Talk:Camera Link

message: This section needs data rates listed.
I provided links to sources if needed, but I am not sure what is the true values.
The data rates listed seem all over the place. It also may supports or is split into 3 speeds, just do not know the speeds. http://www.adept.net.au/grabbers/coreco/pccamlink.shtml
http://www.machinevisiononline.org/public/articles/archivedetails.cfm?id=1528 255, 382, 680MBps (x8 for Mbps)
http://aegiselect.com/products/cameralink-cameras.html "Camera Link® technology features the combination of both high-speeds (1.2, 2.4, & 3.6 Gbps) and high-resolution imaging."
http://www.tmworld.com/article/CA377231.html "The three levels accommodate the wider data paths required by multi-tap cameras (with more than one video-output stream) and allow for future expansion. The full Camera Link configuration achieves an effective bandwidth of 4.8 Gbps."
--Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: A collegue of mine identified some inconsistencies between the data paths I described to him (per spec) and the information on this page, so I made a pass at updating the characteristics of Base/Medium/Full to match the 2004 (v1.1) specification. I also re-calculated the data rates for MB/sec using clk*bits/8{bits/byte}/1024{bytes/kilobyte}/1024{kilobytes/megabyte}. I intend to make another pass to add more links/references, to add the description of 'ports' as defined by the spec, and to expand and (hopefully) clarify the extensions beyond the 'Full' spec.Dfrattin (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descriptions of Base/Medium/Full/+ updated 

message: User:Novaseminary has flagged this article as Primary sources and Refimprove.  This article is about a standard, and I have since added explicit references to the standard document.  This does not make this article any more or less verifiable - that the only authoritative reference for a standard is the standard document was obvious all along; and unfortunately the standard is not open.  So any reader, contributor or editor is welcome to purchase the standard from the AIA to verify the article.  The additional independent references requested by the "Primary sources" tag are also rather pointless in this context - in the case of a standard, sources unrelated to the standards organisation are secondary and unauthoritative rather than corroborative (as they would be for a different article).
The request for sources ignores how technological know-how is passed on in industry: not by books or other citable publication, but by personal communication between companies, customers and (in this case) standards organisations.  The only feasible way to assure quality and correctness is to leave contributing to one or (better) several experts.  If I would not consider myself enough of an expert at the topic, I would not have contributed to the article.  I could also say from my personal knowledge that CameraLink is one of the major industrial camera interfaces, but it is impossible to give references for such a statement (though someone doing some market research could certainly verify it).
I have substantially extended the article since it was tagged, not least with figures created by myself.  I hope this makes it look less like an advertisement for the AIA and is therefore more acceptable.  I am now going to remove the tags, even though their point cannot really be met (see above).  If someone disagrees with this, please discuss it here.
Vswitchs (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and verifiability for a non-open standard