Point Grey puts USB 3.0 into a webcam, along with other telltale signs of over engineering
By Paul Miller 
posted Sep 19th 2009 8:58PM
posted Sep 19th 2009 8:58PM
[Via TG Daily]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Shouldn't it be cheaper since it doesn't have to have any hardware to compress the video?
That is an awesome looking lens though.
No. It's Point Grey. They cater to robotics/computer vision users. This thing will cost two arms and a leg.
Two *robotic* arms?
As far as i know (which i admit isn't alot - only 14) compression is just a software algorithm designed to decrease the file size of the images ==> the images can be transfered quickier ==> smoother transition beween images (allows 4 higher frame rate)
There for compression would be a relatively a cheap feature because its just a small program. The expense comes from the engineering of the product (the usb3 interface, lens and the general processor/chips).
Please correct me if im wrong, i like to be corrected if im wrong as I actually learn something from it
mgeorgiou,
okay. im 13. and compression requires processing which isnt cheap. as in, you need major processing power to compress 60 1080p pictures per second.
I'm 82.
And I would hazard a guess that this camera doesn't compress the video stream because compression results in a loss of quality, and being a very high end camera aimed at (as mentioned above) robotics/computer vision users, this is far more important than reducing bitrate or cost.
Hence the USB 3.0.
I remember when I was 13. Not so long ago; I'm now 15.
Compression also adds latency, which might not be good. Add extra time to decompress it before performing image processing, and the delay might seriously hinder some real-time projects.
Disregarding computer power, compression allows for higher resolution.
@mgeorgiou:
Yes, it's an algorithm. You seem to forget that real people have to write the code, develop the hardware, dot the i's, cross the t's, and end up with something useful at the end. And these real people usually expect to get paid. That's where most of the cost comes from. Also, it takes time to compress the images, and quality is inevitably lost in the process, so the ability to move uncompressed video from the camera to the PC must be a good thing, as you get to deal with all the available information, and not the information that someone decided to compress because the bus couldn't handle it.
I feel like I'm sitting at the kid's table.
Assuming this video camera's output will be used for real-time image analysis, then why compress the video feed and then immediately uncompress it again for analysis? You want it raw and pure, squirted through through the thickest pipe.
Considering the cost of the hardware required to process facial recognition at raw 1080p60, this [rather amazing looking] device shouldn't exactly bust the budget of such a project.
Out of curiosity, can anyone throw out a need for this beyond [large] Robotic usage. the fact that its so small doesn't seem that useful (although it is sexy) if a workstation pc is required to analyze data - and this would just be overkill for any type of web cam / communications / surveillance options.
Can you see me now?
Good.
What's with the Nikon-esque lens?
Awesomeness.
A better picture.
You mean the "Any kind of lens" -esque lens?
-Taylor
Might have a standard c-mount for video cams and then it would be your standard c-mount video lens (interchangable!), as used by the government to watch your every move.
More info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-mount
Incidentally such lenses start at like $80, so this thing would get in the area of $300+ I expect.
it's a c-mount lens, typical on many security and 16mm cameras
Too bad about the inevitable pricetag; it looks like a worthy pick for my first 3.0 purchase.
If they do all the processing on the computer, they could make this available for under $150.
I wouldn't pay more than $50 to show someone my ugly mug in high definition. Even then, I'd setup a website to broadcast people's reaction.
I saw their website, one of the photos at the bottom had a teeny tiny footnote saying "for demonstration purposes only". Looks like they don't plan on selling this puppy. Might just be to show off the speed of USB 3.0?
damn and I so wanted a bad ass super speed webcam
This is extremely useful for computer vision applications. Zero co/dec delays == faster response time
if apple made this you'd think it was awesome, engadget
wow, I was wondering if we could make it through one post's comment section without some tool comparing or saying something about Apple...leave the Apple comments for the Apple posts
What we need is one of those sentience tests, write the letters in the box style.
Except that it deters people from making ridiculous, off topic fanboy comments.
[ApPLe iS JuST anOtHeR ComPUTer COMpaNy]
How good is that 3 megapixel Sony IMX036 CMOS sensor? I don't know anything about video cameras, except that 3mp is pixels-a-plenty. If it's a quality sensor, then this thing'd be great.
3MP isn't enough pixels for truly uncompressed 1080p. In cameras, a "pixel" is really a sub pixel. That is, this camera has 1.5 million green sites, 0.75 million blue sites and 0.75 million red sites. In order to really have really discrete 1080p pixels, you'd need at least 1920x1080x3, or 6MP. Furthermore, if it used the standard pixel layout, you'd still have only 1.5 million red and 1.5 million blue sites. So I guess at the standard GBGR layout you'd need 8MP. Then you'd have 4M green, 2M red and 2M blue.
So 3.1MP is actual 1024x768 in screen resolution? It is less than 720p. To make no confusion to HDTV ｔｅｒｍｓ Ｉｔ ｓｈｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ｃａｌｌｅｄ ７２０ｐ ｃａｍｅｒａ ｎｏｔ １０８０ｐ ｃａｍｅｒａ， ｒｉｇｈｔ？
Most TV (including HDTV) and JPEGs are compressed (subsampled) 4:2:0 (I think) and thus there is not color information for every pixel. The luminance (detail) is truly 1920x1080, the color data (chrominance) is 960x540. This is called chroma subsampling. So you don't really need a 6MP sensor to make up a 1080p image that is compressed (subsampled) 4:2:0.
But this device claims to be uncompressed (meaning lossless), so they indeed need a sensor with at least 6 million color sensor sites, 8 million with a normal GRGB layout.
1080p webcams actually will be quite useful. For applications that use webcams for purposes other than streaming (i.e. podcasting, screencasting, etc), it used to be that you could hook a 1080p HDV camera up via firewire, and grab that stream for a nice HD image. However, since flash-based cameras have taken over, firewire output has basically disappeared. Just about the only workaround is to capture via HDMI, which requires an expensive Black Magic Intensity Pro capture card, and even then, you're limited to basically one camera. If they can put these out, with modest image quality, at a price-point of $150 or less per camera, then I could see them carving a deep nitch into the independent *caster demographic.
I use pt. grey cameras for my multitouch projects and I can tell you they are pretty amazing... just about EVERY aspect of the thing can be controlled via driver... for instance, I had a weird oscillation coming from an overhead fluorescent lightbulb, I was able to go into the shutter settings and find the right shutter speed to match the oscillation and voila, clean video. really well made hardware and software, it kinda can't be beat.
also, their cameras take optional lenses, I assume this one does too... I usually need a very wide angle, it's great to put what you need on it.
Horray! Dorm room pr0n HD!!!
USB 3.0 is arousing enough for me...
USB 3.0 Is going to the thing that changes the Webcasting world. As someone who does a Webcast/Podcast It has been a huge investment. Not only with Audio but with video also. We use a canon HF200 going into a Black Magic Capture card and 3 Lifecam Cinemas . When we start seeing 1080p 60fps Webcams it is really going to improve Webcasting Video.
Im really interested to see when we start seeing these things. I just did a Review on the Lifecam Cinema on youtube and by the amount of email I have received people are Waiting for something like this
Here is the Video if anyone is interested
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI66xQeXMjk
Im not sure if I have the bandwidth to pull 1080p blogcasts though the pipes...
BBC iPlayer is bad enough already.
even if you only publish VGA sizes, you have to start from better stock and right now "affordable" webcams or even consumer video cams are only barely above VGA after you deal with the fact they highly compress the data before you even start editing (and compress it again). Being able to pull the raw 1080p into something as lowly as iMovie would be a drastic improvement in the final product.
Soon all the motherboards and chipsets will have USB3, soon after all branded webcams too one would expect (although the way logitech is acting the last 12 months I don't know about them).
This is exactly like what I talked about a few posts back. There's no easy way to get the video stream from HD camcorders anymore (as I mentioned before, the Black Magic Intensity Pro, and that is expensive, and only works with one camera on Windows at present). Conversely, it would be VERY easy to write switching software for USB cameras, hook three of these up (with extension cables, at different angles/distances, and boom, you've got yourself an HD-level production studio.
And even if you're only taking that to YouTube HD (720p, compressed pretty heavily), it will still look a lot better than one 640 x 480 webcam sitting in front of you on your monitor.
There are HD capture cards, so you don't need to wait for USB3 really for that.
I want one! Hopefully it only costs an arm and a leg. I don't think I can afford two arms and a leg.
Sure, I get the good parking spots, but who could love a man with one leg and a face like a hen's arse?**
**Driving with no arms not reccomended. Purchasing a webcam while severly cosmetically challenged also not reccomended.
How does a webcam utilize the extra power of USB 3?
Uncompressed 1080p, at 60fps, takes about 373Mbps. That's less than the nominal 480Mbps of USB 2.0; but USB is so inefficient that it's impossible even to approach the theoretical max; something like 25% of it is lost to protocol overhead.
Uncompressed 1080p, at 60fps, takes about 2986Mbps.
From wikipedia:
The reasonable throughput of USB 3.0 is 3200 Mbps.
Will it be used for high definition photos of someone's goldfish, 24/7?
That's ridiculous. However, it would make sense for 24/7 streaming of a box of puppies.