[gentoo-user] OT: WebCam? Second Edition

[gentoo-user] OT: WebCam? Second Edition

[meino.cramer]

Hi,

Sorry for being offtopic. In the meanwhile -- while
trying to get my webcam working I got that many
contradictionary and partly outdated informations
from the web that I did not know anymore what I
know or not...

I searched a lot of stuff and found a lot of stuff but
the sources are often of 2007 and or old kernels. Links
of that sites goes into nothing and the software does
not run anymore or is not able to be compiled successfully.

That is the reason why posting here.

Current status:
WebCam: Logitech Quickcam Pro for Notebooks, 2009er model
which is not affected by the firmware bug of previous versions
of the same cam.

Kernel: 2.6.30.3, vanilla sources from ftp.kernel.org

Video interface: Newest Xorg-Server (Gentoo) with newest
NVidia-driver (Gentoo), and (accoriding to lspci) this
graphics card: nVidia Corporation GeForce 7600 GT (rev a2)

As driver I used the one deleivered with the kernel.

The Cam is recognized and activated ... sometimes.
With cheese I can watch the video image and stream ... sometimes.

But I cannot get above 10...15fps with reasonable resolutions
like 640x480 or 800x600. Even 320x240 gives me only 10...15fps.
And the stream get really jurky when recorded.

Before I buy again a camera, which is _/said/_ to work with linux
with 25 fps at at least 640x480 and fails to do so:
I need a WebCam with good image quality to watch/record birds.
Since theese are fast animals :) framerates of 10...15fps are
no option.

Is there anyone out there, who owns a WebCam, which definetly 
_works_ with a resolution of at least 640x480 and 25fps or above 
and which has a good image quality under a recent linux?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH IN ADVANCE FOR ANY HELP !

Have a nice weekend!
Kind regards,
Meino Cramer

-- 
Please don't send me any Word- or Powerpoint-Attachments
unless it's absolutely neccessary. - Send simply Text.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
In a world without fences and walls nobody needs gates and windows.

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: WebCam? Second Edition

[Stroller]

On 26 Jul 2009, at 05:35, meino.cramer@gmx.de wrote:
> Current status:
> WebCam...
> I cannot get above 10...15fps with reasonable resolutions
> like 640x480 or 800x600. Even 320x240 gives me only 10...15fps.
> And the stream get really jurky when recorded.
>
> Before I buy again a camera, which is _/said/_ to work with linux
> with 25 fps at at least 640x480 and fails to do so:
> I need a WebCam with good image quality to watch/record birds.
> Since theese are fast animals :) framerates of 10...15fps are
> no option.
>
> Is there anyone out there, who owns a WebCam, which definetly
> _works_ with a resolution of at least 640x480 and 25fps or above
> and which has a good image quality under a recent linux?

What else do you have on the USB bus?

AIUI the Playstation "Eye" camera is pretty good quality - certainly  
looks that way to me - and is known for pretty much maxing out the bus  
it's on. I believe it will suffer if it's plugged into a USB hub, or  
if anything else is plugged into the same USB bus - AIUI this may even  
include the adjacent USB port on the back of the PC.

That camera appears to be about the same sort of resolution as the one  
you're talking about, so you may find the same issues affect you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation_Eye

You also need to be sure your USB ports are of the current generation,  
and not the older slower type.

It is rather a shame that firewire was less successful - I appreciate  
the cheapness & ubiquity of USB, but AIUI firewire does not suffer  
from quite the same bandwidth issues.

You can pick up these Playstation "Eye" cameras for about £20 or £25,  
although you may find the angle of view a little wide for birdwatching.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: WebCam? Second Edition

[meino.cramer]

Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> [09-07-26 10:46]:
> 
> On 26 Jul 2009, at 05:35, meino.cramer@gmx.de wrote:
> >Current status:
> >WebCam...
> >I cannot get above 10...15fps with reasonable resolutions
> >like 640x480 or 800x600. Even 320x240 gives me only 10...15fps.
> >And the stream get really jurky when recorded.
> >
> >Before I buy again a camera, which is _/said/_ to work with linux
> >with 25 fps at at least 640x480 and fails to do so:
> >I need a WebCam with good image quality to watch/record birds.
> >Since theese are fast animals :) framerates of 10...15fps are
> >no option.
> >
> >Is there anyone out there, who owns a WebCam, which definetly
> >_works_ with a resolution of at least 640x480 and 25fps or above
> >and which has a good image quality under a recent linux?
> 
> What else do you have on the USB bus?
> 
> AIUI the Playstation "Eye" camera is pretty good quality - certainly 
> looks that way to me - and is known for pretty much maxing out the bus 
> it's on. I believe it will suffer if it's plugged into a USB hub, or if 
> anything else is plugged into the same USB bus - AIUI this may even 
> include the adjacent USB port on the back of the PC.
> 
> That camera appears to be about the same sort of resolution as the one 
> you're talking about, so you may find the same issues affect you:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation_Eye
> 
> You also need to be sure your USB ports are of the current generation, 
> and not the older slower type.
> 
> It is rather a shame that firewire was less successful - I appreciate 
> the cheapness & ubiquity of USB, but AIUI firewire does not suffer from 
> quite the same bandwidth issues.
> 
> You can pick up these Playstation "Eye" cameras for about £20 or £25, 
> although you may find the angle of view a little wide for birdwatching.
> 
> Stroller.
> 
> 

Thank you for your reply, Scroller!
I used usbview to check for the kind of connection to the camera:
480 MBit/s (HighSpeed).
The bus the cam is using is not used by anything else...

Sometimes it completly locks up an gstreamer, which is used by cheese,
sends its test-picture...

There NO technical specifications in the booklet of the cam.

I wonder why...

What's about the pictire quality of the Playstation "Eye" Cam,
Scroller? Ok? Good? Better? Best??? ;)))

Meino



-- 
Please don't send me any Word- or Powerpoint-Attachments
unless it's absolutely neccessary. - Send simply Text.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
In a world without fences and walls nobody needs gates and windows.

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: WebCam? Second Edition

[Stroller]

On 26 Jul 2009, at 10:12, meino.cramer@gmx.de wrote:
> ...
> What's about the pictire quality of the Playstation "Eye" Cam,
> Scroller? Ok? Good? Better? Best??? ;)))

Well, I haven't tried it under Linux, and I'm afraid I can't easily do  
so either.

I'll also disclaim myself as not an expert by any means on the subject  
of webcams, but to my eyes the picture was really good when I tried it  
with the PS3 and on Windows. I think I compared it with my Macbook's  
built-in webcam (Windows XP, Apple's bootcamp drivers) & the  
Playstation Eye was better (also XP, 3rd-party hacker's drivers). I  
have seen the output of plenty of cheap & nasty webcams, and I would  
say this is in a better class.

For your application the quality of image indoors & in low-light  
(which I think is quite good) may not be an advantage; you may find  
both zoom settings may be quite wide.

But this camera seems quite good quality and feels well made; Linux  
drivers are available although I've no idea how good they are.

I mentioned this cam in my previous message because I read that it  
maxes out the USB bus.  But if you want to play around with webcams,  
it can also be picked up quite cheaply - I paid £20 for it (included  
with the Eye of Judgement card game) at Christmas, and I've seen it  
more recently for £25.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: WebCam? Second Edition

[Paul Hartman]

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:35 PM, <meino.cramer@gmx.de> wrote:
> WebCam: Logitech Quickcam Pro for Notebooks, 2009er model
> which is not affected by the firmware bug of previous versions
> of the same cam.

First, check the info and forums at http://www.quickcamteam.net/ if
you have not already. Lots of good info and Logitech developers there.

Try to disable the auto exposure and low-light features. It really
kills the frame rate. CPU load of processing and displaying live video
is also prohibitive on slower hardware.

I have a Quickcam Pro 9000 which I believe is very similar to the
notebook version you have, maybe the same chipset. I, too, was very
disappointed with the video quality considering the reviews, the
marketing "HD video 1600x1200",  and the cost. I expected it to look
like a camcorder, but it is basically crap. I even attached it to a
Windows machine using the official Logitech drivers and software and
it is equally unimpressive. Based on all of the reviews online it
seems this is one of the best consumer webcams (without getting into
very expensive professional equipment).

In a dim room, even with normal indoor lighting, I get about 5fps with
the auto-exposure/low-light features enabled. With bright light it's
about 15fps. Disabling those features should give you the highest
frame rate but, of course, they make the image look much better at the
expense of frame rate. It has been a very long time since I used it
but I think all of these settings were able to be controled via
luvcview for testing. Good luck, I think I had some hairs turn gray
trying to make it look good...