free stuff

From: Pete Turnbull <pete_at_dunnington.u-net.com>
Date: Wed Jan 27 22:52:27 1999

On Jan 27, 22:36, R. Stricklin (kjaeros) wrote:
> Subject: Re: free stuff
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, R. Stricklin (kjaeros) wrote:
>
> > I'm heading home just now so when I get there I'll send along the
> > incomplete pinout that SGI let out.
> >
>
> The connector is a super-high density 60 pin one, identical to those
> used as serial interfaces on Cisco 2500 series routers. 4 rows of 15 pins
> each.
>
> Here's the info as found in the Indy Workstation Owner's Guide:
>
>
> Pin Description
> ----------------------------
> 7 serial control data
> 9 serial control clock
> 12 clock ground
> 13 clock
> 22 +12
> 23 +5
> 24 -12
> 27 data (7) ground
> 28 data (7)
> 29 data (6) ground
> 30 data (6)
> 31 data (3)
> 32 data (3) ground
> 33 data (4)
> 34 data (4) ground
> 35 data (5)
> 36 data (5) ground
> 46 data (0)
> 47 data (0) ground
> 48 data (1)
> 49 data (1) ground
> 50 data (2)
> 51 data (2) ground
>
> all other pins are marked "reserved".
>
> Could somebody use this information to interface this camera to another
> machine? Maybe. I certainly wouldn't care to. SGI never even used this
> interface on any of their other machines. I suspect the idea was to use
> the Indycam with the Indy's built-in ISDN interface so you could get
> desktop video conferencing straight out of the box.

It's also used on Indigo^2 machines. Yes, it was meant for
videoconferencing, and many Indys came with an evaluation licence and media
for the software. Part of the problem is that ISDN didn't take off; it's
common in Europe (especially Germany) and in many places you can just plug
an Indy into the wall socket (like the one I'm typing this on) but it's a
very muddled setup in the States, with lots of different switch types,
multiple interface boxes, etc, in some cases.

One of my colleagues took an IndyCam apart, and he tells me the serial bus
is based around a standard I2C chip. BTW, I wouldn't describe the quality
as "abysmal". Given decent lighting, it's not bad at all (though only 640
x 480, or maybe 640 x 512). Under fluorescent lighting, colour balance can
be awkward, but that's because strip lights don't emit a full spectrum, as
any photographer will tell you.

-- 
Pete						Peter Turnbull
						Dept. of Computer Science
						University of York
Received on Wed Jan 27 1999 - 22:52:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:09 BST