Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #27016

Re: Camera I/F's

Show all headers | View raw

Hi Dimiter,

[Still 40+C every day.  18 consecutive days with a high temperature
above 40C.  Those huge icicles sure would be nice right about now!  :> ]

On 7/8/2017 11:30 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 08.7.2017 г. 21:05, Don Y wrote:
>> I hacked together my "IP cameras" using some web cams for which I was
>> able to track down some FOSS i/f implementation documentation.  This
>> was OK for a proof of concept.  But, I now have to settle on "production"
>> hardware.
>>
>> There seem to be a variety of i/f's for cameras:
>> - RS170 (requires hardware to digitize the signal; inflexible)
>> - parallel (video is digized, just needs to be captured at pixel rate)
>> - USB (digitized but packed in proprietary transport protocols over USB)
>> - CSI (digitized with specialty hardware required in host)
>> - IP (digitized but packed in protocols over IP)
>>
>> The USB option is the easiest from the host's *hardware* point of view.
>> But, seems to limit the devices that could be supported as camera
>> vendors are loathe to publish details that only *their* driver implementers
>> should need.
>>
>> RS170 is... "passe"
>>
>> Parallel requires lots of signals to/from the host/camera.
>>
>> CSI seems to be primarily supported on hosts intended to address the
>> mobile market.
>>
>> As USB is essentially "free" (hardware-wise), adding support for it as
>> an *alternative* interface seems prudent.
>>
>> Relying on CSI seems like it will restrict my choice of processor(s)
>> going forward (I'd like to standardize on *a* host platform and not
>> have to support a variety) -- though that's where the volume lies
>> (think camera in cell phones).  OTOH, it may make getting components
>> difficult (small fish, etc.)
>>
>> IP seems to have more costs than USB with little/no gain.
>>
>> Anyone been down this road who can share experiences?  Probably
>> only looking at 10K/yr...
> 
> The obvious choice would be the MIPI cameras - like in every phone.

Yes, MIPI being the backers of the CSI approach.  Its great appeal
is so few conductors to the camera and megapixel support!

> A few years ago I looked into that; I found out they (MIPI) had some
> special (politburo) membership fee if you were a "small enterprise",
> "small" meant if you had < $100M annual revenue IIRC...

I'd be more worried about actually getting *parts* than "specs"
(which is what the "membership fee" provides).  There's a point
(sales volume) below which folks addressing markets with HUGE
customers simply don't want to be bothered.

Or, you worry about the part being "on allocation", etc.

> It is getting all but impossible to be a small maker of tech gadgets,
> everything is becoming accessible only for politburo members.

Its been that way for a long time.  *Timely* access being the issue
(you can easily buy parts that have "lost their shine").

I think a prudent course will be to start gutting existing products
just to see what other manufacturers have "decided" (by way of their
designs) is the best way forward.

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Camera I/F's Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-07-08 11:05 -0700
  Re: Camera I/F's Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-07-08 21:30 +0300
    Re: Camera I/F's Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-07-08 13:41 -0700
      Re: Camera I/F's Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-07-09 01:53 +0300
        Re: Camera I/F's Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-07-09 09:21 -0700
  Re: Camera I/F's Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-08 17:06 -0500
    Re: Camera I/F's Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-07-09 09:46 -0700
  Re: Camera I/F's Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-07-09 11:58 +0100
    Re: Camera I/F's Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-07-09 09:55 -0700
      Re: Camera I/F's Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2017-07-10 10:09 +0100
        Re: Camera I/F's Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-07-10 12:27 +0100
          Re: Camera I/F's Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2017-07-10 19:36 +0100
        Re: Camera I/F's Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-07-10 12:56 -0700

csiph-web