may be good for a wide view, but I think it is hard to use it for a detailed view.)
However, this camera may be tricky. Comparing the amount of data with other analog cameras,
- XC-HR50: 640 x 480 pixels x 60 fps = 18,432,000 pixels/s
- XC-HR70: 1024 x 768 pixels x 30fps = 23,592,960 pixels/s
- CV-A1: 1300 x 1030 pixels x 16 fps = 21,424,000 pixels/s
- CV-A2: 1600 x 1200 pixels x 15 fps = 28,800,000 pixels/s
- XC-HR90: 1280 x 1024 pixels x 30fps = 39,321,600 pixels/s
and the density of data coming through the cable is unusually high. It is highly likely that the computer and board will be compatible with each other.
It can also be switched to 15 fps, which is half the speed, so it would be more stable to use it that way.
Even if it is 15 fps, it is a very cost-effective and "dangerous" camera that could influence the power structure of the camera industry.
