>
> At 08:53 AM 6/6/97 -0700, you wrote:
> >One of the things on my wish list is a digital camera so I can easily
> >digitize photos of stuff like this.
>
> I have been trying to decide the best way to get images into digital form.
> Naturally, a digital camera is one way, but not the only. There's also the
> photo/scanner method, camcorder/video capture, and probably others. As I
> see it, the pros/cons are:
It seems to me that it would be fun if our pictures of classic hardware
were themselves produced by a classic machine. And yes, there were image
processing systems 10 - 15 years ago, some of which _occassionally_ turn
up second-hand.
I2S had a TV-rate ADC card for their image processing systems. It would
take the output from a monochrome video camera with a few mods, and let
you store images in the machine's RAM, and hence on disk. If you want
colour, either add another 2 cards, or use filters to take separate R,G,B
images with a monochrome camera (the subject is static, of course), and
combine them later.
Mind you, the cost of a 2nd-hand I2S processor + camera + interface
electronics would almost certainly exceed the cost of a QuickCam or
whatever.
There are also 'classic' CCD cameras. There was a thing made by 'Datacopy'
that had a linear CCD that was mechanically scanned across the frame
(motor + leadscrew). There was certainly a PERQ interface for this (made
by GHS/Audre' in Canada), and I guess others as well.
These solutions sound a lot more fun than a modern PC-based system.
--
-tony
ard12_at_eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
Received on Sun Jun 08 1997 - 22:20:05 BST