Can anyone recommend an inexpensive USB camera (under $150US) that works 
well with ARToolkit? It doesn't need to be small. I'm not using it for 
an HMD, but just need something that non-profits can afford for our 
classes for low-income teens.

By the way, thanks to all who gave me suggestions about integrating 
sound into ARToolkit. In the end, I used the BASS sound library 
(http://www.un4seen.com/), which was pretty easy for me to integrate 
into simpleVRML project. We got a really nice final project out of it.

Thanks,

Peter

I use Logitech Quickcam Notebook Pro. It's affordable, and portable.
The capture quality is also comparable to the bigger webcam around the
same price range.
http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/products/details/US/EN,CRID=3D2204,CONTEN=
TID=3D5040

It works well with ARToolkit. I've been using it with ARToolkit 2.67
(I believe) on Windows XP.

Ronald.
http://www.codernaut.com


On 4/11/05, Peter Gruenbaum <gruenbaump@a ......> wrote:
> Can anyone recommend an inexpensive USB camera (under $150US) that works
> well with ARToolkit? It doesn't need to be small. I'm not using it for
> an HMD, but just need something that non-profits can afford for our
> classes for low-income teens.
>=20
> By the way, thanks to all who gave me suggestions about integrating
> sound into ARToolkit. In the end, I used the BASS sound library
> (http://www.un4seen.com/), which was pretty easy for me to integrate
> into simpleVRML project. We got a really nice final project out of it.
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> Peter
>=20
>

I had the best experiences with the Philips ToUcam Pro 740. The camera 
had very little lens-distortion (the best I have ever seen from a 
webcam) and a very good framerate, even though it was "just" a USB1.1 
camera. I'd personally buy one if I see it somewhere. Here is a review:
http://www.ciao.co.uk/Philips_ToUcam_Pro__5111070

Then there is the successor, the ToUcam Pro II. I haven't tested it, 
yet. But I expect it to be equally nice and think about buying one for 
myself.
http://www.ciao.co.uk/Philips_ToUcam_II_Pro__5459724

And if you ever feel bored by Augmented Reality, you could attach the 
old ToUcam to a telescope and shoot some nice pictures.
http://www.silvia-kowollik.de/astro/webcam/

Hope this helps,
 Leif


Peter Gruenbaum wrote:

> Can anyone recommend an inexpensive USB camera (under $150US) that 
> works well with ARToolkit? It doesn't need to be small. I'm not using 
> it for an HMD, but just need something that non-profits can afford for 
> our classes for low-income teens.
>
> By the way, thanks to all who gave me suggestions about integrating 
> sound into ARToolkit. In the end, I used the BASS sound library 
> (http://www.un4seen.com/), which was pretty easy for me to integrate 
> into simpleVRML project. We got a really nice final project out of it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>


This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.

Am 12.04.2005 um 11:02 schrieb Leif Oppermann:

> I had the best experiences with the Philips ToUcam Pro 740. The camera=20=

> had very little lens-distortion (the best I have ever seen from a=20
> webcam) and a very good framerate, even though it was "just" a USB1.1=20=

> camera. I'd personally buy one if I see it somewhere. Here is a=20
> review:
> http://www.ciao.co.uk/Philips_ToUcam_Pro__5111070

> Then there is the successor, the ToUcam Pro II. I haven't tested it,=20=

> yet. But I expect it to be equally nice and think about buying one for=20=

> myself.
> http://www.ciao.co.uk/Philips_ToUcam_II_Pro__5459724

I have successfully used the ToUcam II Pro with ARToolkit (on Windows,=20=

Mac and Linux) as well as the Logitech Quickcam Pro 4000.

Both work well, are identical below the hood (Logi licenses the=20
cam/chipset from Philips) and cost almost the same (the Logi is=20
slightly more expensive). There are some points you have to consider,=20
though:

The Logi cam comes with Mac drivers out-of-the-box, the Philips=20
requires extra drivers (IOExpert), not an issue if you are not using or=20=

planning to use Macs.

The Logi's design is much more bulky, shaped like a tennis ball, the=20
snap-on-mount unscrews easily. Bottom line is, it's a b**** to attach=20
it to anything (be it a HMD or simply a monitor). Having said that the=20=

Logi offers a *much* wider field of vision compared to the ToUcam.

The ToUcam has a much more compact casing, making attaching it to=20
whatever (e.g. a pair of i-glasses) much easier, at the price of the=20
reduced FOV.

A third option would be to use a Playstation EyeToy-camera (windows and=20=

linux drivers are available) which gives you a compact casing and=20
superior frame rate at 640x480 (30 fps, whereas the Logi/Philips only=20
do 15 at that resolution), but at the time I had access to one I could=20=

not make FOV comparisons.

HTH,
Eike

--=20
Dipl.-Inform. Eike M. Lang
Universit=E4t Duisburg-Essen (Standort Duisburg)
Institut f=FCr Informatik und Interaktive Systeme
Lotharstrasse 65, Raum LF 284, 47057 Duisburg

email:     lang@i ......................
Tel. :     +49 203 379-1417  Fax -3557

>> Do you have more information about the EyeToy working under linux? I
>> couldn't find anything more than a few references to half working
>> drivers (like ov511). And does it give a decent image quality?
>>
> There is a driver specifically for the eyetoy in the artoolkit linux 
> video library, programmed by Raphael Grasset.
>
> The eyetoy is OK if you want a high frame rate over USB1.1, but I 
> personally find the jpeg artifacts in the image irritating in the 
> extreme. Maybe I'm just spoiled with the iSight camera.

The iSight on Linux?

On MacOSX, the iSight sucks with the ARTK video libraries -- it seems 
to have a ton of latency.  All our other cameras (unibrain, firefly, 
dragonfly, videre dcam), using the ioxperts driver, work much better in 
terms of speed.

The iSight is nice because of the whole autofocus thing.  And, I'm 
annoyed because mine has a huge stuck bright green pixel in the middle 
of it.

On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 11:41 +0200, Eike M.Lang wrote:
> A third option would be to use a Playstation EyeToy-camera (windows
> and linux drivers are available) which gives you a compact casing and 
> superior frame rate at 640x480 (30 fps, whereas the Logi/Philips only 
> do 15 at that resolution), but at the time I had access to one I could
> not make FOV comparisons.

Do you have more information about the EyeToy working under linux? I
couldn't find anything more than a few references to half working
drivers (like ov511). And does it give a decent image quality?

-Peter

On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 07:55 +1200, Philip Lamb wrote:
> On 13/04/2005, at 7:35 AM, Peter Oost wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 11:41 +0200, Eike M.Lang wrote:
> >> A third option would be to use a Playstation EyeToy-camera (windows
> >> and linux drivers are available) which gives you a compact casing and
> >> superior frame rate at 640x480 (30 fps, whereas the Logi/Philips only
> >> do 15 at that resolution), but at the time I had access to one I could
> >> not make FOV comparisons.
> >
> > Do you have more information about the EyeToy working under linux? I
> > couldn't find anything more than a few references to half working
> > drivers (like ov511). And does it give a decent image quality?
> >
> There is a driver specifically for the eyetoy in the artoolkit linux 
> video library, programmed by Raphael Grasset.
> 
> The eyetoy is OK if you want a high frame rate over USB1.1, but I 
> personally find the jpeg artifacts in the image irritating in the 
> extreme. Maybe I'm just spoiled with the iSight camera.

Hmm, I should have figured it had heavy compression with such a
framerate. But still it is a lot cheaper than the iSight or, (I'd
expect, I'm waiting for the pricing information) the dragonfly and
family.

-Peter

On 13/04/2005, at 7:35 AM, Peter Oost wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 11:41 +0200, Eike M.Lang wrote:
>> A third option would be to use a Playstation EyeToy-camera (windows
>> and linux drivers are available) which gives you a compact casing and
>> superior frame rate at 640x480 (30 fps, whereas the Logi/Philips only
>> do 15 at that resolution), but at the time I had access to one I could
>> not make FOV comparisons.
>
> Do you have more information about the EyeToy working under linux? I
> couldn't find anything more than a few references to half working
> drivers (like ov511). And does it give a decent image quality?
>
There is a driver specifically for the eyetoy in the artoolkit linux 
video library, programmed by Raphael Grasset.

The eyetoy is OK if you want a high frame rate over USB1.1, but I 
personally find the jpeg artifacts in the image irritating in the 
extreme. Maybe I'm just spoiled with the iSight camera.

P.

fire-i's are ok ... we've got about 20 of them around here for varioius=20=

projects, as well as older videre design dcams (same "guts").

Personally, I've sworn off buying any more 1/4" ccd cameras.  The image=20=

quality you get from a 1/3 or 1/2" ccd is like night-and-day in terms=20
of quality difference (richness of colors, lack of noise, etc.).  I=20
can't believe I've put up with the washed-out images from the fire-i's=20=

for so long in our videos and demo systems (they are still great for=20
testing and so forth, of course)

Of course, the price is a factor ... a dragonfly is about $900 ... but,=20=

if you  can justify it, the difference is worth it ... even better, the=20=

flea is $1100 and gets 60 fps which is quite handy.  VRmagic has this=20
cool little usb2 camera with a 1/3" ccd that is about $700, can get 45=20=

fps and has a great image for the size (not as good as a dragonfly, but=20=

amazing for something so tiny).

On Apr 13, 2005, at 4:07 AM, Eike M.Lang wrote:

>
> Am 12.04.2005 um 21:55 schrieb Philip Lamb:
>
>> The eyetoy is OK if you want a high frame rate over USB1.1, but I=20
>> personally find the jpeg artifacts in the image irritating in the=20
>> extreme. Maybe I'm just spoiled with the iSight camera.
>
> The iSight has *nice* image quality, no doubt about that, but the=20
> sluggishness of the autofocus tends to get on my nerves.
>
> I attempted to get a hold of two fire-i cams (in order to jury-rig a=20=

> stereo AR headset out of those and a pair of i-glasses) which are=20
> reportedly rather good and don't have the annoying autofocus, but=20
> unfortunately they don't seem to be available any more.
>
> Regards,
> Eike
>
> --=20
> Dipl.-Inform. Eike M. Lang
> Universit=E4t Duisburg-Essen (Standort Duisburg)
> Institut f=FCr Informatik und Interaktive Systeme
> Lotharstrasse 65, Raum LF 284, 47057 Duisburg
>
> email:     lang@i ......................
> Tel. :     +49 203 379-1417  Fax -3557

Am 12.04.2005 um 21:55 schrieb Philip Lamb:

> The eyetoy is OK if you want a high frame rate over USB1.1, but I=20
> personally find the jpeg artifacts in the image irritating in the=20
> extreme. Maybe I'm just spoiled with the iSight camera.

The iSight has *nice* image quality, no doubt about that, but the=20
sluggishness of the autofocus tends to get on my nerves.

I attempted to get a hold of two fire-i cams (in order to jury-rig a=20
stereo AR headset out of those and a pair of i-glasses) which are=20
reportedly rather good and don't have the annoying autofocus, but=20
unfortunately they don't seem to be available any more.

Regards,
Eike

--=20
Dipl.-Inform. Eike M. Lang
Universit=E4t Duisburg-Essen (Standort Duisburg)
Institut f=FCr Informatik und Interaktive Systeme
Lotharstrasse 65, Raum LF 284, 47057 Duisburg

email:     lang@i ......................
Tel. :     +49 203 379-1417  Fax -3557