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.

By Mark T. Hoske May 27, 2015

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,

ONLINE extra

See additional information about machine vision standards below.

Author Bio: Mark Hoske has been Control Engineering editor/content manager since 1994 and in a leadership role since 1999, covering all major areas: control systems, networking and information systems, control equipment and energy, and system integration, everything that comprises or facilitates the control loop. He has been writing about technology since 1987, writing professionally since 1982, and has a Bachelor of Science in Journalism degree from UW-Madison.