I want to get a USB camera 5 to 10 mp but first i want to know what the difference with an HDMI camera (industrial cameras)
and hybrid USB/HDMI cameras
Could you share your experience, quality comparison?
thanks
USB camera versus HDMI camera which one?
USB camera versus HDMI camera which one?
- Attachments
-
- usbcamera.jpg (20.87 KiB) Viewed 6186 times
-
- tipo2.jpg (73.33 KiB) Viewed 6186 times
Re: USB camera versus HDMI camera which one?
Others may know more about specific cameras to buy or avoid. You probably need to read the specs on each camera.
Generally speaking, USB (especially 2.0) is a bit slower in data transfer and tends to be photo oriented. With a high pixel count, you can get large images. Also generally speaking, HDMI is faster in data transfer and video oriented. It will output a standard HDMI video signal, such as 1080p. Higher resolution versions (1980 x 1200 and up -- which is roughly comparable to video at 3MP) are available, as well as some with more color bits..
That said, both can take pictures and videos. Both can be pretty fast (if you get USB 3.0). And either may provide a satisfyingly large pixel count if you go with something like Ultra (or whatever it is called) HDMI.
If you were showing moving images to a group, the HDMI output would have the advantage of directly and easily connecting to most modern monitors and projectors. You don't need any more pixels than the device can display. If you were capturing still images to something like a laptop -- especially if it had only USB inputs -- could be you'd lean towards USB 2.0 (cheap) or USB 3.0 (faster, and better for moving pictures).
In the end, quality of the camera probably trumps what output formats it provides == and some (as you've already discovered) will do both. I'd also note that a microscope image doesn't need all that many pixels to be pretty satisfying. A great camera (good contrast, fast response, full color depth) with 5MP might trump something claiming 10MP or more. And, don't forget cell and tablet cameras, securely attached, as an option.
If you're entering photo contests, with enlarged prints, you probably want to step up to something like a full frame DSLR. If you're capturing photons by the handful in a lab environment, then you're into cooled cameras and the like -- well beyond my budget and knowledge.
Generally speaking, USB (especially 2.0) is a bit slower in data transfer and tends to be photo oriented. With a high pixel count, you can get large images. Also generally speaking, HDMI is faster in data transfer and video oriented. It will output a standard HDMI video signal, such as 1080p. Higher resolution versions (1980 x 1200 and up -- which is roughly comparable to video at 3MP) are available, as well as some with more color bits..
That said, both can take pictures and videos. Both can be pretty fast (if you get USB 3.0). And either may provide a satisfyingly large pixel count if you go with something like Ultra (or whatever it is called) HDMI.
If you were showing moving images to a group, the HDMI output would have the advantage of directly and easily connecting to most modern monitors and projectors. You don't need any more pixels than the device can display. If you were capturing still images to something like a laptop -- especially if it had only USB inputs -- could be you'd lean towards USB 2.0 (cheap) or USB 3.0 (faster, and better for moving pictures).
In the end, quality of the camera probably trumps what output formats it provides == and some (as you've already discovered) will do both. I'd also note that a microscope image doesn't need all that many pixels to be pretty satisfying. A great camera (good contrast, fast response, full color depth) with 5MP might trump something claiming 10MP or more. And, don't forget cell and tablet cameras, securely attached, as an option.
If you're entering photo contests, with enlarged prints, you probably want to step up to something like a full frame DSLR. If you're capturing photons by the handful in a lab environment, then you're into cooled cameras and the like -- well beyond my budget and knowledge.
Re: USB camera versus HDMI camera which one?
These cameras are installed in exchange for the normal eyepiece. With finity optics microscopes the eyepieces often have the job to do final chromatic correction of the image. This is not provided by these cameras. A microscope image needs between 3 and 30 megapixels to be recorded in its full content. The weaker objectives like 4:1 offer the most image content. For a satisfactory image, seen at normal viewing distance, 2 megapixels are enough. The great images shown here and in other places have had originally much more megapixels and a good dynamic range and are cut to size and processed to look that good in forum resolution. So if you want more than documentary quality more is better. Few people really use the se USB cameras for long, most change to something more capable. If you wan't to make a live demonstration of e.g. plancton, you need fast image transmission and full HD is just fine. The USB cameras I know are slow in transmitting their images, so you wouldn't be able to see much in a plancton sample.
A while ago a system was recommended where a smartphone transmitts the video image via W-LAN. This is not possible with all smartphones, but it looks loke a very promising option.
What do you want to do with your camera?
Bob
A while ago a system was recommended where a smartphone transmitts the video image via W-LAN. This is not possible with all smartphones, but it looks loke a very promising option.
What do you want to do with your camera?
Bob
Re: USB camera versus HDMI camera which one?
Hello guys thanks for the input.
The goal is to document different species of cellular slime mold also to use some measuring software to calculate area, length etc.
We problably will move to DSLR but for the time being we want good quality for printing or documenting.
The USB camera above is 5mp and the HDMI claim to be 16mp but the price of the HDMI is about the same.
It seems that the USB camera can be used with some capturing software on the computer but the HDMI can only be used with the built in
controls
The goal is to document different species of cellular slime mold also to use some measuring software to calculate area, length etc.
We problably will move to DSLR but for the time being we want good quality for printing or documenting.
The USB camera above is 5mp and the HDMI claim to be 16mp but the price of the HDMI is about the same.
It seems that the USB camera can be used with some capturing software on the computer but the HDMI can only be used with the built in
controls
Re: USB camera versus HDMI camera which one?
You might let the measuring software influence what you buy.
If you already have software, it will likely support USB; maybe not HDMI.
If you have yet to buy software beyond various freeware, it's usually cheaper in a package with a camera.
If you already have software, it will likely support USB; maybe not HDMI.
If you have yet to buy software beyond various freeware, it's usually cheaper in a package with a camera.
Re: USB camera versus HDMI camera which one?
I'd be interested to know which camera you went for and how you got on with it?