Re: Question about Toucam cameras, 1/4" or 1/3" ?
From: Nostromo (email_at_fake.is)
Date: 01/30/05
- Next message: RMOLLISE: "Re: New Celestron CPC scopes dissapointing?"
- Previous message: Davoud: "Re: Sam Wormley is Wrong (was: WHAT'S NEW...)"
- In reply to: Roger Hamlett: "Re: Question about Toucam cameras, 1/4" or 1/3" ?"
- Next in thread: Nostromo: "Re: Question about Toucam cameras, 1/4" or 1/3" ?"
- Reply: Nostromo: "Re: Question about Toucam cameras, 1/4" or 1/3" ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:56:11 +0100
Roger Hamlett wrote:
> Often, only the 'sensing' area grows. The actual chip 'carrier', stays the
> same size. The difference is very small. If (for instance), they are using
> something like the ICX424AK, then the sensing area, grows by just 1mm in
> the longer direction, and 0.7mm the other way. However this chip does have
> two extra pins, so is a fraction longer.
Thanks for your answer.
Yes, I am talking about the size of the sensing area, and they looked
identical. I am sure I would have noticed a change even if it had been
only 1 mm. By the way, I think the new model was even a bit smaller!
I am waiting for the owner of the webcam to open it and count the pins.
Nostromo
- Next message: RMOLLISE: "Re: New Celestron CPC scopes dissapointing?"
- Previous message: Davoud: "Re: Sam Wormley is Wrong (was: WHAT'S NEW...)"
- In reply to: Roger Hamlett: "Re: Question about Toucam cameras, 1/4" or 1/3" ?"
- Next in thread: Nostromo: "Re: Question about Toucam cameras, 1/4" or 1/3" ?"
- Reply: Nostromo: "Re: Question about Toucam cameras, 1/4" or 1/3" ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]