Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Tip

Best low-fle size camera to buy?

Feb 19, 2014 9:02AM PST

I am developing a program that includes image processing, and I need low-file size pictures that I can take outside of my house.
A phone with a cheap built-in camera could do, or a handheld camera, I just need the lowest file size possible with comprehensible quality.
I need a color camera with the following:
- can take snapshots
-can take video w/audio
-USB Windows compatible
-Power-plug
I want the file size for the images to be very small.
I was wanting to get single pictures under 1 MB, maybe under 100KB if possible, and video clips that last a few seconds to be at least the lowest file size is possible.

I am not going to wave the device around, so it wont blurr badly and madly.
I dont want a webcam.
I just need help picking which one, and I would like for the price to be cheap.
Do have any recommendations, like on Amazon, or Ebay or somewhere else online?
-Thanks....

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Odd but doable.
Feb 19, 2014 9:07AM PST
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLE so when you use a new acronym, please define it.

I'm using a Canon a1300 with an EyeFi to auto upload images then my code processes these with various imgtools, Image Magick and then the Tesseract OCT package so my bet is that this will do just fine.

USB to me means WEB CAM. OK, why not a WEB CAM and then use the usual capture code in Visual Studio apps?

Remember I'm taking it that you are a seasoned Windows programmer. Also, strange restriction on the web cam. It falls neatly into your spec.
Bob
- Collapse -
Re-Odd ut doable.
Feb 20, 2014 6:49AM PST
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLE so when you use a new acronym, please define it."
Actually fle was just a unintentional typo, I mean to actually say file .
But if you want a definition of Fle anyway, it could stand for Focused Lens Environment aka a working camera that can take good pictures.

"I'm using a Canon a1300"

What file size on each picture are you getting with the lowest settings? I am just looking for something that has very low file size with each picture.

"USB to me means WEB CAM. OK, why not a WEB CAM and then use the usual capture code in Visual Studio apps"
I already have a webcam and because I am not programming with Visual Studio. I want to have a cheap camera that can take low-file sized pictures. I want the camera to have a usb cable so I can connect it to my computer and take the image and feed it into the program. I want to take hundreds of pictures outside of my room( and other parts of my room that my webcam cannot view) for analyzing with the program/modules that I am going to be experimenting with it, so I want the file sizes on each to be as low as possible, but still comprehensible/viewable.

"Remember I'm taking it that you are a seasoned Windows programmer. Also, strange restriction on the web cam. It falls neatly into your spec."
Not exactly. I am sort of a beginner although I have been into pseduo-code for a while. My spec does not have strange restrictions. I am going to code my webcam with the program I am going to develop, but I wanted to have other kinds of pictures to analyze. Just other stuff that my webcam cannot record that is out of its range(outside/etc). Cool
- Collapse -
New term to me (FLE)
Feb 20, 2014 7:03AM PST

I have been doing electronic and camera designs for close to 2 decades and always have to be careful when I toss out new acronyms. Thanks for clearing that up.

Just a second. And keep in mind it's been replaced by the a1400.
I set it to 640x480 and took a nearly all white image (JPEG as you know is variable size) and the image was 54KB.

As to USB link. Sorry but I used the EyeFi as the link. Take a picture and it auto transfers to the PC. I can also roam with the camera and when I get back the images load up. Really neat solution to what we wanted to do.

Yes your app has strange restrictions. That's why we write these custom apps. To meet our needs.

Hope this helps and if you are in the SoCal area, drop me a line if there's money to be made!
Bob

- Collapse -
Let's agree to ignore the "best' trap.
Feb 20, 2014 7:11AM PST

Anytime your engineering friends ask for the "best' they may be setting you up for a few years of studies. I won't entertain or enter that trap but will share something we are doing at the office that looks close and you can decide how close it gets.

If you have a typo, be sure to correct such fast with a reply so you get an answer that is not a question.

In closing, it sounds like any old camera will do. Almost all have quality settings or can reduce the pixel count that drives the file size down.
Bob

- Collapse -
---
Feb 21, 2014 9:17AM PST

Well, thanks for your help.
I will admit that my spec/program that I am going to be building does have strange restrictions, but for good reason.
And in my second response the title was,"Re-Odd ut doable." and I meant to actually write,"Re-Odd but doable.
Thank you, have a good day/night.