Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)
FYI,
This is a short report on the differences between Philips ToUcam PRO
II and a Logitech Quickcam Pro 4000 (i wanted to buy one of them).
Mechanical build: Quickcam (QC) is clearly leading over the ToUcam
(TC). The TC has a very akward and feeble lens focusing mechanism.
while the QC has a nice internal focus mechanism. Also the TC has an
even more feeble base than the TC has, but the TC has an extra mini
tripod to compensate. However this tripod attaches *not* to the body
of the TC but to the base which is folded back. It's mechanical
unstable.
Drivers: The drivers (both updated from respective websites) have
more or less the same options, however the QC has face tracking wich i
did not test. Both drivers proved reasonable stable on an XP system.
The TC driver was clearly better in adapting to different light
conditions, espcially low light conditions.
Picture Quality: Sharpness and overall picture quality was more or
less alike. There where clear differences in color interpretation,
but i cannot asses which one was better. The QC needed less lens
adjusting whit short focus distance.
Low light: An enormous advantage for the TC. TC is *much* more
sentive and keeps detailed pictures with (very) low light conditions.
Also the driver adjusts very good, so no fiddling with settings is
needed. At the tested light levels the QC produces either no image or
mainly noise.
Despite the mechanical disadvantage, for me the clear winner was the
ToUcam.
FYI,
This is a short report on the differences between Philips ToUcam PRO
II and a Logitech Quickcam Pro 4000 (i wanted to buy one of them).
Mechanical build: Quickcam (QC) is clearly leading over the ToUcam
(TC). The TC has a very akward and feeble lens focusing mechanism.
while the QC has a nice internal focus mechanism. Also the TC has an
even more feeble base than the TC has, but the TC has an extra mini
tripod to compensate. However this tripod attaches *not* to the body
of the TC but to the base which is folded back. It's mechanical
unstable.
Drivers: The drivers (both updated from respective websites) have
more or less the same options, however the QC has face tracking wich i
did not test. Both drivers proved reasonable stable on an XP system.
The TC driver was clearly better in adapting to different light
conditions, espcially low light conditions.
Picture Quality: Sharpness and overall picture quality was more or
less alike. There where clear differences in color interpretation,
but i cannot asses which one was better. The QC needed less lens
adjusting whit short focus distance.
Low light: An enormous advantage for the TC. TC is *much* more
sentive and keeps detailed pictures with (very) low light conditions.
Also the driver adjusts very good, so no fiddling with settings is
needed. At the tested light levels the QC produces either no image or
mainly noise.
Despite the mechanical disadvantage, for me the clear winner was the
ToUcam.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram