Vision standards update: nine criteria help with standard selection
Inside Machines: Machine vision standards advance at the spring G3 meeting of the EMVA, AIA, JIIA, and VDMA machine vision associations; nine criteria help with selecting standards.
Development engineers from machine vision companies met under the patronage of G3, a common organization of the machine vision associations European Machine Vision Association (EMVA), American Institute of Architects (AIA), Japan Industrial Imaging Association (JIIA), and VDMA, The German Engineering Association, at the end of April in London at the G3 spring International Vision Standards Meeting, according to an EMVA press release. Topics discussed include:
- GenICam standard version 3.0 can configure devices across a wide range of standard physical interfaces at a higher level, regardless of camera type and image format.
- CoaXPress standards committee said version 1.2 of that specification is expected this summer to help developers and to pave the way for higher speeds, up to 12.5 Gb/s. Version 2.0, due in 2016, is expected to support 3-D cameras.
- Camera Link standard, version 2.0, consolidates prior updates and offers five levels of implementation.
- USB3 Vision standard version 1.01 clarifies ambiguities. The committee is developing a validation suite and working to ensure support for 3-D vision in the new GenICam software standard. Other efforts include support for multiple streaming devices and longer cables.
- GigE Vision will support 3-D cameras. Upcoming version 2.1 expects to standardize on Type 90 and Type 110 locking connectors to alleviate interoperability issues, according to the VDMA information.
Choosing USB vision or GigE vision
Choosing appropriate criteria may be the first hurdle to getting started in selecting a standard. At NIWeek 2014, the following nine criteria were offered in a bus battle session, GigE versus USB 3.0., by Eric Gross, chairman of USB 3.0 committee and Damien Nesbitt, Point Grey Research Inc., engineering manager, who is a member of the GigE Vision committee.
When choosing between these vision standards for an application, Gross and Nesbitt suggested examining performance, connectivity, sensor availability, multicamera systems, future improvements, "getting started," data transfer, latency and jitter, and error checking. Cost, they said, is comparable.
- Mark T. Hoske, content manager, CFE Media, Control Engineering, email@example.com.
See additional information about machine vision standards below.
- Events & Awards
- Magazine Archives
- Digital Reports
- Global SI Database
- Oil & Gas Engineering
- Survey Prize Winners