Rear view cam choice: RCA to USB converter vs composite input card.

**stonestatue** · 01-11-2008, 11:27 PM

I know that title was long, but I like to make my titles descriptive so people have a pretty good idea of what to expect when they see my posts.

I have done extensive research on back up cams and the options they present. I understand there are RCA and USB rear view cams, and each one has advantages and disadvantages.

RCA advantages
- wider viewing angle
- better quality than USB
- doesn't use the carputer's processor for video processing, ensuring a more reliable signal

RCA disadvantages
- somewhat cumbersome and complicated to feed the composite signal to the carputer if you plan on recording; or if you plan on going without a multiple channel monitor (a single channel VGA monitor)
- more expensive than a USB webcam

webcam advantages
- simple to feed signal to carputer if you want to record or go with a single channel VGA monitor
- cheaper than an RCA cam

webcam disadvantages
- relies on the carputer's processor, which creates a liability of slowing down
- lesser quality image
- lesser viewing angle

The setup I have chosen makes use of an RCA camera for the good quality and wider viewing range. I am going to use two monitors in my setup; one for the main carputer screen and one dedicated monitor for just rear view signal (just like what TurboCad did in this post: http://www.mp3car.com/vbulletin/newb...w-monitor.html This creates the dilemma of getting the composite signal to the carputer for recording, so I am presented with two choices after all the extensive research.

I can either go with an RCA to USB converter like this one: http://www.spytown.com/ad02.html?iorb=4764

Or I can install a TV tuner with composite input like this one:
http://ati.amd.com/products/tvwonder650/PCIe/index.html

The tv tuner appeals to me because it gives me HDTV. However, I have questions over which one would be more benefial given a few uncertainties:
- Which one would consume less CPU power?
- Which one would be easier to integrate into a program like RRcam?

Sorry for the long winded and convoluted post, but I wanted to make sure I covered all my bases.

**S4Per** · 01-12-2008, 12:09 AM

sorry for a slight thread jack: what camera have you chosen to use?

thanks.

**pokki** · 01-12-2008, 12:15 AM

Which one would consume less CPU power?

The PCI card should consume less resources, becasue it has a hardware mpeg2 encoder, and is not using the USB bus.

Which one would be easier to integrate into a program like RRcam?

No idea, sorry.

**stonestatue** · 01-12-2008, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by S4Per

sorry for a slight thread jack: what camera have you chosen to use?

thanks.

Probably the one the mp3car store sells, unless I can find one with a wider viewing angle, a built in mic, or some other fancy feature that sells me.

**stonestatue** · 01-12-2008, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by pokki

The PCI card should consume less resources, becasue it has a hardware mpeg2 encoder, and is not using the USB bus.

No idea, sorry.

Ah yes, I should have thought about the encoder integrated in the video card. Thanks.

**pbarrette** · 01-14-2008, 01:37 AM

Hi Stone,

There are also USB capture devices like the GA-VD207 that can do hardware MPEG-1/2/4 compression, thus lightening the CPU load.

There are other advantages to USB webcams that you missed. Decent CMOS based USB webcams usually handle changing light conditions better than equivalently priced composite CCDs. In fact, most of the high quality CCD surveillance cameras have a mechanical iris which opens and closes to adjust to brighter or darker exposures.

On the other hand, CMOS cameras are usually less sensitive to light than CCDs. That's why they generally don't need a mechanical iris to limit the light in bright conditions. But it also means that CCDs will generally produce a better image in low light.

pb