Rating: 
Summary: Very Very Disappointed with the product
Review: Exchanged it for Logitech Pro 4000 (my original choice), only fell for it because of the impressive specs that was advertised..1.3 Megapixels, USB 2.0..etc.Complete waste of time and money (cost of return shipping).
Rating: 
Summary: I agree: Great quality
Review: For this amount of money, you probably couldn't find another webcam as good as this one. Extremely sharp and clear picture. If there is enough light, it is even better!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: To dark
Review: I have a problem getting the cam to turn up the brightness. the adjustments don't seem to work.
the camera doesn't work unless I point a bright light and what I'm taking a picture at, even in the daylight.
Rating:
Summary: Best Webcam! Even better than the Logitech pro 4000
Review: I have many webcams and I recently got this one as a gift. It is amazingly great! However, at first I didn't know how to adjust the settings and thus make the video and pictures a bit dark. After the brightness, contrast, gamma, and quality... are set to the optimal setting, wow!!!!!!...it's like a good quality camcorder. My friend (from a foreign country viewing us on the webcam) was greatly impressed by the picture and video quality. He has the Logitech Pro 4000. He found mine is much better than his...
Rating:
Summary: resolution not likely
Review: Just got the camera and read the fine print found only on the bottom of the box. It says, "Resolutions supported by hardware for third party software compatibility. Not supported by Creative Studio." The software it comes with only supports the usual 640x480 resolution. I didn't see any advantage from the optics or the USB 2.0 functionality, but then mine came with a busted focusing lens. I'm sure Amazon will take the return no problem, and the free shipping that was supposed to take 5-7 days miraculously brought me the camera in a single day, but I won't be ordering another one all the same.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing
Review: The previous reviews for this product are right on the money... This cam looks great in the daytime with the shades open, but once night falls, in order to use it , my computer desk has to look like a photographers studio.. I have several lights blinding me just to get a decent picture.. also I find I am constantly having to adjust light to make my image viewable. When I bought this cam, I also fell for the impressive stats, but they all go out the window at dusk..
Rating:
Summary: Great cam
Review: This is the second web cam I have owned. The first was a $20 Intel cam, which I didn't like. I paid more than $50 (around $70) and I am pleased.
I don't take photos, nor do I record videos with it, so I cannot comment on those features.
I do use it every now & then to let my family & friends see me. I have a torchiere lamp with a 20W fluorescent bulb in it angled toward the lens. I can see myself just as well as the my family & friends can.
I recommend this webcam.
Rating: 
Summary: Quick in Operation Overall & Excellent Digital Resolution
Review: This Veo camera has been getting poor reviews from alot of people on the internet...not just here. In my opinion the Velocity Connect's use of the new USB 2.0 link speed standard increases overall system operation in a noticable manner, namely in its capability to capture SXGA resolution or 1280x1024 pixels (which equals 1.31072x10^6 pixels ~ 1.31 megapixels) images and high video refresh speeds or frames per second (frames/sec or FPS). Albiet, the touted 30 FPS which would be equivalent to what a person would see on TV or watching movies (30 FPS is the de-facto standard frame rate) is not quite apparent. Nonetheless, at the second to highest video setting, 320x240 pixels, the video capturing is nearly realtime with only a fraction of a second in lag time. Depending on how you look at things, there is a notable product issue: a significant amount of illumination* is required for the Veo's CCD optics to catch all the reflected light off the image to be captured. I found approximately 5 000 to 6 000 lumens, which is equivalent to the light intensity of two 100 Watt light bulbs, to be enough for clear image quality.
*A major concern of the critics of this camera believe this to be a significant issue enough as to return the unit and subsequently give low ratings. So, owners must use alot of light......so does any quality image/video recording device. Examples include Hollywood movie sets, anything filmed on TV, and all conventional film cameras; film cameras have high intensity flash bulbs. I wish this had night or infared vision....oh, well I'll just have to wait awhile. The Veo's 60-70%, on a 1.47 GHz/Athlon XP on a MS/XP/OS, usage of CPU processing resources and 70-75 Megabytes(MB) should also be noted. To test the unit, I plugged it into my USB 1.1 ports and USB 2.0 ports to compare operability efficiency. It was clear that the USB 2.0 link speeds made the camera work most effectively. The new standard USB 2.0 has a bandwidth rate of 400 Megabytes per second (MB/s) as opposed to 10 MB/s of the USB 1.1 standard. It was clear that the use of increased bandwidth allows for fast operation. I've tried using this camera with 5 different webcam applications(Logitech IM, CoffeeCup 3.0, Active Webcam 3.5, Eyeball 2.2, and the included Creative Studio-Connect) and it worked at about 85-95% efficient with regards to particular issues as locking up the OS, image quality, and just general interoperability. What kept this from a 90-95% rating from me was because of Eyeball 2.2. It had a hard time working with the camera and displayed poor video and image resolution. Kind of a funny shape to it but it has a pleasant cool blue light which indicates that it's powered up. Useful interchangeble base mounts are also included. I likes this yo'. ;) Mechanical Engineering Graduate Student
Texas A&M University
Rating:
Summary: Poor quality
Review: This was my first vid cam so I didn't have anything to compare it with. The only person whom I talked with previously on vid conference had an old vid cam so I didn't see a big difference. Then a family member called and said he just bought a new vid cam (a Logitech Quickcam 4000) and I couldn't believe the difference. I can see now why the Veo Velocity is getting such a bad rap. It's well deserved. It's very grainy and jittery, and doesn't work consistent in any light, not to mention very poor in low light, even with the 2.0 USB card. I'm not much into the vid conference thing, but since it looks like I'm going to be in touch with my family member now on a steady basis, I went out and snagged a Logitech 4000 and am very pleased with it. Don't settle for the Veo Velocity cam. If you are communicating with someone who is using a Logitech, it will only remind you what poor quality your Veo is.
Rating:
Summary: Poor low-light performance, VERY high CPU
Review: With a VERY bright light positioned right over your head, you can adjust the controls on this camera to do 24 fps on a USB 2.0 port, at 320x240 capture resolution. It will NOT do 30. On a Pentium III 900 MHz machine, it uses about 85% of the CPU, which I consider to be inordinately high. Under average room light, the picture is so dark that it is unusable. If you turn on the "low light" option, you get a good picture, but the frame rate drops to about 9 fps. In a USB 1.1 port, it self-limits to only 10 fps, so be aware of this. Installation on Win 2000 and Win XP went very smoothly. Under bright light, the video image is EXCELLENT. But it is quite impractical to ever have the amount of light this camera really needs to perform well. I was sitting directly under a lamp, and it still wasn't really enough. Maybe two 150-watt photo floods would do it. Compared to the Logitech Quickcam Pro 4000, I'd say the Veo has slightly better video quality. But the Logitech far and away gets my vote, because it uses about half the CPU of the Veo, and can do a full 30 fps, EVEN in low and average room light, and even at 352x288 as well as 320x240. The Logitech can even achieve this in a USB 1.1 port.
| 
