Consumer Webcams With High-Quality Sensors?
xmas2003 writes "Since 2005, I've had a live webcam watching my grass grow — another is currently watching a bird nest on my front door — five babies! While I appreciate the 802.11g wireless and Pan/Tilt/Zoom (10x optical) of the five-year-old D-Link DCS-6620g, it has issues, especially image quality. I've investigated getting a new webcam, but except for high-end/security-related gear from companies such as Axis, there doesn't seem to be much improvement in the consumer space, as most offerings are just cheaper and USB-connected for tethered video conferencing, etc." So where, the reader wants to know, are the high-quality, reasonably affordable webcams? (Read on below.)
"I have an 18 Megapixel Canon 7D DSLR that shoots gorgeous 1920x1080x30p hi-def video. While I don't expect that in a consumer webcam, their recently released T2i uses the same chip and sells for $800. And heck, point-n-shoots are a couple of hundred bucks, and now many cell phones have cameras built in, so there're plenty of low-power, speedy CPUs in small packages these days to handle the signal processing. So why hasn't someone taken a sensor with good image quality, downsized to around 1024x768, and put it in a PTZ webcam package with 802.11n wireless for around $500?" Even if it's not that exact combination, what are the best options going these days for high-resolution webcams?
Especially with the advances in storage technology, it would seem like higher resolution for security purposes could sometimes be handy, certainly enough to justify paying at least a modest premium over 10-year-old technology.
HQ, reasonably priced wireless webcams to be easily stashed wherever I please? I've had that dream as well......
Watching grass grow? Watching birds? Tell us *really* what you are going to use the webcam for...
trendnet IP-TV252W and IP-TV512P are decent POE cameras at relatively cheap prices. one is a pan tilt dome the other is not. interfaces well with linux systems and work really well. not especially high rez but pic quality is decent for $250 or so..
Some routers have external USB ports (typically meant for storage); some of them have the possibility of using quite "normal" Linux, and hence all the drivers it has. So just connect a good quality webcam (note: you might need powered USB hub)
Or even connect Canon digicam with modified firmware and/or use app or script (there are *nix CLI ones) which can control such cheap camera.
(cheap & energy efficient Atom nettop would be fine too, of course...but WiFi routers are somewhat closer to the "independent" webcams you mentioned)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Since you've just posted a link to your site containing large jpegs, I must assume that either you're not paying for bandwidth, or that you're really, really new around here! Or, quite possibly, you are attempting to test the performance of your server under heavy loads.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I think I just found a time machine to 1997.
I have a 3CCD camcorder with a USB webcam mode. The image is stupid-high quality. Of course, it wasn't cheap and that's not why I bought it but it's a nice added feature. Just about any mini-DV type camcorder will produce a better quality picture than any webcam and many of them are in the $100-200 range. Find one with a webcam mode and you're set.
It has crashed my browser (Chrome) 3 times. Congrats.
Your eyes? What about your ears! MIDI music on a website from 2005, imagine that.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Why "security" cameras(ie. webcam and some sort of TCP/IP speaking computer in the same box, often with goodies like 12/24 volt tolerant GPIO, POE, and weatherproof housings) have largely lagged; but the situation isn't nearly as dire if you are willing to do a touch of DIY.
Between the substantial increase in the number of ~$100 webcams that actually work with UVC drivers and have image quality that doesn't suck, and the availability of highly capable SBCs like the Shivaplug for not much more, you can get an ugly; but surprisingly functional, setup going for ~$300 and a little linux fiddling.
The other option with good price performance punch is taking advantage of all the DV video cameras that are being upgraded by their owners, or have shot tape-transport mechanisms. All but the ghastliest DV cams will outclass virtually all webcams in terms of optics and sensors, and they all connect via firewire in a standard way. A bit bulky; but if you go after stuff being dumped by "HD" enthusiasts, or hardware with broken tape parts, you can get fairly serious image quality for peanuts.
A "webcam" is typically a USB camera you attach to your PC to do web (video) conferencing.
An "IP cam" is what you're thinking of, which attaches directly to the internet without a separate host.
Now, someone will probably follow up and tell me that "IP cam" is an overloaded term as well.
I've had some of those expensive Axis/Canon PTZ webcams for work. Pretty sweet what you can zoom into.... we could read license plates off cars in the parking lot outside the office building windows.
I think your best bet would be to attach a $100 USB Logitech Orbit to a $200 nettop, perhaps running off an SD card. There are fairly good Linux drivers (including rudimentary PTZ) and fairly decent optical quality for the Logitech webcams (compared to those D-link webcam things, which I've also learned to loathe). So you could get 1280x960 stills at low frame rates (sounds good for what you're doing) and also 30fps 640x480 video, plus audio. If you stick it on a beefier machine, you could even do mpeg4 encoding and streaming using VLC or something.
Has anyone tried the linksys N?
Other than that, I've attached a QuickCam Pro to a dedicated $50 laptop, and left it running. The whole setup cost about 130, and provided decent low-light performance for the time.
The ______ Agenda
Personal experience : The equivalent Logitech camera is way way better than the Microsoft one.
The goggles do nothing!
your little page compares a web cam to a DSLR. In other news, a Corvette smoked a Ford Focus on I95N today, film at 11.
I'd love to know also. I bought a Logitech QuickCam Pro 9000 for about $100 to test out for my White Dots (www.whitedots.org) project, but it had very disappointing performance in low light levels (the only ones that matter for me). Distant planes disappeared in a sea of multi-colored noise.
I second this. The Cinema HD is head and shoulders above the old Lifecam's, and better than anything else I've seen on the market (to date). Catch it on sale you'll pay $50. (And it's easily disassembled for hacking/repurposing.)
The original poster is looking for a replacement for a camera that has pan/tilt/zoom controls.
I think I found what you need.
Alek O. Komarnitsky
(December 2007)
This is a first: an Ethics Hero who emerged from the shadow of an Unethical Website designation. Back in 2004, Alek O. Komarnitsky received national attention for a whimsical holiday website that allowed people all over the world to turn his Christmas lights on from their home computers. Everyone had fun, which was clearly Alek's design. Still, when it became known that his site was a hoax and that the lights going on were only an illusion, the Scoreboard weighed in with the opinion that perpetrating such a large-scale deception was wrong, no matter how well-intentioned. Alek objected, and has maintained a spirited defense of his stunt in e-mail exchanges with the Scoreboard. But you can't keep a Christmas spirit down. At a significant cost in time and money, Alek figured out a way to really let people all over the world turn on his lights, at http://www.komar.org/cgi-bin/christmas_webcam---the very same site that the Scoreboard previously deplored. He has done this for a couple of years now, but has added a new feature in 2007. To quote Jolly Old Alec himself "There are three live webcams and X10 powerline control technology system so web surfers can not only view the action, but also *control* the 17,000 lights. Heck, you can even inflate/deflate the giant Elmo, Frosty, Santa, SpongeBob SquarePants, and Homer SimpsonWhile people around the world (157 countries last year) enjoy seeing the lights ON, environmentalists will be happy to know that they can turn the lights OFF with a click of the mouse. Better yet, this is the 4th year I'm using 100% Wind Energy and even though that is "clean" energy, I even did a Carbon Offset contribution for the 0.61 Tons of CO2 for the ~MegaWatt-Hour of power consumed; that's about the same as one cross-country airline trip. Finally, by providing viewing via webcam, you don't need to burn fossil fuels by driving around to see Christmas lights - Al Gore would be proud! But HEY, the $3/day in electrical costs are well worth the joy it brings to people (especially the kids) when they see the display in person and/or on the web. And new this year is a Hi-Def option, so gather your family around the large screen" The website, Alek reminds us, is free, and also exists to raise awareness of Celiac Disease,which afflicts his two sons as well as many others. He says his lights have raised nearly $20,000 for the cause. I've visited Alek's site, and it is fun, and you can turn the lights on and off, as well as inflate and deflate Homer. You win, Alek! The Scoreboard hereby pardons www.komar.org, and declares you a true Ethics Hero, and a damn persistent one, I must say. Thanks from all us kids, and a very Merry Christmas to you! You've certainly earned it.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Not completely appropo, but sometimes you can find what you're looking for by trying out the not-so-obvious solution.
First, go to your local computer store and get a few generic UVC webcams.
While you're there get a few long USB extension cords. You can get an active one that will let you put your camera a few hundred yards away if you like, or a passive one that will get you to thirty or forty feet.
Now go home and plug in all your cameras, one at a time. You can plug in as many as you have USB ports, and, don't worry, no drivers needed.
For Windows, visit this site to download the "MJPEG Surveillance" program: http://www.brooksyounce.com/. Install it and run "MJPEG Recorder," click the right mouse button, and choose "Add New DirectX Camera." This program will let you adjust most of your camera's parameters including frame rate, and even motion detection and how long to record after motion stops. Jack up the resolution to the highest your camera will support since you're not going to want to record full-motion video in a surveillance situation. Be sure to set the JPEG quality to an acceptable level and put a time stamp in the corner, too, that you can read and won't get smudged by the JPEG compression.
A couple of gigabytes of free space is more than enough to record days of 1280x800 at 85% JPEG quality and 1 FPS. Experiment. The motion detection is key.
For example, at my local Micro Center, you can get a typical, generic UVC 1280x800 webcam for $25 or less. Try the WinBook WB-7144 HD Webcam 2-Pack for $40 or $25 for just one camera. In any case you should not pay more than $25 for a UVC webcam. These cheap units do 1280x800 at 30 frames per second and have autofocus, too, which is unbelievable at this price point. For discretion you may wish to disable the LEDs by disassembling the camera (they pop apart after unscrewing the base) and with a needle-nose pliers remove the two LEDs.
The quality is good for daylight, and rather grainy at nighttime. At these prices, experiment and have fun!!
Kriston
Sure, current Logitech webcams are rather decent (though at most quality levels you can get something cheaper usually (*)); but don't forget that Logitech, being the longtime "leader" of webcams, is almost single-handedly responsible for their stagnation which lasted almost a decade and was interrupted only recently. For almost 10 years they sold to people the same entry level (and most people will of course pick that one) basic design, price and poor quality. Leaving people disgusted with what can be "achieved" by their new webcam...
(*)unless of course you want to use Skype HQ; which is, with willing cooperation of Logitech, restricted to only few webcam of the latter; which only makes things worse in my eyes. Otherwise it's often a safe bet that, say, a Creative webcam will have better quality/price ratio (and understand fully what it means for me to recommend something from Creative - I will never forgive them for Aureal)
One that hath name thou can not otter
I have several infrared high resolution closed circuit security cameras at my home from this company which works well for me www.supercirucits.com. They have some high resolution webcameras that you can see if it works for you http://www.supercircuits.com/search?keywords=ip
After scouring the web for reviews I ordered the Microsoft LifeCam Cinema this morning for $50 from Amazon. It shoots (widescreen) 720p high definition video, is manufactured with all-glass lenses and performs great in low light situations. I was wary of buying a Microsoft product, but the camera is UVC and works out-of-the-box with Linux. Can't wait to get it.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
While using Skype one day I stumbled upon the fact that my nearly 6 year old Panasonic Mini-DV camcorder (PV-GS120) will function as a webcam when it's connected via Firewire. It provides picture quality at or better than an expensive USB webcam, functions well in low light, and has zoom and infrared auto-focus. Turning the built-in LCD around towards the front provides a "view my video" function freeing up my monitor to just display the other party. True, it's not "HD" quality but it serves a new purpose using an outdated camcorder I just had sitting around.
"If it's got a switch... it's my bitch!!"
but it's 609
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-BB-HCM371A-Outdoor-Wireless-Network/dp/B0009PD0ZI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1273093932&sr=1-1
here is the wired PD device (poe 802.3 powered)
for 665
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-BB-HCM735A-Network-splash-resistant-optical/dp/B002PILZV8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1273093861&sr=8-1
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Professionals don't use it nearly as much as they used to these days. They use high resolution and wide angle lenses instead, and do PTZ in software. PTZ was important when your video frame was 480x320 or suchlike. Now you shoot 5 megapixels and pan and zoom digitally.
Depends what kind of grass we are talking about doesn't it? What is grass to some are weed to others ;)
... to paraphrase a certain someone in the IT industry.
In all seriousnessity, check out the Zonet ZVC7630W if 640x480 meets your needs. It runs an embedded Linux kernel with Busybox, supports LAN/WiFi/USB sticks for recording, MJPEG streaming, and has some nifty motion trigger features.
I use a few of these for security cameras and they're pretty easy to weather proof with some caulk and tupperware. My one big complaint however (which might be a showstopper for many on ./) is the built in web features such as 2-way talk require Internet Exploder. It utilizes an ActiveX applet that I haven't been able to get around.
"Powers. I have them."
Been playing around with IP cameras for a few years. For the most part I set up camera systems for friends to monitor their vacation homes during the week. Have tried D-Link, Panasonic, Axis, and lately have been using nothing but Mobotix.
Mobotix is by far the most expensive, but Mobotix has been the most reliable for me. Axis was my 2nd favorite, but I have nothing but lockup problems with Axis cameras requiring the cameras be scripted to reboot every 24 hours.
Folks have touched on a few subjects--wireless is convenient, but such a bandwidth hog. Setup a small office with two wireless parking lot cams. The folks in the office used wireless laptops. None of the laptops could get better than 1.5mbps transfers when the wireless cameras were on. Wired the cameras and everyone was happy. The FPS on the cameras improved dramatically and the four or five folks in the office had speedy internet once again.
Another thing folks touched on--picture quality. Look for a camera with a changeable lens. If you want be able to read a license plate or recognize a face at 25' to 50'--you are going to need a nice lens. Even more so if you want to be able to read the license plate on a moving car at night.
When looking for a nannycam, I wanted something that was wireless with a remote and/or computer controllable for pan and zoom. I was pointed to porn cams, because there are plenty that are used for that where they have remotes and things. I never did find anything, because searching for "cam" and "porn" wouldn't ever get me what I was looking for. Anyone know what a common one is used for that? They shouldn't be too much, and would have some nice features.
It seems the industry has been focused on the cheapest thing that looks good with Skype/MSN/Yahoo type stuff, and very little that's for higher quality or for aiming at anything other than a stationary talking head.
Learn to love Alaska
We have active USB repeaters. These cameras draw very little power. Some of the power is used to run the repeater.
Here's a list of some cheap ones you can use to 16 more feet: http://www.cyberguys.com/product-search/?keyword=usb+extender&gps=60
And here's your 1000-foot USB extender: http://www.networktechinc.com/extenders-usb.html
Again, my goal is thinking how cheap can we keep it so that if things go horribly wrong we just shrug and try again. I have conventional NTSC Lorex and Q-see systems plus some NTSC camera cards but they're a pain in the neck. If you already know computers the UVC USB webcams give so much more picture resolution for so much less money and annoying CMOS camera headaches.
Also, you can install an infrared spotlight. These cameras will pick that light up in the darkness, too (most any camera will).
Have fun!!
Kriston
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.22789
200ft $18 :-)
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
The best sensor in the world won't do jack squat for you if you have crap-tastic optics. For pro-am digital photography the lenses are the limiting factor these days, the sensors are more than good enough. And it's not likely you're going to find a webcam with decent glass, sorry. For that form factor (teeny tiny camera) you're not going to get good quality or low light performance.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
The original Netscape fishcam http://www.fishcam.com/ has gone through several iterations of cameras. It started on a SGI indy with a camera that came with the computer. It then moved to a portable video camera that was fairly old at the time, but had an analog RCA output and was encoded by the SGI. Now it runs on a Stardot NetCam SC5IR The Startdot camera is an embedded linux computer with a 5 MP video camera and high quality interchangeable lenses. The fact that it is a linux machine means you can do lots of creative things, like run a small web server, FTP, NFS, CIFS, scripts, etc. The most important aspect about a camera in my mind is its reliability. I don't want to reset the thing ever if possible. The Stardot has been running for more than a year uninterrupted. The big problem with Stardot cameras is the price. My SC5IR is over $1000 with all the accessories. A cheaper alternative is to set up a video server and use cheap security cameras with CGA resolution. You can get security cameras for $100 each and a cheap video card for ~$200.
> So why hasn't someone taken a sensor with good image quality, downsized to around 1024x768, and put it in a PTZ webcam package with 802.11n wireless for around $500?
They have. Compro (http://www.comprousa.com/en/product/ip540/ip540.html) makes a few, though they don't appear to have reached the US yet. I saw them for around AU$340 at Directron's Australian site.
However, there's a reason why resolution for IP webcams has been relatively slow to increase: light sensitivity and cost. If you stick with CMOS for cost-savings, as a general rule a 1/4" sensor that does 640x480 will output better-quality video in low light than a 1/4" sensor that's 1280x720/960/1024. Also, as the sensor size shrinks, the impact of lens quality and mechanical build increases. That's why 99% of cheap webcams and ip cameras use 1/4" and 1/3" CMOS. It's a sweet spot that's small enough to keep the chip cost down, but large enough to let them get away with sloppy build quality and less than ideal lens designs.
I own one of Compro's cameras (the IP70). It's nice, and it was dirt cheap all things considered ($120 for 1280x1024 resolution), but its "room light" sensitivity is piss poor unless I fall back on its infrared capabilities (which do nasty things to the colors, but work miracles on its ability to effectively produce video under low-light conditions). There's a good reason why all the low-cost cameras have suddenly discovered nightvision-religion: CMOS sensors are actually better at sensing IR than they are at sensing visible light. In fact, until recently, the biggest problem faced by designers of CMOS cameras was how to effectively block infrared light and keep it away from the sensor. It wasn't until someone, somewhere, got the bright idea of letting some of that IR through, and interpreting it as a luminance channel, in a way that was relatively compatible with color video, that it suddenly became useful.
IMHO, an ideal enhancement to the next generation of CMOS cameras would be the ability to sense visible light and near-IR, but keep the IR channel's data separate in the output file. That way, you could rely on the visible light when possible, but enhance it with data from the infrared channel after the fact when necessary, instead of having to make that decision beforehand and live with its consequences forever.
Actually, that reminds me of something else I learned over the weekend: CMOS cameras *LOVE* halogen lights. I had my stairs lit up like a stadium with compact fluorescent lights, and it barely made a difference to the image quality I got from my camera. Then, I read a suggestion from someone online to try replacing one of the 23-watt CFL bulbs with a 40-watt halogen bulb. Good god, it was literally a night and day difference. Reds are badly desaturated (things that reflect red light also tend to reflect near IR, and halogen bulbs emit half their energy as IR), but the detail is razor-sharp. Basically, halogen bulbs give IR-loving CMOS sensors more of the light they crave. Energy-efficient CFL bulbs emit almost no IR, so they starve its sensors. Even though the 40-watt halogen bulb is only about half as (visibly) bright as the 23-watt CFL, it's pumping out more IR than dozens and dozens of discrete camera-mounted IR LEDs.
gphoto2
Set it up as a cron job.
I have had an old 4Mp nikon taking a photo of our fish tank every 10 minutes for several years now.
Oh, you will need a power adapter for your camera, the batteries don't last that long. Ebay.
like so...
rm fish.jpg
gphoto2 --delete-all-files
gphoto2 --set-config flash=2 #No flash - pisses off the fish.
gphoto2 --capture-image
gphoto2 --get-all-files
mv *.JPG fish.jpg
mogrify -size 800x600 fish.jpg
upload to server.
Not live like a webcam, but depends on your needs.
Zapsavings: Simply calculate how much energy efficient bulb
For low-end machine vision, there's one obvious product to suggest: CMUcam ( http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~cmucam/ )
Another option that's not quite as widely known, but is slightly different (better in some ways, worse in others, depending on what you're looking for) is the AVRcam ( http://www.jrobot.net/Projects/AVRcam.html ).
Both are basically NTSC/PAL-type monochrome video cameras with a dedicated processor that does things like object-recognition for you and alerts you when it thinks you'll be interested. Neither is likely to be appropriate for astrophotography, but either one will probably do the job nicely if you want to let your robot find a ping pong ball or navigate a maze.