|
|
2010-03-28
, 09:39
|
|
Posts: 80 |
Thanked: 45 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
|
#11
|
|
|
2010-03-28
, 09:41
|
|
|
Posts: 549 |
Thanked: 179 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Greece
|
#12
|
|
|
2010-03-28
, 09:43
|
|
Posts: 278 |
Thanked: 303 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Norwich, UK
|
#13
|
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to nidO For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-03-28
, 09:59
|
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#14
|
|
|
2010-03-28
, 10:55
|
|
Posts: 7 |
Thanked: 1 time |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ finland
|
#15
|
Someone has mentioned before that at 30fps there is no way the camera can read the data fast enough for such purposes.
Lets put it this way, 30fps = about 30Hz, 1Hz = 1 cycle per second so 30 frames would be thirty cycles per second.
Standard consumer IR devices however have modulation speeds of 35-38kilohertz, or about what, a thousand times faster than the camera is capable of seeing.
| The Following User Says Thank You to biterror For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-03-28
, 17:54
|
|
|
Posts: 232 |
Thanked: 44 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Austria, Amstetten
|
#16
|
Well it is a seriously old protocol, most modern phones don't even have an IR port on them! Have you thought about transfer via bluetooth?


|
|
2010-03-28
, 18:02
|
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#17
|
|
|
2010-03-28
, 18:10
|
|
Posts: 278 |
Thanked: 303 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Norwich, UK
|
#18
|
|
|
2010-03-28
, 18:23
|
|
|
Posts: 2,351 |
Thanked: 5,243 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Barcelona
|
#19
|
|
|
2010-03-28
, 18:34
|
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#20
|
Just putting the hole in the chassis must be more expensive than putting a proper IR receiver in there. I too have to wonder what was the idea behind this....
| The Following User Says Thank You to Fargus For This Useful Post: | ||