Article 92749 of rec.photo.digital:
From: "Con Foley" <cfoley@pacific.net.sg>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CP900 as a webcam
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 09:50:22 +0800
Organization: Subscriber of Pacific Internet, Singapore
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <708t6v$fc4$1@newton2.pacific.net.sg>
References: <3626a000.32575778@news.monmouth.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dyn107ppp37.pacific.net.sg
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Path: news1.meer.net!news3.best.com!news1.best.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!news.sgi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!newsserver.pacific.net.sg!not-for-mail
Xref: news1.meer.net rec.photo.digital:92749

You are correct, with CAME you don't need any extra hardware.

The alternative would be to use a video capture card to capture the output
of the Video Out port of the CP900 from the TV connector.

There are probably a few Pros and Cons for each approach, but the main
difference is that with CAME you are only going to get still pictures, with
the Video Out and a capture card you can get video.

Regards,

Con Foley

Rita Heffner wrote in message <3626a000.32575778@news.monmouth.com>...
>
>From previous posts, it seems like I'd still need another piece of
>hardware (video capture card) to use my CP900 as a webcam.
>
>Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why.  If I have my
>camera connected via my serial port, with just the CAME program and a
>FTP client, I can take pictures, download to my PC and upload to my
>ISP all without touching my camera.
>
>Why the need for separate hardware?  Or is it just because all the
>webcam programs are written for it?
>
>Anyone accomplish this without the additional hardware?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Rita
>
>