On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 23:07, suriya mohan wrote: [...] > Though u try to work it out in different PC's > they are still desktop linux boxes where the processor is not > dedicated. Say suppose if u work in X windows it itself requires 8MB > ram and some processor power. likewise so many process will run > including background processes. These are the reasons for frame > dropping. If we try this using a dedicated processor, in any embedded > device then there will not be in any frame dropping. Yes, that is true. In my very limited experience I have found that trying to do anything that involves file I/O will cause dropped frames. I don't know if this would continue to be a problem over the long run due to occasional background program execution or not. Are you suggesting a linux based embedded device? Is there any reason an alternate kernel or configuratoin could be booted for the sole purpose of performing well with video capture? What about using something like run level 1? Doesn't that load a minimum of services that would compete for resources with video capture? Or perhaps one of the other less used run levels could be used to tailor an environment suitable for video capture. Do you think a dual processor PC dould do any better? What about alternate I/O hardware like SCSI? Particularly if the SCSI drive is not used for other things, there should be no contention for disk I/O. I'm not sure if the same benefit could be had by adding an extra drive to IDE interface. Perhaps if it was on a separate IDE controller. Your thoughts on this? thanks, hank
