It's about time. The 640x480 resolution on the current iSights is pathetic.
The iSight on my MBP runs at 1280 x 1024. If only there were apps that would exploit this resolution.
It's about time. The 640x480 resolution on the current iSights is pathetic.
Why on earth would I want to see peoples ugly mugs in full HD????? There are only a VERY FEW people whos face I would want to see with that much detail, and I would never be able to get them to iCHat with me.![]()
The iSight on my MBP runs at 1280 x 1024. If only there were apps that would exploit this resolution.
It's about time. The 640x480 resolution on the current iSights is pathetic.
My iSight has to be the only piece of tech I've got that's actually now worth more than I paid for it 3 years ago...
I still really like it, they should release something for all the Mac Pro / Mini users out there.
The iSight on my MBP runs at 1280 x 1024. If only there were apps that would exploit this resolution.
Though the original camera has a far wider aperture, allowing it to capture more ambient light than the built in iSight.
The iSight's in the recent MacBook/Pro's and iMac's have all been HD, and are connected by USB.
True HD?
If so is there any proof.... just curious.
I don't know about this. Maybe if everyone had fiber-optic connections.
you set it up and ill pay you for the monthly fees. ADSL2+ is already getting too slow for me (max i can get here with lousy 1mb upload).
i know what u mean my cable connection is just soooooo slow. but T1 is still way to expensive because i live so far away from the routing office
maybe if they dropped an HD iSight into their cinema displays, they'd actually be worth their cost.
what speed is T1, T2 etc?? im not familar with that in our country (from what i know) especially in my area, its either ADSL (256kb, 512kb, 1.5mb, 8mb) or ADSL2+ (20mb) haha.. no cable is connected where i am for a good 50k's
What would the point of this be?
It is built into Macbook/Pro and iMac. What they should do is put one in the next generation of monitors.
um well T1 has 24, 8 bit channels at 64 kbits/s so its um fast as hell. it basically takes information 8000 times per second from each channel so in theary it could be faster but its not and sometimes (most of the time) its not even that fast
True that, T1 is only 1.544 Mbps and an E1 is only 2 Mbps (I think).um well T1 is only 1.544Mbps (1.536Mbps of possible data throughput). While that's each direction, I would still hesitate to call that "fast as hell".
True that, T1 is only 1.544 Mbps and an E1 is only 2 Mbps (I think).
For comparison, my cable internet service at home here is 16 Mbps. That's like more than 10x T1 line.
In summary, a T1 sux. Big time. It was fast in 1996. But then so was my Pentium 100 with 16 Megs of RAM.![]()
the point would be to have very realistic conversation with people and be able to record high quality video without having to buy another expensive camera
i like the first part your signature by way
the point would be to have very realistic conversation with people and be able to record high quality video without having to buy another expensive camera
um well T1 is only 1.544Mbps (1.536Mbps of possible data throughput). While that's each direction, I would still hesitate to call that "fast as hell".
And, to clarify , a T1 consists of digital streams carrying 64-kbps in each channel. 24 channels are multiplexed together to create an aggregate of 1.536 Mbps. Analog voice or any other service is sampled 8,000 times a second. An 8-bit word represents each sample, thus yielding a 64-kbps channel capacity.
Zing.![]()