Ultimate Wireless Webcam?

Chris asks: "I am in need of a webcam for home security. I want it to be able to connect to my home wireless network (802.11g) and have access to its images from a secure website. I also want to be able to access images from it on my cellphone. Is there a webcam that does this?"

Comments

IT?

[Atrax]

Surely this is an 'ask slashdot'?

or am I just making that up?

Veo Observer

[AtariAmarok]

The Veo Observer is worth checking out. Looks like a one-eyed snakehead, but it does have its own built-in web server, is pretty easy to use, and they offer a wireless one. It has tilt, pan, zoom too.

Not only this, unlike X10, they have never spammed me or put annoying popups on web pages.

More cameras

[$exyNerdie]

DLink makes some wireless cameras. Page is here: http://www.dlink.com/products/category.asp?cid=60& sec=0

Here is one from Linksys: http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=3 3&scid=38&prid=650

X10

[thewhitenoise]

I'm sure we've all seen the ads for the "amazing X10 webcams" online at one point or another. They're designed to provide home security for less than 80 USD (currently running a special). I think they have a web interface which will allow tilt/zoom. The only problem is that they're easily "hackable". Anyone with a receiver in the range of the camera is able to view the feed, so they're not very secure themselves. Of course, it's essentially the same as running an unencrypted wireless router in a densely populated area.

Re:X10

[antifoidulus]

From what I have read(which includes the book hardware hacking for geeks) the quality on the X10 really blows. You can get better quality cameras for about the same amount of money, avoid the X10 if at all possible.

Re:Paranoid?

[gregmac]

How about just get one that will take a pic every time there is movement, then if someone DID break in, you would have pictures of who it was, plus insurance company can't say you didn't take enough steps.

It would be nice if there was some kind of open-source project that wrote software for this kind of thing, too...

Re:I'm looking for the same, plus more

[kzanol]

We're running two like that: Webcam Graz - Schlossberg or
Webcam Graz - Telecom Building
Both are Axis Webcams in an outdoor housing with a standard (netgear) access point squeezed into the same housing. At the installation site there's just a power feed, network connectivity is provided using directional wifi antennas from about 1.5km distance.
More detail on request :-)

Re:Paranoid?

[bhima]

I actually took the paranoid monitoring thing to mean "I think my Wife / GF is cheating on me and I want to be able to confront them in the act"

Wireless camera theft

[fstat(pipe)]

A guy at work was showing the cool live webcam stream of his front yard when the neighbor kid walked up and stole the webcam.
Funny as hell.

First back up a bit...

[Dr. Spork]

What exactly are you trying to make secure? Do you really think that this can prevent house intrusion? I hope not. Checking the internet or your cell phone and seeing a blurry picture of some guy with a mask going through your drawers is going to accomplish... what? If you wanted to use the footage as evidence, you'd better use tape; any decent defense lawyer will get x10-type footage thrown out of court because it's so easy to manipulate. And if you're trying to use this to watch your unsupervised children, you're an irresponsible sicko and you'd be much better off spending your money on a babysitter instead.

In general, it looks to me like you haven't really thought this through. I suspect you don't need any such camera at all.

In general, your post makes you sound like a paranoid pussy with too much stuff in your house and too much money to blow, who for some reason feel the need to brag about this on Slashdot. Well, I'm not impressed.

Re:First back up a bit...

[Martin Blank]

Recording from multiple angles makes such legal arguments a lot trickier, particularly if the recording is periodic except for motion captures.

And maybe his kids are supervised, but he wants to watch the watcher. It's handy to know when the kids are being ignored and/or terrorized by the babysitter.

Digital recordings are often used now in criminal investigations, because the systems are becoming more reliable and higher quality than tape can do. Tape is usually limited to TV resolution at best, which is approximately equivalent to 544x372, and then that signal is interlaced, which makes it hard to get details. Digital, however, can go much higher -- 640x480 true resolution for less expensive cameras on up to 1600x1200 for the high-end units. Bandwidth constraints will normally limit things to 1024x768 or 1280x1024, but this is still a minimum of nearly four times the detail, not counting the clarity from the non-interlaced image.

Finally, you have to remember to change tapes, and storage for tapes gets expensive and inconvenient if you plan on keeping them long-term. However, a relatively small server with a couple of mirrored drives for redundancy costs under a thousand dollars and can store images months' or even years' worth of data, depending on how frequent motion captures are and how many cameras are used. It's very possible to set up a fairly complete home monitoring system for under $5000 (especially with wireless cameras), complete with recording and remote access, and with a WAP-capable phone, some of the available software allows you to check on the current status.

I love my veo observer

[way2trivial]

but it ONLY WORKS with users running IE and with active X.. it will not work on a mobile