Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49

Thread: P2P IP Camera recommendations wrt software and hardware ?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,004

    Default Re: P2P IP Camera recommendations wrt software and hardware ?

    You should consider the fact that a low resolution, low update speed cam like Foscam FI9810W also makes it a lot harder to identify people.

    I wouldn't consider anything lower than 720p/15fps for any real surveillance nowadays.
    .: miuku #suse @ irc.freenode.net
    :: miuku@opensuse.org

    .: h​ttps://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/Miuku/

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,015

    Default Re: P2P IP Camera recommendations wrt software and hardware ?

    I don't have any idea that fits in to your budget. If you getting up in price I would recommend Axis cameras. I have a Axis2100 bought 2001 on my lan and its watching my yard. Running Linux with built in webserver. Its old now but still working. God luck in your search.

    Regards
    I'm shameless like others in the forum -was I to any help or made sense? If yes: click the on the star below to the left. Written whit a ;-) in my eye.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    25,547

    Default Re: P2P IP Camera recommendations wrt software and hardware ?

    On 2014-08-03 13:26, oldcpu wrote:
    >
    > robin_listas;2657155 Wrote:
    >>
    >> Even if the cameras are inside the house, there may be regulations. In
    >> my country, they have to be registered with the police and the data
    >> protection agency - because they can "accidentally" record someone that
    >> "happens" to be inside your house, like a visitor or a thief.
    >>

    >
    > I researched this, and as near as I can tell in Germany, if the IP
    > camera is only looking inside my apartment, it is perfectly legal.
    > However if it is looking outside my apartment to a public area, then a
    > permit may be required < not sure > . Since I intend to use this for
    > surveillance inside my apartment (pointed a the door/entrance), I don't
    > see a problem currently. Plus, I don't really plan to set this up for
    > any permanent internal surveillance, but rather I am just trying to
    > teach myself about technical issues, and learn a bit about
    > 'requirements' through some basic experience.


    Regulations for each country differ.

    For instance, if I have a non registered camera recording strictly
    inside my house, there is a robbery, and the camera registers the face
    of the guy, and the fact, it can not be used in court at all. You need
    independent proofs, like fingerprints and such. You may even need to
    prove that the police seeked for the guy without using the photos.

    Also, if the camera is hidden and records a friend or a visitor, even
    totally innocent pictures, he can sue me for recording his picture
    without telling him in advance. There has to be a notice in the premises
    saying that there are recording cameras in action.



    For instance, I wanted to have a camera pointing just to the outside of
    my door, to find out from my chair who is ringing the bell; even from
    the "hole" in the door, the ringer button location is too far for me to
    recognize the face without opening - then to find out that they want to
    sell me broomsticks!

    Well, I had to back out.

    I can replace the "hole" and lenses in the door with a digital camera
    and display, with battery, and no recording device. That's legal. But it
    has no zoom and thus it is useless to me. And it can not be connected to
    the computer (or the mobile phone) at the other end of the house, so
    that I have to get up, anyway... Imagine that I'm having a siesta, get
    up, and find a broom-seller.



    A very interesting usage is just surveillance cameras, to find out if
    your house is still there, when you are in a trip...



    --
    Cheers / Saludos,

    Carlos E. R.

    (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith))

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    25,547

    Default Re: P2P IP Camera recommendations wrt software and hardware ?

    On 2014-08-03 14:06, Miuku wrote:

    > I wouldn't consider anything lower than 720p/15fps for any real
    > surveillance nowadays.


    Verisure uses far less. :-(

    --
    Cheers / Saludos,

    Carlos E. R.

    (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith))

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    26,549
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: P2P IP Camera recommendations wrt software and hardware ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Miuku View Post
    You should consider the fact that a low resolution, low update speed cam like Foscam FI9810W also makes it a lot harder to identify people.

    I wouldn't consider anything lower than 720p/15fps for any real surveillance nowadays.
    Indeed that was my view to start with, and still mostly my view.

    I should note that that "real" full time surveillance is not my initial goal.

    Instead I do note I want to initially start 'playing' with this to learn , and if I set myself too big a challenge, I won't succeed and I'll simply give up. The first "hill" needs to be NOT too big such that it completely discourages me from trying further to climb after a failed first few attempts.

    A big concern I have is if there is no GNU/Linux compatibility with a 720p then that is mostly a show stopper for me. A poor quality 480p that works is in my books superior to a 720p that does not work, despite it being painful to type that

    The initial Reviews on Amazon of the FI9821W (which is a 720p) had some very strong statements from GNU/Linux users that the FI9821W did not work with any GNU/Linux browser. Even Windows and Mac users were struggling with their browsers where they had plugins. The Windows/Mac plugins did not work with GNU/Linux, and without the browser plugins it was commented that the FI9821W camera could not be used from a browser in any OS.

    ... but it appears now there could be more to this ...

    I am now going through the Foscam forum, and have stumbled across posts by a user who goes by the handle "TheUberOverLord" who appears to be providing HTML code that can be used by a GNU/Linux browser to get some sort of functionality/control over the FI9821W with GNU/Linux : http://foscam.us/forum/free-generic-...ras-t4341.html Its a massive thread, started in February-2013 with last post in May-2014. It will take time to review that thread. Its not clear to me which of the FI9821W's features are available to GNU/Linux users from a browser using "TheUberOverLoad's" HTML code, nor given last post in May, if "TheUberOverLord" is moving on to other activities, and is about to stop working on this.
    .

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    25,547

    Default Re: P2P IP Camera recommendations wrt software and hardware ?

    On 2014-08-03 15:06, oldcpu wrote:
    >
    > Miuku;2657236 Wrote:
    >> You should consider the fact that a low resolution, low update speed cam
    >> like Foscam FI9810W also makes it a lot harder to identify people.
    >>
    >> I wouldn't consider anything lower than 720p/15fps for any real
    >> surveillance nowadays.

    >
    > Indeed that was my view to start with, and still mostly my view.


    Mmm.

    720*500*15*3 = 16200000 bytes per second

    Very rough estimate. But it is clear they need high compression in order
    to send via network. Plain 100 cable would not suffice for uncompressed
    video.

    That may be the reason they use solutions that require "special"
    browsers :-?

    --
    Cheers / Saludos,

    Carlos E. R.

    (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith))

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    26,549
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: P2P IP Camera recommendations wrt software and hardware ?

    Quote Originally Posted by robin_listas View Post
    For instance, if I have a non registered camera recording strictly inside my house, there is a robbery, and the camera registers the face of the guy, and the fact, it can not be used in court at all. You need independent proofs, like fingerprints and such. You may even need to prove that the police seeked for the guy without using the photos.
    I checked that wrt Germany, and as near I can determine, this can be used in court in Germany.

    Quote Originally Posted by robin_listas View Post
    Also, if the camera is hidden and records a friend or a visitor, even totally innocent pictures, he can sue me for recording his picture without telling him in advance. There has to be a notice in the premises saying that there are recording cameras in action.
    I could find no reference to German law here. But to me it would be unethical to take secret videos and/or pictures of someone who is visiting my wife and I at our place (when we are home) and so my approach would be to put a cloth over the camera when my wife and I are home.

    wrt obtaining surveillance, as part of the things we would do when leaving the house (we each have a check list) we would remove the cloth so the IP-camera can now view the door from the inside. The camera would only take videos of my wife and I as we come and go, or videos of anyone who is illegal. If we give anyone special access to our place when we are gone, we will of course tell them of the camera.

    The following PDF is a bit old, but it provides some information: http://www.surveillance-and-society....regulation.pdf

    ... and as noted , I am now convinced I am 100% legal here and I am now focusing on the technical.
    Last edited by oldcpu; 03-Aug-2014 at 07:18.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    26,549
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: P2P IP Camera recommendations wrt software and hardware ?

    Quote Originally Posted by robin_listas View Post
    Mmm.

    720*500*15*3 = 16200000 bytes per second

    Very rough estimate. But it is clear they need high compression in order to send via network. Plain 100 cable would not suffice for uncompressed video.

    That may be the reason they use solutions that require "special" browsers :-?
    I'm still digging to understand this. I did read that one reason Foscam (and other IP-camera suppliers) have gone to h264 is achieve maximum compression for video/file storage. The Foscam IP-cameras I have been looking at have an SD-slot where one can put up to a 32-GB SD card (recommended class-6 or higher by Foscam). I read one user note that after a day, only a very small number of files were present and he thought he could go for many days. And I read of another user who moaned that after 1-day of use, the 32-GB card was full. Identical IP-cameras (720p). Two completely different assessments. My only conclusion can be that they have their IP-cameras configured differently.

    wrt special browser, I read it depends on the IP-camera as even with Foscam they can have different plugins for different cameras. One user complained that the plugin required significant permissions on their Windows PC that they did not like to give. Foscam replied the reason the plugin has to have more than basic plugin requirements is so it can manually record to the hard drive. Foscam assured the user that these camera's and their plugins are self contained and send no information to Foscam.

    Another user noted Foscam has not registered their extensions, which are required to run on any browser, with any of the browser companies. So, Chrome does not work. Foscam noted their older MJPEG cameras required the use of Internet Explorer to use the 2 way audio feature. They claimed they are currently working on getting the plugin approved and added to the Google Chrome Store.

    Of course none of these plugins are GNU-Linux compatible.

    As noted in my previous post, a user has GNU-Linux browsers working with the Foscam FI9821W camera:



    but they also note to initially setup the camera, one needs to use MS-Windows with a browser with the right plugin, or I think the Mac iOS safari browser with the right plugin. I've also read the plugins can be a bit flakey, but that could be users messing up, as opposed to the plugin fault. Its really hard to tell when reading these things.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,015

    Default Re: P2P IP Camera recommendations wrt software and hardware ?

    I got interested and check it up what the law here. Sins a year ago we have a new law in place:
    -if you have a camera inside or watching private property outside and in places where the public dont have access'(like home) and not watching public areas its ok.

    So I'm ok .

    "There has to be a notice in the premises saying that there are recording cameras in action.". I not shore if that is relevant any longer at home. I could be wrong.

    Regards
    I'm shameless like others in the forum -was I to any help or made sense? If yes: click the on the star below to the left. Written whit a ;-) in my eye.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    26,549
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: P2P IP Camera recommendations wrt software and hardware ?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonte1 View Post
    I don't have any idea that fits in to your budget. If you getting up in price I would recommend Axis cameras. I have a Axis2100 bought 2001 on my lan and its watching my yard. Running Linux with built in webserver. Its old now but still working. God luck in your search.
    I took a brief look at AxisM10 series: http://www.axis.com/products/m10_series/

    AXIS M1025, M1014, AXIS M1004-W, M1033-W, M1034-W and AXIS M1054 are significantly outside even a big extension to my budget.

    If I extend my budget by 50% AXIS M1013 would be at the very upper limit. The AXIS M1013 has a resolution of 800x600 and low light performance of 1.2 lux. I note no audio. I would need to research it some more to see if extended my budget 50% is worth while - given it appears to have less features.

    Still GNU/Linux compatibility means a lot to me which causes me to not reject M1013 outright (just yet).

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •