On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Thomas Kaiser wrote:
I was thinking about updating my page [1] with the results I get with gspca
V2. But I think it would be better to have this info on the LinuxTV wiki.
Unfortunately, I did not find a page for gspca. So I thought I should start
one, but I don't think this is the right thing because there are other
drivers available for webcams.
Why not start a "Webcam compatibly page" similar to my page [1]?
- a photo of the webcam
- USB ID
- capabilities of the cam
- the chipsets when known
- driver + version (+ kernel version), at the time tested
- application used for testing (version)
- links with some information to other interesting pages
- and some more you can think of
What you guys think about it?
[1] http://www.kaiser-linux.li/index.php/Linux_and_Webcams
Thomas
Your web page looks nice, as a start. But it is, like most web pages which
deal with Linux support for category X, Y, or Z of hardware, not up to
date. Goes with the territory, I guess.
However, I do have one question. How are you going to list the various
cameras?
Probably, one needs to list them by brand name and model and by USB ID,
too, as Michel Xaard did with his list in the first place. But then it
will become a mighty long list. For, the same camera gets recycled in lots
of different "brands" and "models." This is the kind of information which
someone needs who is buying a camera, because the camera does not come
with the USB ID printed on the outside of the package.
But OTOH this causes a problem, too, because the manufacturers of cameras
(probably some of them are not exactly manufacturers but rather packagers)
are switching the electronics inside the device any time they feel like
it, or if they get a large quantity of chips at a good price, or whatever.
I have seen it happen several times that a certain camera keeps the make
and model, but it gets a new USB Vendor:Product number. And, worst of all,
it may have previously been well supported but now it is not. Someone who
goes and buys the camera based upon the make and model which are
stencilled on the outside of the camera and printed on the packaging
material can end up being stung.
Therefore, I would recommend that all possible ways to identify a camera,
however insignificant those ways might appear to be, should be preserved.
As one example of this kind of information, there is a cheap camera
distributor in the US called sakar.com. Their cameras always come with a
little, insignificant number on the outside of the package somewhere. It
is usually five digits long, and is sometimes found associated with the
UPC barcode on the package and is found nowhere else. If you want to know
which camera it is, that number is essential. But it is too typical of all
of us that we throw away things which appear insignificant. Who would
think that the bubble-pack card which the camera is packaged in will
contain information that can be obtained nowhere else, or otherwise only
by good luck or by trial and error? But, alas, it is true.
Very specific example: The Sakar KidzCam (old version) was an SQ905
camera and thus well supported. The Sakar KidzCam (new version) is a
Jeilin JL2005B and uses a particularly nasty compression algorithm which
has eluded all attempts to figure out. The packaging in the store looks
identical for both of them. The cameras physically look identical. The
only way you could tell them apart in the store is by those little bitty,
insignificant-looking code numbers on the packaging material.
I could give several other examples, too.
Theodore Kilgore
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
