Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects

Expand Messages
  • Stu Goossen
    Actually I over spoke a bit. UWB is the radio protocol. WUSB is the high level protocol.
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Actually I over spoke a bit. UWB is the radio protocol. WUSB <wireless usb>
      is the high level protocol.

      <which is still designed to deal with the retry issue, and to handle the
      needs of 'real time' transmission>



      Cheers,

      sjg



      _____

      From: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of Mark de Regt
      Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 6:05 PM
      To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects



      Stu,

      Thanks for the clarification. I also don't have a high opinion of Belkin
      stuff, buying it only when I have to buy the tool, and nobody else makes it.
      Sometimes it even works....

      --Mark

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Stu Goossen
      > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:31 PM
      > To: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects
      >
      >
      > Just a nit, but the 'protocal' running over the wireless connection is UWB
      > <ultra wide band> not USB. And UWB is designed to deal with packet
      > loss/retransmition.
      >
      > Of course if this was from someone besides Belkin, I'd really be
      > excited :-)
      >
      >
      >
      > Cheers,
      >
      > sjg
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > From: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of Mark de Regt
      > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:54 PM
      > To: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects
      >
      >
      >
      > Adam,
      >
      > Thanks for this. But I'll not be an early adapter, since it will take some
      > powerful evidence to show me that the wireless isn't causing more problems
      > than it's solving in this application. USB is a great protocol,
      > but I'm far
      > from convinced that it will function as well in wireless form as wireless;
      > dropped packets is a bad thing!
      >
      > --Mark
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
      > yahoogroups.com
      > > [mailto:ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
      > yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of adam_block
      > > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 11:40 AM
      > > To: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
      > yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects
      > >
      > >
      > > Wireless USB has been discussed a few times in the past on this forum
      > > and the market has been expecting it for a while. Now the first
      > > wireless USB device is coming to market:
      > >
      > > http://www.engadget
      > <http://www.engadget
      <http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/04/belkins-cable-free-usb-hub-fina>
      .com/2006/12/04/belkins-cable-free-usb-hub-fina>
      > .com/2006/12/04/belkins-cable-free-usb-hub-fina
      > > lly-loosed/
      > >
      > > It will be interesting to see if astrocams can run reliably over this
      > > protocol. I recall previous posts which explained that delays in
      > > reading data over wired USB could increase noise.
      > >
      > > /afb -- "Not *that* Adam Block"
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Yahoo - Wodaski
      What gets interesting are the interactions with other software. The protocol, under ideal conditions, can I am sure handle things. But what happens when the
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        What gets interesting are the interactions with other software. The
        protocol, under ideal conditions, can I am sure handle things. But what
        happens when the camera driver, telescope software, other drivers,
        network, etc. are all haranguing the CPU for time? <G>

        This is just one of those things that we'll have to see in use to really
        learn what it can, and cannot, do.

        Ron

        Stu Goossen wrote:
        > Actually I over spoke a bit. UWB is the radio protocol. WUSB <wireless usb>
        > is the high level protocol.
        >
        > <which is still designed to deal with the retry issue, and to handle the
        > needs of 'real time' transmission>
        >
        >
        >
        > Cheers,
        >
        > sjg
        >
        >
        >
        > _____
        >
        > From: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com] On
        > Behalf Of Mark de Regt
        > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 6:05 PM
        > To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects
        >
        >
        >
        > Stu,
        >
        > Thanks for the clarification. I also don't have a high opinion of Belkin
        > stuff, buying it only when I have to buy the tool, and nobody else makes it.
        > Sometimes it even works....
        >
        > --Mark
        >
        >
        >> -----Original Message-----
        >> From: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
        >>
        > yahoogroups.com
        >
        >> [mailto:ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
        >>
        > yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Stu Goossen
        >
        >> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:31 PM
        >> To: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
        >> Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects
        >>
        >>
        >> Just a nit, but the 'protocal' running over the wireless connection is UWB
        >> <ultra wide band> not USB. And UWB is designed to deal with packet
        >> loss/retransmition.
        >>
        >> Of course if this was from someone besides Belkin, I'd really be
        >> excited :-)
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> Cheers,
        >>
        >> sjg
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> _____
        >>
        >> From: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
        >>
        > yahoogroups.com
        >
        >> [mailto:ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
        >>
        > yahoogroups.com] On
        >
        >> Behalf Of Mark de Regt
        >> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:54 PM
        >> To: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
        >> Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> Adam,
        >>
        >> Thanks for this. But I'll not be an early adapter, since it will take some
        >> powerful evidence to show me that the wireless isn't causing more problems
        >> than it's solving in this application. USB is a great protocol,
        >> but I'm far
        >> from convinced that it will function as well in wireless form as wireless;
        >> dropped packets is a bad thing!
        >>
        >> --Mark
        >>
        >>
        >>> -----Original Message-----
        >>> From: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
        >>>
        >> yahoogroups.com
        >>
        >>> [mailto:ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
        >>>
        >> yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of adam_block
        >>
        >>> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 11:40 AM
        >>> To: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
        >>>
        >> yahoogroups.com
        >>
        >>> Subject: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> Wireless USB has been discussed a few times in the past on this forum
        >>> and the market has been expecting it for a while. Now the first
        >>> wireless USB device is coming to market:
        >>>
        >>> http://www.engadget
        >>>
        >> <http://www.engadget
        >>
        > <http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/04/belkins-cable-free-usb-hub-fina>
        > .com/2006/12/04/belkins-cable-free-usb-hub-fina>
        >
        >> .com/2006/12/04/belkins-cable-free-usb-hub-fina
        >>
        >>> lly-loosed/
        >>>
        >>> It will be interesting to see if astrocams can run reliably over this
        >>> protocol. I recall previous posts which explained that delays in
        >>> reading data over wired USB could increase noise.
        >>>
        >>> /afb -- "Not *that* Adam Block"
        >>>
        >>>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Yahoo - Wodaski
        It s complicated, as alluded to in my other reply - interaction and demands on the CPU s time are what is critical. Interestingly, a CCD camera that utilized
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          It's complicated, as alluded to in my other reply - interaction and
          demands on the CPU's time are what is critical.

          Interestingly, a CCD camera that utilized the full rate of USB 2.0 would
          actually be much noisier (typically) than one that was slower! The read
          noise is minimized at a certain transfer speed, and most cameras that
          seek to be low noise operate at or near this optimum transfer rate. In
          most cases, it is well below the transfer rate of USB 1.1.

          I also wish more manufacturers would put memory in the camera to dump
          the CCD data into. I work with a number of clients who have pro-level
          cameras, and not only do such cameras always have internal memory, they
          often use creative schemes to make best use of the memory - e.g.,
          storing dark and bias frames in that memory for instant application to
          the incoming frames.

          But you get what you pay for; such cameras are in the $25-100k range.
          :( Some brands do include memory in the camera, but a camera purchase
          decision is a complicated thing. Some vendors don't test thoroughly;
          others provide poor service. You really have to decide what is most
          important for you. If you just want to use the camera without too many
          problems, then SBIG fills the bill, despite the memory issue. And if you
          are willing to keep your camera-control computer reasonably free of
          potentially interfering software (e.g., put the software for your phone
          interface somewhere else), you can do better.

          Ron Wodaski

          adam_block wrote:
          >> The root problem with packet loss/retransmission is that it generates
          >> excessive read noise. Anything that causes a delay in reading the
          >> readout register will increase noise. Retransmission could do that
          >>
          > quite
          >
          >> easily.
          >>
          >
          > Is this universally true (up to the maximum rate at which the CCD can
          > dump data, that is)? In other words, will a USB 2.0 camera by
          > definition have less read noise that one with USB 1.1, which will
          > itself be less noisy than a parallel camera?
          >
          > I don't understand why this limitation couldn't (and wouldn't) be
          > address by manufacturers by putting buffer memory between the CCD and
          > the comm. interface to ensure data is dumped from the chip at an
          > optimum rate, a rate insensitive to the performance of the camera's
          > communications protocol.
          >
          > /afb
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Bob Denny
          ... Only if the imager is unbuffered. That excludes most modern designs, but does include (at least) one relatively popular imager maker. They have known about
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            The other Adam Block:
            >I recall previous posts which explained that delays in
            > reading data over wired USB could increase noise.

            Only if the imager is unbuffered. That excludes most modern designs,
            but does include (at least) one relatively popular imager maker. They
            have known about the problem for years, and have announced that they
            intend to make changes in new designs. Only time will tell... results
            are king.

            Meanwhile, I think you're right in bring the issue up. Best practice
            would be to ask the imager maker. Make sure you ask about on board
            frame buffering first... and if the answer is "not yet", treat all
            subsequent claims with skepticism! I have seen unbuffered imagers
            violate Windows interrupt rules by a factor of 10,000+++!
          • Stu Goossen
            kind of applies to all interconnect protocol s. (and/or the lack of properly buffered hardware) the difference between USB and wireless USB protocol CPU
            Message 5 of 12 , Dec 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              kind of applies to all interconnect protocol's. (and/or the lack of properly
              buffered hardware) the difference between USB and wireless USB protocol CPU
              consumption is insignificant.

              And of course protocols are never designed to operate in only 'ideal'
              conditions, actually it's usually just the opposite. they are over designed
              for the corner cases.



              Cheers,

              sjg



              _____

              From: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com] On
              Behalf Of Yahoo - Wodaski
              Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 7:14 PM
              To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects



              What gets interesting are the interactions with other software. The
              protocol, under ideal conditions, can I am sure handle things. But what
              happens when the camera driver, telescope software, other drivers,
              network, etc. are all haranguing the CPU for time? <G>

              This is just one of those things that we'll have to see in use to really
              learn what it can, and cannot, do.

              Ron

              Stu Goossen wrote:
              > Actually I over spoke a bit. UWB is the radio protocol. WUSB <wireless
              usb>
              > is the high level protocol.
              >
              > <which is still designed to deal with the retry issue, and to handle the
              > needs of 'real time' transmission>
              >
              >
              >
              > Cheers,
              >
              > sjg
              >
              >
              >
              > _____
              >
              > From: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
              yahoogroups.com [mailto:ccd-newastro@
              <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com] On
              > Behalf Of Mark de Regt
              > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 6:05 PM
              > To: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects
              >
              >
              >
              > Stu,
              >
              > Thanks for the clarification. I also don't have a high opinion of Belkin
              > stuff, buying it only when I have to buy the tool, and nobody else makes
              it.
              > Sometimes it even works....
              >
              > --Mark
              >
              >
              >> -----Original Message-----
              >> From: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
              >>
              > yahoogroups.com
              >
              >> [mailto:ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
              >>
              > yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Stu Goossen
              >
              >> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:31 PM
              >> To: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
              >> Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects
              >>
              >>
              >> Just a nit, but the 'protocal' running over the wireless connection is
              UWB
              >> <ultra wide band> not USB. And UWB is designed to deal with packet
              >> loss/retransmition.
              >>
              >> Of course if this was from someone besides Belkin, I'd really be
              >> excited :-)
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >> Cheers,
              >>
              >> sjg
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >> _____
              >>
              >> From: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
              >>
              > yahoogroups.com
              >
              >> [mailto:ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
              >>
              > yahoogroups.com] On
              >
              >> Behalf Of Mark de Regt
              >> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:54 PM
              >> To: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
              >> Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >> Adam,
              >>
              >> Thanks for this. But I'll not be an early adapter, since it will take
              some
              >> powerful evidence to show me that the wireless isn't causing more
              problems
              >> than it's solving in this application. USB is a great protocol,
              >> but I'm far
              >> from convinced that it will function as well in wireless form as
              wireless;
              >> dropped packets is a bad thing!
              >>
              >> --Mark
              >>
              >>
              >>> -----Original Message-----
              >>> From: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
              >>>
              >> yahoogroups.com
              >>
              >>> [mailto:ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
              >>>
              >> yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of adam_block
              >>
              >>> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 11:40 AM
              >>> To: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
              >>>
              >> yahoogroups.com
              >>
              >>> Subject: [ccd-newastro] Wireless USB interconnects
              >>>
              >>>
              >>> Wireless USB has been discussed a few times in the past on this forum
              >>> and the market has been expecting it for a while. Now the first
              >>> wireless USB device is coming to market:
              >>>
              >>> http://www.engadget
              >>>
              >> <http://www.engadget
              >>
              > <http://www.engadget
              <http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/04/belkins-cable-free-usb-hub-fina>
              .com/2006/12/04/belkins-cable-free-usb-hub-fina>
              > .com/2006/12/04/belkins-cable-free-usb-hub-fina>
              >
              >> .com/2006/12/04/belkins-cable-free-usb-hub-fina
              >>
              >>> lly-loosed/
              >>>
              >>> It will be interesting to see if astrocams can run reliably over this
              >>> protocol. I recall previous posts which explained that delays in
              >>> reading data over wired USB could increase noise.
              >>>
              >>> /afb -- "Not *that* Adam Block"
              >>>
              >>>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >> Yahoo! Groups Links
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.