Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

LAN Camera Review 103

Posted by timothy from the please-mind-your-ps-and-qs dept.
xulphlux writes "The guys over at Tom's Hardware have an excellent review of 4 LAN cameras. While not currently commonplace as of yet, they have good potential for relatively low cost security uses. Keep an eye on the kids outside, your sports car out front, or the good looking girl next door... A couple even have built in 802.11b so no need for wires."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LAN Camera Review More

LAN Camera Review

Comments Filter:

  • lan cameras are FUN! (Score:3, Informative)

    by laymil ( 14940 ) <laymil@obsolescence.net> on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @05:03AM (#4317933) Homepage
    lan cameras are ultra fun. you can use them for a variety of applications: security, relief of boredom. we've been using an AXIS 200+ (which unfortunately doesn't do video) to keep an eye on things. if you'd like to check it out it can be accessed here [obsolescence.net]. if anyone knows of any hacks to let the cam do video or upgrade anything, it would be much appreciated.
  • "A couple even have built in 802.11b so no need for wires."

    Ah...so they must send power over the ether....

    • Re:"no wires??" (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Some of use use these nify things called batteries.

      A lithium ion battery on one of those puppies and a transmitter make them cool.

      But why lan at camera point, rather wireless transmit and ccd -> lan at a remote base. Would make more sense - a la x10 camera's.

      Lawrence.
      www.shanghaiguide.com
      • Some of use use these nify things called batteries. A lithium ion battery on one of those puppies and a transmitter make them cool.
        This table [tomshardware.com] says all four of them consume more than half a dozen watts. The D-link, the "wireless" one, consumes 6.5 watts. How big a battery did you have in mind, and how often did you plan to replace it with a charged one?

        The axis one runs linux. Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of those?

        • Re:Nifty battery power? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by kesuki ( 321456 )
          There are plenty of solar pannels that can deliver 6.5 watts, or better, so a solar panel + Lithium Ion battery pack, and you've got a webcam that can pretty much run all day, with essentially no wires. the battery enables it to run even on cloudy days, although if you want the cam to run 24/7 you need to have it plugged in, or else you'd have problems with outages.
          And for what it's worth, none of the cameras are housed for outdoor usage either, so basically the point is that everyone has power outlets everywhere inside their house, but not everyone has an ethernet jack right next to each and every power outlet for 'convenience' sake. Besides, don't you want that girl next door to be pulling out her laptop, browsing for 802.11b networks, and find to her shock that her bedroom window is currently being broadcast across a wireless webcam ;-) (BTW the 802.11b access can be overridden for cabled use too)

  • AXIS runs linux (Score:4, Informative)

    by bodin ( 2097 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @05:06AM (#4317938) Homepage
    If it is not clear enough, you should know that Axis [axis.com] supports the community and actually runs embedded Linux with features like NTP, FTP, SMTP and dial-up-when-triggered-by-external-switch and other nifty features.

    • Yeah but... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I bought 3 of these cameras about 18 months ago and ended up returning them. The image quality was very poor (grainy) unless you had ideal lighting and the maximum refresh rate of the camera was a pathetic 10 frames per second. If you just want to take 1 frame every 60 seconds and can live with images that need to be imported into photoshop and ran through a series of lighting adjustment filters before you can distinguish anything, then go for it.

      In my opinion these types of cameras are the future... but currently they are little more than useless toys for people who have money to burn. If, like me, you have a real need for security monitoring, these cameras aren't the answer... yet. Hopefully in another 18 months the price will come down and the features and quality will go up. I'd like to see all of these cameras have LAN/WLAN & USB, Tilt/Pan/Zoom, and the big thing is decent image quality under low lighting. ViCAM [vistaimaging.com] has figured it out, so if "they" can't figure out how to get good image quality under poor lighting, then juse use ViCAM's chipset and optics. My $100 3Com webcam (which was manufacturered by those guys) is far better, quality wise, than those LAN cams I've tried.

  • Uh (Score:5, Funny)

    by cscx ( 541332 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @05:08AM (#4317941) Homepage
    or the good looking girl next door

    Uhh... this treads into "pervert" land. You know, you could just try talking to her, I've heard it works sometimes. :)

    • Re:Uh (Score:1, Funny)

      by longhairedgnome ( 610579 )
      that sir is a lie

    • Re:Uh (Score:5, Funny)

      by nagora ( 177841 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @05:24AM (#4317963)
      You know, you could just try talking to her, I've heard it works sometimes. :)

      Yeah, the wife will like that just fine!

      TWW

      • Re:Uh (Score:2)

        by Gumber ( 17306 )
        You know, you could just try talking to her, I've heard it works sometimes. :)

        Yeah, the wife will like that just fine!


        I'm sure the wife will be much happier if you watch the girl next door with a video camera, rather than chatting with her.

    • Re:Uh (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      you could just try talking to her, I've heard it works sometimes.

      For those who consider pointing a webcam at her, it doesn't. Will there be a Slashdot story about the hacker of the female persuasion who roots the network cam pointed at her?

  • I do manual checkups on the girl next door =)

  • Give 'em a REAL test (Score:3, Funny)

    by EvilStein ( 414640 ) <spam@BALDWINpbp.net minus author> on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @05:14AM (#4317949)
    They have embedded web servers?

    Which one will get /.'ed first? Which one bursts into flames first?

    The Axis one was $299.. they've really come down in price over the past couple of years.
  • All I can say is that for over $400 the girl next door better have a great ass!

  • Too slow (Score:2, Insightful)

    by abhikhurana ( 325468 )
    Following up on our discussion of 802.11b, the kind og bandwidth that one can normally get from 802.11b is not reaally enough for high quality video. So if U are just monitoring ppl, then its fine...but if U really wanna see them( like in the case of the neighbourhood girl), I guess 802.11b wont really work for me :-)

    • We actually just recently did a demonstration of streaming video of rather high quality at the Houston Wireless Users Group [houstonwireless.org] meeting. Parts of the presentation are here [houstonwireless.org] and the quality was extremely good (full-screen, 30fps). It was done with multicast to a coffee house full of users, while we all surfed the web, etc. No bandwidth problems.
    • True, 802.11b is too slow for high quality video. But so are all of those cameras. 640x480 max resolution? And you know you don't get full framerate at that resolution. Unless specifically stated otherwise, you should assume that max stated framerate is at minimum stated resolution, and the framerate for higher resolutions decreases proportionately to the resolution increase.

      802.11b can handle 10fps at 640x480, jpegged. But I'd hardly call that "high quality video". And that's certainly about all you'll get out of any of these cameras.

  • are yiou nuts? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @05:30AM (#4317978) Homepage
    relatively low cost? what?

    These cameras are at least 2-3 times more expensive than a regular camera and the required equipment to do it the regular way.

    These lan cameras are the way to install a horribly overpriced security setup not low cost, not by any means.

    These cameras are great if you have lots of extra money lying around and in your way, otherwise buy regular security cameras, they are much smaller, better built, and available in water/weather proof designs.

    Heck I even have a color/nightvision version in my back yard that is my most expensive camera and it cost $250.00

    • I agree.

      And if you really need to see your video or still shots over the lan, you can always get a capture board or DV Media Convertor for cheap, and have something that is useful for other things too.

      Until the price is really cheap, these are just expensive quick-cams IMO.
    • Please, enlighten us who aren't aware of the brand names and equipment used in some of the 'regular ways'.

      Seriously, I'm interested in cheap home security options (read: do-it-yourself-security-cameras). But I don't even know where to begin.

      • if you want cheap video cameras... buy the anaconda cam from X10.com they work ok for security and are $49.00 each for rainproof cameras. but they suck at night.

        then go to smarthome.com and look at their video recorders for timelapse. switching... OR use the X10 solution that uses a regular VCR for really really REALLY cheap (read that as cheezy/chintzy.. not anything I would get for serious work.)
    • they're relatively low cost because toms says so, and toms is always right! i wouldnt call the article 'excellent' either.. add that to the fact that thg(not the humble guys;) hasn't been a good place to get honest press in the past.

      'yea, rite...'

      guess they're good 'low cost' for people not tech savvy enough to set up cheap alternative or look into options.

    • You'd think so... (Score:3, Informative)

      by wirefarm ( 18470 )
      So would have I...
      But as it turns out, these things are a bargain.
      A few months ago, I was in Akihabara and grabbed a Connectix QuickCam on impulse - I got the cheapest one, assuming that it was the most likely to have Linux drivers. After all, I had the original B&W Quickcam the week it was released years ago and it had Linux drivers after something like 25 minutes.
      Guess what? The new QuickCam has the most Linux-Unfriendly thing you could imagine. It's Windows-only and the only way to upload pictures to an FTP site is to use some POS service that's free for the first 30 days and only works with some half-dead proprietary service.
      All I wanted was to be able to take a picture from a command line and save it to a file - I'll take care of the rest.
      So that was $70 wasted.
      At my office we just got one of the ones that Tom's reviews that does Pan and Tilt (the Panasonic?) and the thing is GREAT. $400 or so and it comes with a web server (Nmap tells me it's Linux) and does everything that a Linux-friendly webcam connected to a normal web server would do, *if* I could find such a camera. Plus, the pan and tilt and refresh rate are excellent. Such a thing would have cost 4 times the price a year ago.
      I've got enough computers running in my apartment that power consumption is a real consideration too - another real appeal of this thing.
      I went to try to find one of these today at lunch (before reading the article,) but the store didn't have them yet, or I'd have one tonight.
      I'd buy one just to not waste a weekend or two fscking around with unsupported hardware and drivers and he worry of facing a Windows box to the Internet.
      I guess I'd say to you, Just wait a few months - this is the direction that this sort of equipment is going - embedded Linux and network transparency - plus,it will be half the price by February.

      Cheers,
      Jim

      PS - I think any CCD camera has night vision capabilities if you crack it open and take out the filter - at least i heard that somewhere...
      • I here ya. I am 0 for 5 on trying to get a webcam that will work for Linux. What are the odds that the 20+ webcams that do work in Linux -- also happen to be the 20+ webcams that you can never find in the stores....
        • Exactly.
          Try to explain to the clerk that all you want is to be able to read /dev/camera.
          I can't even find one that will work with Os X at my stores, except one that is FireWire, but that one costs as much as the network cameras..
          I'd love to find one of the old B&W Quickcams - what were they? Parallel port?
          I had one of those working great under Linux five years ago or so, IIRC.
          (If you see one, grab it - for color, you could always pipe it through ImageMagic and add a creepy green color...)

          As for the IP cameras, I'll gladly pay the extra cost, just to have it work out of the box - as I get older, it seems that my Saturday afternoons are worth more and more to me. I have much less desire to futz around with stuff that takes forever to get working. $400? Not a problem, especially if it's got a flash ram card holding the OS. If I ever did feel like upgrading it, I could pop in a MicroDrive and make a pretty decent micro server out of it. (But then again, that takes me back to futzing away a Saturday...)

          Cheers,
          Jim
    • Can you tell me some more about the security setup you have? I am looking for a (possibly wireless, possibly night vision) solution for a baby monitor. All the (baby magazine) sloutions I have seen are all in one packages that include too much crap....and the prices are around the $250 mark.

      Where did you get the cameras? Were they easy to setup? Would you do it differently if you were to do it agian?

  • Warpeeping? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hobbex ( 41473 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @05:55AM (#4318037)
    How about rather than pointing a camera like this at the girl next door, you just give her one of the 802.11b units so she can secure her house, and then sit back and pick up the signal through your Pringles tube?

    I mean seriously, given it's notorious lack of security, isn't mounting a _security_ camera via 802.11b suicide? Broadcasting who is in the building out over the entire neighborhood seems _slightly_ counterproductive for burgulary protection (not to speak of privacy!) It seems to me that security should be the prime concern for any such purchase, yet I find little or no mention of it in the article (the D-Link unit mentions WEP passing, but we all know how great that is...)

    • Re:Warpeeping? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mmol_6453 ( 231450 )
      Indeed. there's a reason you'll see "This building covered by closed circuit television."

      It means it can't be jammed or overpowered.

      Just thinking about the wife ten years from now discovering porno among my old security tapes...<shudder>.
      • Ummm maybe I'm wrong here, but isn't Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) closed because everything is DIRECTLY linked? With the 802.11b that these LAN camera's use, you don't have a direct link, the signal is broadcast all over (the power of the signal may vary) instead of to one specific point (like CCTV.)

        Now when a signal is broadcast all over, anyone with enough time and resources can pick up the signal (and decode it or do whatever they need to.) With CCTV there is a direct link, either with cables, infrared beams, microwave frequencies, whatever. Anyway my point is 802.11b is NOT CCTV, it's just a wireless way to send data (now this doesn't mean your camera can't send encrypted data, and i'm sure there's millions of ways to secure the signal, but most signals will probably be broadcast fine and can probably be received by anyone willing to try.)
    • This very situation was covered in a TV news segment. I can't remember exactly which TV show it was, but I vaguely recall it was NBC. Perhaps Dateline NBC.

      Anyways, the reporter drove this computer guy around and he was using a laptop to snoop wireless security cam pictures.
    • On the other hand...there is the frequently-seen "neighborhood watch" option. :P
  • Anybody who knows of an application that can process the images from these cameras and, for example, detect if someone is trying to steal your car?
    • There are plenty of webcam applications available that do motion-sensing to one degree or another. the Axis can display static images or motion JPEG or upload these images to a mail or web server.

      Another camera, the Axis 2120 [axis.com] has built-in motion sensing and up to a 30 FPS framerate, and an auto-iris lens for indoor/outdoor applications. Be forewarned, it isn't very cheap.

      Disclaimer: I am not an Axis employee, and I do not sell their products, but I have owned an Axis camera (2100, as in the review) for nearly 3 years now.

  • She didn't fall for the X11 camera disguised as a bottle of shampoo so I doubt I'll get any good use out of a LAN camera.
  • I knew slashdot was behind the times, but Mr Polaroid invented the LAN camera decades ago.

  • these lan camers suck for security... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Skal Tura ( 595728 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @07:25AM (#4318244) Homepage
    Best of these lan cameras isn't amongst those tested, i've seen an popup ad of a Spy Cam 2 or whatever it's name was atleast dozens of times.
    That lan camera is smaller than any of those plus you can remotely turn it to watch some other place, although it's also too big for security usage, i prefer very small, perhaps even poor image quality but if it cannot be seen it's much better because the burglar or someone cannot avoid being caught by it if s/he doesn't see it.

    Also you can get from normal/security cameras a video feed to you'r comp also with right kind of hardware.
    Just use something like Dazzle or attach it to you'r tv-in's camera port, also if you are skilled in electronics you can make an 'multiplexer' to multiplex many video feeds and attach it to you'r tv-in port and just change 'channel' to see another camera =)

    These has something good also in them, cause they are lan cameras they are a way to better way, because they most likely doesn't care what os you use to configure it (by telnet prompt or serial cable, who cares?). I personally wish to see a lot more devices attached to lan, thus making it easier for many people to use simultaneously, no need for drivers etc... etc..

    and more negative critic about these: why don't you just use some small normal webcam with very long cable instead of these, cheaper and smaller, i have Quickcam VC and it's a lot smaller than my fist, thus making it easier to hide if needed, although that webcamera is shaped as ball so it's a bit harder to make without ssomething to put it stand on or to attach to point right direction and stay that way, also it has a place where you can but a bolt to attach it...

    Also, if you don't care to disassemble it you can make it 50% smaller taking the casing away, if you plan to put it outside you can use some plastic or something to protect it from rain then, you would need to do that anyways cos it hasn't been designed to be water proof....

    There is a lot to do before these lan cams are something else than pretty toys...
    • why don't you just use some small normal webcam with very long cable instead of these, cheaper and smaller...

      There was a long discussion of the distance limits on USB connections, here on slashdot, not too long ago. I just looked for it, couldn't find it though.

      Anyhow, the answer to your question is that the maximum length of a USB cable is just a couple of meters. You could chain together a bunch of USB hubs. Five IIRC -- giving you a distance of 15 metres IIRC. But you have to power those hubs, so you are no farther ahead.

  • Saw this LAN cam at show, $139, but where can buy? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wherley ( 42799 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @07:45AM (#4318340)
    This thing (eCAMit) [3jtech.com] has IP and built in motion detection which none of the four Toms reviewed had. It doesn't look as nicely designed, but for $139 if it works who cares? Anyone actually seen/used one?

    Other info on it. [icamit.com]
  • I wouldnt want to watch anything important on a wireless networked camera. Haven't you ever seen Speed? Anthony Hopkins is kicking himself for going wireless.
  • The next time I plan to commit a robbery, I'll remember to have my army of zombie bots packet flood all the internet cameras on location.

    Then I'll get into my button-down shirt, put on my clunky glasses taped together, pull my pants waaaay up high, put a pocket protector on. I'll use a fake beard to hide my face.

    I'll get into my car with the bumper sticker LISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSP that stretches all the way across it. I'll then go to wherever I rob, demand all their money . On my way out, I'll have my sidekick "Script-Kiddie" tag "w3 0wn j0000" along the door of the institution.

    We'll spend the money on machine and bandwidth. We're ultimately saving enough money to afford a rig that can proverbally "Slashdot" the site Slashdot.

    Maybe I'll impress Malda. Maybe he'll make me the official "Filterer of stories already submitted." Maybe not. F*sk that. My site will have geek news... and porn! Enough porn to destr--- err, take over a website.

    I tried getting an English tutor for "Script Kiddie", but he's already started working his way into the system [slashdot.org].

    Shit.

  • ``A couple even have built in 802.11b so no need for wires''
    I read ``A couple even has cameras with built-in 802.11b'' and expected an URL where their activities could be watched...a dirty mind is a joy forever!

  • Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AnnaBlack ( 606138 ) <anna@an[ ]lack.co.uk ['nab' in gap]> on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @08:45AM (#4318750) Homepage
    Keep an eye on ... the good looking girl next door

    Hang on.... here we are on Slashdot, where every mention of possibly privacy-invading technology provokes an intense discussion involving civil liberties... and this phrase gets posted in a headline story?

    Just a little sexual politics for y'all - pointing hidden cameras at girls (or anyone else for that matter) is not nice. It's offensive. It's rude. It's an invasion of privacy.

    Anna B

    • Re:Privacy? (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by laserjet ( 170008 )
      Just a little sexual politics for y'all - pointing hidden cameras at girls (or anyone else for that matter) is not nice. It's offensive. It's rude. It's an invasion of privacy.

      Oh, shut up. Take your Zantac and calm down. Don't be so easily offended. Grow some skin, and so forth and so on.

      • Oh, shut up. Take your Zantac and calm down. Don't be so easily offended. Grow some skin, and so forth and so on.

        Funny that I never see this kind of response to people going off the handle about M$, DRM, etc.

    • Nobody said anything about hidden cameras.
      If I point a camera out from my front porch and it catches her getting her mail, there is nothing wrong with that. There is no expectation of privacy in front of your house in plain view of my porch.

      Who is stuck on sexual politics again?
    • You, me, and every other reasonable person can see it that way. It's just that the typical virgin /. kiddie can't deal with reality... he'd rather wait until he reaches 34 and/or when mom has finally kicked him out of the house.

      I just wish my own state's Supreme Court had a clue. This just in: it's legal to record video up a woman's skirt, without her knowledge. [abcnews.com] (Don't forget to watch the video, too.)

    • Besides, it sounds a bit to much like an annoying X10.com popup-ad
  • As long as they are not X.10. It would be a shame to refuse one those because we decided to boycott them because of those fuckingly annoying pop-up ads...
    • This is Slashdot, nobody really boycotts anything around here. Its more of a symbolic thing. Or a metaphor.
      • You mean I can start buying lame CDs, watching bad movies in the theater, spending $20 on new VHS or $30 on new DVDs, and using Intel chips, Adobe software, and Microsoft Windows again? Damn. I took that stuff serious. And I have been super-mega-bored trying to boycott so much stuff. At least boycotting Amazon.com was easy, since there's always bn.com, but the rest of that stuff-- whew! I had taken up reading books and going for bike rides. Thank god that's over.
    • They would pop up ads in your browser when you look at the video stream.
  • We've been selling the real thing for a couple of years now. If you'd like to look they are at www.brightnoise.com.

    I call the tested on the toys due to their plastic construction, low power cpu and weak optics. Usually they will not last in bright sun light due to the lack of an auto-iris.

    The IndigoVision IPcam is cool as it can perform either mjpeg (stills) or H.261 (streaming.

    The IQInvision has a PowerPC cpu (wooHooo) and a 1.3 megapixal cmos for BIG images.
  • I would love the wireless cam from Dlink. No money right now. What I do have is an old laptop with a wireless card. I have purchased 3 or 4 "webcams", and have yet to find one that works on Linux. (Webcams are weird in the fact that the same exact brand may use 4 or 5 different chips during a production run -- and usually only one or two of them have Linux support, so it really is a crapshoot). Does anyone know of a drop dead 100% chance of working cam for Linux that I could use. (without having to go to a museum and steal it from an antique exibit.)
    • I've got a Creative Webcam 5 (USB). It gives a good image during the day but the results are pretty bad at night. It's directly supported by the Linux kernel("USB Philips Cameras" option), but to get a bigger image you'll have to load a closed source driver. Without it it will work just fine, but only give you a 160x120 image.

      If you meant a wireless one, then I don't know. Just see what chips are supported by the kernel and then search google to find what cameras have it
    • You can get the drivers from here [demon.nl]. Part of it is in recent kernels, but theres a binary only module that lets you get the higher res / higher frame rates out of it. The guy who made the linux driver has also made some little control program for it too that lets you change camera settings on the fly (camstream). The webcam I have been using is a Philips ToUcam Pro PCVC740K which costs about £50 (~$75 US) at the moment, other webcams are supported by the philips driver though (not just philips ones)
  • Anyone seen stardots [stardot-tech.com] netcam [stardot-tech.com]its a bit pricy but a nice enough camera for just about any application.

  • Motion (Score:2, Informative)

    by tomRakewell ( 412572 )
    The software/web servers included with these cameras are, by and large, useless for security purposes unless you plan on watching the video stream 24x7. I use motion [technolust.cx], an incredibly simple but useful Linux motion detection program with my Axis 2100, and then periodically review the .mpeg files it generates. I don't know if any other net cameras are supported. In three months, I have already used motion and my Axis 2100 to capture images of TWO people attempting to burgle my office during my business's regular operating hours. Although capturing images of these people is mostly useless (as the police don't really care), it has helped me to reevaluate the threat and change our security policies.
  • maybe i can spy on those hot chicks through the windows.....

    just like in my favorite pop up advertisments.
  • I saw an ad for a camera called an "X10", I've never heard of them before...I've always wanted to catch those hot girls that break in to my living room and steal stuff ;-)
  • At our company we've been using the Axis Pan/Tilt/Zoom model to monitor remote sites over our WAN. We set one up initially to monitor construction at a site. It paid for itself in PR alone when our division's president was able to bring up the cam in a browser for a corporate board meeting.

    An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance.
  • I use the Axis 2100 and like it a lot. However, there are some things worth noting that the reviewer overlooked:
    1. Without support for an autoiris lens, none of these cameras is suitable for outdoor use. If the sun were to come into the field of view, directly or through a strong reflection, the sensor would be irreversibly damaged. Axis has a camera that overcomes this limitation, their 2120 with an autoiris lens -- for considerably more money.
    2. The Axis 2100 can support pan and tilt (or just about any other function) through its serial port -- if you're willing to work at it. I obtained from their tech support a daemon (serservd) which interfaces to the serial port over the network using telnet. This allows commands from, say, a Perl script to communicate directly with devices attached to the 2100's serial port.
    3. Axis' use of Linux makes their cameras eminently malleable. The API/HTTP interface specs [axis.com] are published, and the latest firmware versions even support camera-resident shell scripts [axis.com]!
    Contrary to what the review might lead one to believe, I've found Axis -- especially their tech support group -- to be very helpful and responsive.

  • Why have a LAN camera? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cr0sh ( 43134 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @02:33PM (#4321655) Homepage
    I can see very little need for any of these cameras by home users. In the commercial realm, there are more uses, but they still seem waaay overpriced for what you get, compared to what it would cost to build a comparable system.

    A wired LAN camera (with built in web server) is only really needed if you are doing something where you have a nearby network connection and don't want to run a long run of coax or other cable for video (though CAT5 should handle video fine), same for the wireless (though it is better if you need such a camera in an area where you can't get wires to AT ALL). I can see using these cameras for a quick setup/takedown for a "fly-by-night" live-webcam porno operation, or in a warehouse, or on a remote ranch - but not much else. Maybe I am short-sighted - where else would these be justified for the expense that a cheaper system wouldn't be worth it?

    At home? You have to be kidding. This winter I plan on installing security cams in my house - I am going to use cheap b/w (maybe a single color cam for the front door) cams, most "single-board", which supply 1 Vpp composite video, and need a 12VDC hookup, all of which can be run over CAT5. I will terminate the cameras back at a central location where I plan to hook them up to a custom parallel port driven relay (or IC) based switcher, and into a video capture card for recording. I plan on running the wires in the attic - no big deal. I figure the total cost of this thing will be in the realm of $200 total - the computer is free (junk from work), the video capture card I have lying around, the cameras cost about $25.00 - $50.00 each - why should I buy a LAN camera?

  • The idea that such a camera might be used to watch another person is not just perverse, it is also illegal in many places. Most people probably don't realize that.

    In California, where I live, I know someone who has been arrested for hiding a camera in his shared house. It's a misdemeanor and falls under the "disorderly conduct" set of laws, along with public drunkenness and such.

    I _strongly_ urge people to consider not just other people's feelings but also the legal consequences before following the Slashdot editor's and submitter's suggestion and spying on the nearest attractive woman with a camera.

    -Elentar
  • I used to work for a company called IQInVision [iqeye.com] that also makes these. They have some really neat features not available in the other cameras.
  • Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he
    is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
    make messes in the house.
    -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close