| Damnyouall said: What I really don't get is why Microsoft made Kinect so much weaker than it could have been. Instead of making the depth-finding resolution 640x480 as originally planned (which could easily have captured finger movement), they made it 320x240 pixels. PS Eye can do up to 120 frames per second. Kinect's lag is larger than it needed to be because it's running at only 30fps. Instead of giving Kinect a CPU of its own (like the prototypes had), Microsoft chose to "outsource" everything to 360's CPU, thereby increasing the lag and reducing they system resources. I suppose all these design choices were cost saving measures, but they really didn't help Kinect's performance at all: |
Except the IR camera was always to run in 30 FPS, onboard chip or not. Thats the on PSeye doesn't have.
As far as the regular camera, there is no point for the regular camera running higher than 30 fps as thats not the camera that tracks movement. The IR camera works as fast as it could with the current tech and pricepoint.
As far as Sony and their camera being 120 fps, that is what they always do. As a hardware company they pack in the megapixels and GFLOPS in devices...
