Talk:Frame grabber

How about some external product links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.164.226 (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is unnecessary and it doesn't conform to wikipedia guidelines. Just google "frame grabber" and you will get thousands of commercial hits. More importantly, such links wouldn't contribute any "encylopedic value" to this article. Lambtron (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed link to epiphan, basically just an ad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.119.243 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose a couple of changes to improve this article, which I am more than happy to write: I (email2khalid@gmail.com) suggest that USB2.0 frame grabbers mostly compress the video a lot, which removes many details and introduce additional noise. Therefore for machine vision applications USB3.0 frame grabbers (digital video into USB3.0) or PCIe frame grabbers must be considered. I will add some details to main article when I get spare time.
 * As the lead-in section suggests, a frame grabber is no longer a requirement for a mass-market consumer device such as a webcam to connect to a computer, and high-speed interfaces such as USB 2.0 are adequate for small to medium resolution and standard frame rates.
 * However, there still exists a viable market for frame grabbers for higher resolution and higher frame rates that are being increasingly used in industrial applications. There are also reasons to use a frame grabber when you need to interface multiple cameras to a computer, since you may run out of USB ports or network performance using a standard bus.
 * It thus seems appropriate to distinguish more clearly between industrial and consumer applications of this technology, which the article doesn't currently do all that well.
 * The article should also be expanded to mention network protocols and standards specific to moving graphics information such as GigE Vision, GenIcam, etc. The article does mention the physical bus standards used for interconnecting frame grabbers, so it's logical to mention higher-level interconnect protocols as well.

I welcome others' thoughts and comments; if no comments in a few days, I'll go ahead and insert these proposed revisions and see what people think (or if anyone actually cares at this point). Thanks. MachineVisionConsultant (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)