The iSight on my MBP runs at 1280 x 1024. If only there were apps that would exploit this resolution.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Release an 'iSight HD'?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The iSight on my MBP runs at 1280 x 1024. If only there were apps that would exploit this resolution.
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.
I scrounged up a freeware app called MacDaddy that takes iSight snapshots from my MacBook Pro (last year's model) at the full resolution. I use it when I'm out of the office to capture pictures of documents I hold up to the screen using a lightweight plastic clipboard instead of having to go find a copier. At the HD resolution, I can easily read full-size printed pages.
not many 3rd party apps exploit it.
i use skype a lot to talk to my girlfriend but i wouldnt want it to utilise the maximum quality of the iSight, it already chews through my broadband at 640,480 using up waaaay to much.
i wish skype added an option to limit the bitrate, so then the camera could be fully exploited if users choose.
It's higher for still pictures. For video, that's actually fine where it is. Increasing the resolution has several problems. For one, it reduces the effective sensitivity of the sensor chip, the video will be noisier. Another is that it will add lag due to processing. The last one I can think of is that there is no standard for USB HD web cam that I'm aware of.
Any DV camcorder can do the same thing, maybe produce better looking video. The actual camera might not look as good, but IIRC, iSight doesn't have any zoom-type control so you can set how much of your setting you want to show.
But it's a goofy resolution, being a very narrow 5:4 aspect ratio.
The old iSight was f2.8, and I think the built-in ones are the same f-number. A difference may be in the sensor size and such. The little built-in ones have very poor sensitivity.
It is a 1.3MP camera, which is around 1280x1024, which is an HD resolution (720P is 1280x720).
hey does anyone know of a program like "manycam" that will run on a mac
oh yeah manycam is a program that allows you to do special effects on a web cam
oh yeah manycam is a program that allows you to do special effects on a web cam
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).
you set it up and ill pay you for the monthly fees
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
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
Yes, and that's probably why the abyssmal time between the last true cinema display update and the next one. Other than torpedoing glossy screen development.
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
Re:
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.
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.
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
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.
What's the point? Want HD? just buy a miniDV camcorder with firewire interface. Same thing. They're dirt cheap these days, and provide a lot more features and flexibility than a glorified web-cam. Besides, even the fastest residential internet service isn't enough to stream in HD so again, what's the point?
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.
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.
im pretty jealous. i can only get ADSL2+ (around 2.08mbytesps). most of australia is still below 1.5mbps!!!!! (thats megabits per second btw)...
Cameras that are put into computers are pretty cheap. Even if it's an expensive camera module, you're probably not going to get high quality video that way.
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.
are u sure maybe i got my numbers mixed up or something but i thought T1 was faster that cable