Looking for a Wireless Video Camera

I just installed a LinkSys WRT54GL router and would like to find a
video camera that transmits to my computer through this router. I
would have thought there were dozens of wireless webcams that did
this. So far the only one I've found is this one
http://tinyurl.com/yuzpa4 and the user reports on it are AWFUL.

Is this the only one?

-- jim

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:29:12 -0500, jim evans
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>I just installed a LinkSys WRT54GL router and would like to find a
>video camera that transmits to my computer through this router. I
>would have thought there were dozens of wireless webcams that did
>this. So far the only one I've found is this one
>http://tinyurl.com/yuzpa4 and the user reports on it are AWFUL.
>
>Is this the only one?

<http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Wireless-802-11-Network-BL-C30A/dp/B0002GS4ZA/ref=pd_sim_e_1/104-0660846-1093550>
or <http://tinyurl.com/35adl4>

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:08:41 GMT, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:29:12 -0500, jim evans
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
><(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>I just installed a LinkSys WRT54GL router and would like to find a
>>video camera that transmits to my computer through this router. I
>>would have thought there were dozens of wireless webcams that did
>>this. So far the only one I've found is this one
>>http://tinyurl.com/yuzpa4 and the user reports on it are AWFUL.
>>
>>Is this the only one?
>
><http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Wireless-802-11-Network-BL-C30A/dp/B0002GS4ZA/ref=pd_sim_e_1/104-0660846-1093550>
>or <http://tinyurl.com/35adl4>

Less expensive but still very good:
<http://www.smarthome.com/971383.html>

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:29:12 -0500, jim evans
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I just installed a LinkSys WRT54GL router and would like to find a
>video camera that transmits to my computer through this router. I
>would have thought there were dozens of wireless webcams that did
>this. So far the only one I've found is this one
>http://tinyurl.com/yuzpa4 and the user reports on it are AWFUL.
>
>Is this the only one?

No, there are many more. See:
<http://www.networkcamerareviews.com>
Unfortunatly, I have no idea what are your requirements, so no
specific recommendation.

My favorites are the various camera servers, using either video
camcorders, NTSC video cameras, or digital cameras. The optics and
technology are generally superior to any of the golf ball type of
cameras. If you need wireless, just add an "ethernet wireless client
bridge". Yeah, it's more expensive but if you want quality images, it
going to cost more.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Thanks for the replies. I wonder why I didn't see these in my google
search?


On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:12:28 GMT, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:08:41 GMT, John Navas
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
><(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:29:12 -0500, jim evans
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>><(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>
>>>I just installed a LinkSys WRT54GL router and would like to find a
>>>video camera that transmits to my computer through this router. I
>>>would have thought there were dozens of wireless webcams that did
>>>this. So far the only one I've found is this one
>>>http://tinyurl.com/yuzpa4 and the user reports on it are AWFUL.
>>>
>>>Is this the only one?
>>
>><http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Wireless-802-11-Network-BL-C30A/dp/B0002GS4ZA/ref=pd_sim_e_1/104-0660846-1093550>
>>or <http://tinyurl.com/35adl4>
>
>Less expensive but still very good:
><http://www.smarthome.com/971383.html>


-- jim

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:29:12 -0500, jim evans
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I just installed a LinkSys WRT54GL router and would like to find a
>> video camera that transmits to my computer through this router. I
>> would have thought there were dozens of wireless webcams that did
>> this. So far the only one I've found is this one
>> http://tinyurl.com/yuzpa4 and the user reports on it are AWFUL.
>>
>> Is this the only one?
>
> No, there are many more. See:
> <http://www.networkcamerareviews.com>
> Unfortunatly, I have no idea what are your requirements, so no
> specific recommendation.
>
> My favorites are the various camera servers, using either video
> camcorders, NTSC video cameras, or digital cameras. The optics and
> technology are generally superior to any of the golf ball type of
> cameras. If you need wireless, just add an "ethernet wireless client
> bridge". Yeah, it's more expensive but if you want quality images, it
> going to cost more.
>
>

Thats pretty accurate, I know someone who setup those low end cameras in
their building and they were all excited when they could pop a picture
up in a web browser not realizing how bad the quality was. They had a
break in last week and it was impossible to make out any real details.

What was your Google search? Try something like
(wireless OR wi-fi OR "802.11g") network camera

p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
-- it's confusing. Thanks.

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:10:49 -0500, jim evans
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>Thanks for the replies. I wonder why I didn't see these in my google
>search?
>
>
>On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:12:28 GMT, John Navas
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:08:41 GMT, John Navas
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>><(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:29:12 -0500, jim evans
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>><(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>>
>>>>I just installed a LinkSys WRT54GL router and would like to find a
>>>>video camera that transmits to my computer through this router. I
>>>>would have thought there were dozens of wireless webcams that did
>>>>this. So far the only one I've found is this one
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/yuzpa4 and the user reports on it are AWFUL.
>>>>
>>>>Is this the only one?
>>>
>>><http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Wireless-802-11-Network-BL-C30A/dp/B0002GS4ZA/ref=pd_sim_e_1/104-0660846-1093550>
>>>or <http://tinyurl.com/35adl4>
>>
>>Less expensive but still very good:
>><http://www.smarthome.com/971383.html>
>
>
>-- jim

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

George <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>> My favorites are the various camera servers, using either video
>> camcorders, NTSC video cameras, or digital cameras. The optics and
>> technology are generally superior to any of the golf ball type of
>> cameras. If you need wireless, just add an "ethernet wireless client
>> bridge". Yeah, it's more expensive but if you want quality images, it
>> going to cost more.

>Thats pretty accurate, I know someone who setup those low end cameras in
>their building and they were all excited when they could pop a picture
>up in a web browser not realizing how bad the quality was. They had a
>break in last week and it was impossible to make out any real details.

One of my customers is a local security outfit, that sells cameras and
recorders. The owner is fairly technical and responsible for
selecting and purchasing more junk from obscure sources than I've ever
suspected existed. In frustration, he once declared the entire
industry to be a huge conspiracy to unload useless hardware and
exhorbitant prices. In a fit of temporary insanity, I volunteered to
find a usable combination, at a bottom of the line price. I dragged
in a cheap 4 camera server
<http://www.aviosys.com/ip9100aplus.htm>
and started experimenting with anything I could find that would belch
NTSC video. I displayed each camera in 4 quadrants on the screen and
invited the employees to vote on their favorites. The winner was
various high end digital cameras with automatic iris, auto focus, and
a wide focal length lens. 2nd best were various camcorders with
roughly the same features, but fewer megapixels. Absolute bottom of
the line was a USB CMOS camera which required a seperate camera server
for the test, and looked terrible.

However, I got a few suprises during the testing. Lighting was
critical. There's no way to get a decent picture of a person entering
a store if the lighting through the windows goes right into the camera
lens. They look like a black shadow moving through the offices.
That's why you want to mount cameras as high as possible near the
ceiling.

Another suprise was the effect of software. One of the packages I
tried had a nifty feature, where it would detect motion and increase
the frame rate to 60fps (not 30fps). It would also bracket the
exposure and focus. There were some other enhancements which I don't
want to go into. The idea was NOt to give the best compromise
picture, but rather to give the best series of frames which could
later be decomposed into stills. The results were impressive.
Although some of the photos were fuzzy and over/under exposed, there
were a few that were absolutely perfect.

There was also a nifty system that would follow a moving target
through the office or store. That was fun to play with, but resulted
in a series of fuzzy pictures as the image capture wasn't fast enough.
I think a bigger lens or faster server might have fixed this problem.

One observation, that I'm not sure is correct, is that the bigger the
lens, the better the picture when inspected frame by frame. It might
be a possible improved depth of field, but I never bothered to measure
or calculate the depth of field.

I'm still learning (by destroying) how all this works. One lesson is
clear. One does NOT get a decent image from a $30 CMOS camera, with a
junk lens, built into a $60 wireless bridge or server.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:07:54 -0400, George <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
in <(E-Mail Removed)>:

>Thats pretty accurate, I know someone who setup those low end cameras in
>their building and they were all excited when they could pop a picture
>up in a web browser not realizing how bad the quality was. They had a
>break in last week and it was impossible to make out any real details.

What? You mean they didn't know about the software Hollywood uses to
magically improve these images on crime shows and movies? LOL Humor
aside, it actually _can_ be possible to improve images from security
cameras when multiple frames are taken of a given static target,
algorithmically comparing frames to remove noise.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:55:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>Another suprise was the effect of software. One of the packages I
>tried had a nifty feature, where it would detect motion and increase
>the frame rate to 60fps (not 30fps). It would also bracket the
>exposure and focus. There were some other enhancements which I don't
>want to go into. The idea was NOt to give the best compromise
>picture, but rather to give the best series of frames which could
>later be decomposed into stills. The results were impressive.
>Although some of the photos were fuzzy and over/under exposed, there
>were a few that were absolutely perfect.

When there are multiple frames of the same static target, software can
greatly improve an image by over-sampling, algorithmically merging
multiple frames into a single image.

>One observation, that I'm not sure is correct, is that the bigger the
>lens, the better the picture when inspected frame by frame. It might
>be a possible improved depth of field, but I never bothered to measure
>or calculate the depth of field.

What matters most is the sharpness of the lens, not the size. Low end
cameras tend to have cheap crap plastic lenses that produce crap images.

The _diameter_ of the lens is related to both sensor size and light
gathering power, with larger (wider, faster) lenses doing a better job
in low light. The drawback of a faster lens is shallower depth of
field, making focus more critical.

Cheap cameras tend to use small cheap sensors behind fixed focal length
lenses with shallow depth of field, resulting is blurry images, and
relatively slow speed, resulting in noisy images. Better cameras use
larger and more sensitive sensors behind faster auto-focus lenses,
albeit with some risk of the camera focusing on the wrong target.

The _length_ of the lens is related to mechanical zoom range, with
larger (longer) lenses have a longer zoom range.

>I'm still learning (by destroying) how all this works. One lesson is
>clear. One does NOT get a decent image from a $30 CMOS camera, with a
>junk lens, built into a $60 wireless bridge or server.

Agreed. I'd say the absolute minimum is about $100, with $200
(Panasonic BL-C20A) - $300 (Panasonic BL-C30A) for good results.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>