On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:29:12 -0500, jim evans
<jimsTAKEOUTnews2@houston.rr.com> 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 wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:29:12 -0500, jim evans
> <jimsTAKEOUTnews2@houston.rr.com> 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.
>> 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.
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:07:54 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <NsudneXCWLbCnGXYnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@adelphia.com>:
>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
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<p98gv2lu1m0l5gd763mi12itto1or8kfja@4ax.com>:
>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>
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:07:54 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote
> in <NsudneXCWLbCnGXYnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@adelphia.com>:
>
>> 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.
>
Unfortunately a lot of people do believe that anything electronic is
"magical" and the only important issue is to find the cheapest thing
they can get their hands on assuming because it is "magical" it will
work. There are certainly things that can be done with DSP techniques
but there isn't a lot you can do with images from the low end "Walmart
class" cameras.
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:07:54 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote
>> in <NsudneXCWLbCnGXYnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@adelphia.com>:
>>
>>> 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.
>Unfortunately a lot of people do believe that anything electronic is
>"magical"
Yep. I even promote that impression on service calls. I wear my
wizards hat, cloak with embroidered stars and crescents, and carry a
magic wand (actually a 12" Craftsman #2 Philips screwdriver). The
idea is to give the customer the impression that everything I do is
incomprehensible, unfathomable, and magical. If they ever figure out
that it's mostly RTFM, I'll be out of business. Meanwhile, magic
pays.
>and the only important issue is to find the cheapest thing
>they can get their hands on assuming because it is "magical" it will
>work.
Yep. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic. (Arthur C. Clarke). Anything else can be returned for credit.
>There are certainly things that can be done with DSP techniques
>but there isn't a lot you can do with images from the low end "Walmart
>class" cameras.
Under ideal conditions, a cheap camera works well enough. It's the
marginal and often uncontrolled conditions presented by a security
camera that offer the major challenges. Security cameras were
intended to operate without adjustments during the day. That means
auto focus and auto aperture over a wide range of distances and
lighting conditions. Methinks expecting a cheap camera to work under
these conditions is expecting too much. However, even the high priced
cameras fail under some conditions common in security cameras. For
example, trying to adjust the aperture to catch a picture of a
foreground subject, with overwhelming background lighting. Same with
someone shining a flashing into the lens of a security camera. As for
quality, most security systems are rated at how many hours of videos
can they store. If you want more resolution, you pay for it in hours.
Hours can be understood by anyone, while resolution is technobabble.
So, the security vendors push hours, not picture quality.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:41:40 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<tnsiv2ps0dqqp6h4qp8kdkaihprtqgveej@4ax.com>:
>... As for
>quality, most security systems are rated at how many hours of videos
>can they store. If you want more resolution, you pay for it in hours.
>Hours can be understood by anyone, while resolution is technobabble.
>So, the security vendors push hours, not picture quality.
Price is a pretty reliable guide to quality. Good systems aren't cheap.
--
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>
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:41:40 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
> <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
>> So, the security vendors push hours, not picture quality.
>
> Price is a pretty reliable guide to quality. Good systems aren't cheap.
Happens all the time...dumb ass people buy cheap cams for $100 a piece and
expect to have the same imagery of a $700 (dealer cost) cam you find in a bank.
>
>> and the only important issue is to find the cheapest thing
>> they can get their hands on assuming because it is "magical" it will
>> work.
>
> Yep. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> magic. (Arthur C. Clarke). Anything else can be returned for credit.
Thats not the point I was trying to make. Most people wouldn't go to
Sears to buy an air compressor for their factory or Home Depot for a
truck dock because they know there are different classes of equipment.
Yet they don't hesitate going to "barginfinder.com" to buy electronic
gear thinking they somehow "you get what you pay for" doesn't apply.
>
>> There are certainly things that can be done with DSP techniques
>> but there isn't a lot you can do with images from the low end "Walmart
>> class" cameras.
>
> Under ideal conditions, a cheap camera works well enough.
Unless the only intent is to see if "fluffy" is on the couch a cheap
camera is worthless (or less, because they actually think they have a
security system) for any real security use.
It's the
> marginal and often uncontrolled conditions presented by a security
> camera that offer the major challenges. Security cameras were
> intended to operate without adjustments during the day. That means
> auto focus and auto aperture over a wide range of distances and
> lighting conditions. Methinks expecting a cheap camera to work under
> these conditions is expecting too much. However, even the high priced
> cameras fail under some conditions common in security cameras. For
> example, trying to adjust the aperture to catch a picture of a
> foreground subject, with overwhelming background lighting. Same with
> someone shining a flashing into the lens of a security camera. As for
> quality, most security systems are rated at how many hours of videos
> can they store. If you want more resolution, you pay for it in hours.
> Hours can be understood by anyone, while resolution is technobabble.
> So, the security vendors push hours, not picture quality.
>
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>>
>>> and the only important issue is to find the cheapest thing
>>> they can get their hands on assuming because it is "magical" it will
>>> work.
>>
>> Yep. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
>> magic. (Arthur C. Clarke). Anything else can be returned for credit.
>Thats not the point I was trying to make. Most people wouldn't go to
>Sears to buy an air compressor for their factory or Home Depot for a
>truck dock because they know there are different classes of equipment.
Actually, there was a time when Sears sold excellent power and hand
tools. I still have my collection of Craftsman hand and power tools
from the early 1970's. However, you're correct about their air
compressors and recent offerings. They're not very good or long
lasting.
>Yet they don't hesitate going to "barginfinder.com" to buy electronic
>gear thinking they somehow "you get what you pay for" doesn't apply.
That's because they don't understand (or don't want to understand) the
underlying technology. That's not easy and certainly a problem
without substantial experience and some inside info on the performance
of various acronyms and chipsets. To the average wireless buyer, the
price, packaging and aesthetics are about all they are able to use to
use as a decision making criteria. The latest sales paradigm is to
make the access point look as weird as possible on the assumption that
it would impress the customer. For some vendors, simply repackaging
the same old circuit board in a new plastic package offers a means of
stretching their investment. DLink does this ever so well. Linksys
went a step further and simply changed the model number of the
WRT54Gv4 to WRT54GL and raise the price. Inside, they're identical.
In some cases, spending more money does give one more features and
functions. Then, the problem becomes whether one needs these
features. The average home user would probably be satisfied with a
fairly crude feature set. The average corporate customer wants the
kitchen sink and then some. Spend more money and get more features,
but if left unused, they're wasted. How many home users need SNMP
monitoring, dual SSID's, virtual LAN's, roaming, and complex access
control lists?
>> Under ideal conditions, a cheap camera works well enough.
>
>Unless the only intent is to see if "fluffy" is on the couch a cheap
>camera is worthless (or less, because they actually think they have a
>security system) for any real security use.
I once had a conversation with a former bank network admin who is also
somewhat involved with the banks electronic security. The problem is
that a really good security system costs more than the potential loss
from bank robbery and theft. There's really no incentive for a bank
to install a really high quality video system. A fairly simplistic
minimal system offers considerable return on investment. Incremental
increases in resolution, performance, retention, sensitivity, and
such, generally only adds complexity and cost, with a proportionately
smaller improvement in overall security per dollar expended. Better
cameras, mean more data to be stored, which require bigger hard disks,
etc. Complex integrated systems with a large number of sensors are
difficult to keep running. For example, it would be trivial to setup
a 3D system using 2 cameras to give bipolar vision (kinda like the
viewpoint rotating special effects seen in the movies). However,
doubling the cost of the camera system would not yield a proportional
increase in security and would probably result in increased operating
expenses.
Obviously, a home system isn't going to be as expensive or as complex
as that used by a bank, but one wouldn't know that looking at the
advertising literature. There's plenty that can be done with
relatively crude and cheap hardware. If that's inadequate, there's
always the never ending upgrade path.
If you need something to do, figure out how to use a wireless access
point as a motion detector. Most of the parts of the puzzle are
there.
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:34:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<uiflv29glo3lck8v76iip5lovnh95sgll0@4ax.com>:
>George <george@nospam.invalid> hath wroth:
>>Yet they don't hesitate going to "barginfinder.com" to buy electronic
>>gear thinking they somehow "you get what you pay for" doesn't apply.
>
>That's because they don't understand (or don't want to understand) the
>underlying technology.
I think it's more because they assume technical products are a
commodity. That's because no technical product vendor has done a decent
job of product differentiation. People are willing to pay more (much
more) when they perceive a product to be better, even when they don't
understand why, and even when the products aren't actually better.
Cases in point: Bose Wave Radio. Monster cable.
>>> Under ideal conditions, a cheap camera works well enough.
Actually not -- a crap lens gives crap results. I can easily
demonstrate the real difference between a cheap camera and a good
camera, even under ideal conditions. For example, I recently took a
portrait with my Leica lens, and the subject was literally blown away
when he saw how sharp it was. "My God! I can actually see each and
every hair in my beard!"
--
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 Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:19:56 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:34:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
><jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
><uiflv29glo3lck8v76iip5lovnh95sgll0@4ax.com>:
>
>>George <george@nospam.invalid> hath wroth:
>
>>>Yet they don't hesitate going to "barginfinder.com" to buy electronic
>>>gear thinking they somehow "you get what you pay for" doesn't apply.
>>
>>That's because they don't understand (or don't want to understand) the
>>underlying technology.
>
>I think it's more because they assume technical products are a
>commodity. That's because no technical product vendor has done a decent
>job of product differentiation. People are willing to pay more (much
>more) when they perceive a product to be better, even when they don't
>understand why, and even when the products aren't actually better.
>Cases in point: Bose Wave Radio. Monster cable.
Agreed on all points. Radio is magic and magic sells. Electronics is
art, and making the package artsy also sells. Acronyms and standards
are great. Every company should have one (or more). Model numbers
are like money, the bigger the better, and large or long model numbers
sells. Add a few hyphens and it's even longer.
I really like the technobabble behind Monster Cable products. I don't
think I understand any of it. However, that's small potatoes compared
to the vendors that cater to the audiophiles. Think $400 power
cables.
<http://www.audioadvisor.com/products.asp?dept=25>
My crystal ball and Ouigi Board both predict a grand future in selling
technology using technobabble, hype, and methods commonly found among
used vehicle salesmen. The current muddle over HDTV standards is the
current example. Some day, the IEEE will approve the multitude of
standards that they've been working on and we have even more muddle.
Product differention? You must mean do you want it in black, gray,
beige, or fire engine red. Yeah, I can see the difference between
products easily. This one, with the antenna that's twice as long,
must be twice as good. The one with 4 antennas must be 4 times
better.
>>>> Under ideal conditions, a cheap camera works well enough.
>
>Actually not -- a crap lens gives crap results. I can easily
>demonstrate the real difference between a cheap camera and a good
>camera, even under ideal conditions. For example, I recently took a
>portrait with my Leica lens, and the subject was literally blown away
>when he saw how sharp it was. "My God! I can actually see each and
>every hair in my beard!"
Ok, I'll concede the point. I used to own a Leica IIIc with a fairly
complete set of screw on lenses. I would take a roll of 35mm film,
shoot the first few frames in the Leica, rewind, move the film cart to
a commodity SLR camera, skip forward, and shoot the rest of the roll
of roughly the same subject matter, with the same lighting. When
developed, the image quality was very easy to compare without any
subtle differences created by processing. Yeah, if you know what to
look for, quality is obvious.
However, if you ignore the very bottom of the market in cameras, it
becomes more difficult to differentiate the quality of some of the
more expensive imagers. Each tends to have one or two areas in which
they are superior, at the expense of others. For example, I've seen
low light cameras that have impressive sensitivity, but look awful in
normal lighting. Go even higher in quality, and the products tend to
become special purpose. I guess the moral is to know the technology
before buying.
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:40:19 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>Think $400 power
>cables.
><http://www.audioadvisor.com/products.asp?dept=25>
I must be slipping. Think $1,000 power cord:
<http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=KKPK10PAL>
That gives me an idea. The market for replacement antennas is already
saturated, so I'll sell aftermarket wall warts. Something like a
"MegaBoost Super-Regulated Ultra Clean Power Supply". Voltage
regulated to 0.001% of perfection. Filtered to insure the 60 Hz
hummmmm is down at least -50dB and 120Hz hummmmmm at least -3dB more.
Fully shielded and guaranteed not to emit any stray magnetic,
electric, radio, acoustic, or ethereal fields. Using my power supply,
you'll have the cleanest Wi-Fi signal in the neighborhood, when used
in conjunction with Wi-Fi speed spray:
<http://j-walk.com/other/wifispray/>
Quality and buzzwords sell so I guess I'll price it slightly above
outrageous.
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:40:19 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<gcdmv2d6m5tmj2vjt81pphtpri57ba93qu@4ax.com>:
>However, if you ignore the very bottom of the market in cameras, it
>becomes more difficult to differentiate the quality of some of the
>more expensive imagers. Each tends to have one or two areas in which
>they are superior, at the expense of others. For example, I've seen
>low light cameras that have impressive sensitivity, but look awful in
>normal lighting. Go even higher in quality, and the products tend to
>become special purpose. I guess the moral is to know the technology
>before buying.
Agreed. As always, get the >> right tool for the job <<.
--
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>
John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:34:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
> <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
> <uiflv29glo3lck8v76iip5lovnh95sgll0@4ax.com>:
>
>> George <george@nospam.invalid> hath wroth:
>
>>> Yet they don't hesitate going to "barginfinder.com" to buy electronic
>>> gear thinking they somehow "you get what you pay for" doesn't apply.
>> That's because they don't understand (or don't want to understand) the
>> underlying technology.
>
> I think it's more because they assume technical products are a
> commodity. That's because no technical product vendor has done a decent
> job of product differentiation. People are willing to pay more (much
> more) when they perceive a product to be better, even when they don't
> understand why, and even when the products aren't actually better.
> Cases in point: Bose Wave Radio. Monster cable.
And I think a big motivator for that thinking is Walmart. According to
them the only think that matters is price. And then throw in the stores
such as best buy with all of the marketing about low prices and how
their almost minimum wage "associates" are all experts.
>
>>>> Under ideal conditions, a cheap camera works well enough.
>
> Actually not -- a crap lens gives crap results. I can easily
> demonstrate the real difference between a cheap camera and a good
> camera, even under ideal conditions. For example, I recently took a
> portrait with my Leica lens, and the subject was literally blown away
> when he saw how sharp it was. "My God! I can actually see each and
> every hair in my beard!"
>
Agree, you get what you pay for definitely applies to cameras.
George wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> I really like the technobabble behind Monster Cable products. I don't
>> think I understand any of it.
>
> You mean you can't appreciate how "pure copper" cables make a audio
> system sound so much better?
>
> I think the big point of "Monster cables" is that it caters to the "mine
> is bigger that yours" bragging rights crowd.
The speaker cable I used once had a copper core about the size of a regular
Sharpie permanent marker, but then it was a 150 ft. run at times and amps
were two kilowatts.
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> I really like the technobabble behind Monster Cable products. I don't
>> think I understand any of it.
>
>You mean you can't appreciate how "pure copper" cables make a audio
>system sound so much better?
You mean they've given up on "oxygen free copper" cable?
Some of the "features" of the $1,000 power cable are rather
interesting:
<http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=KKPK10PAL>
* Special SWR (standing wave ratio) enhancement technology
Hmmmm.... At 60Hz, one wavelength is about 3000 miles. The impedance
of the power source (Hoover Dam) is very small number of ohms. I
guess if the power cord were 3000 miles long, VSWR might be important
if one could find a matching ultra low impedance power cable.
* Special copper optimized for 120 volt AC wall voltage
Ah, the secret formula for 100% pure copper conductors. I wonder what
else is in the formula for a 100% pure copper mix?
* 10-gauge conductors
Neato. Same as my shotgun.
* Special conductor dielectric
Another secret formula?
* Wattgate™ Audio Grade™ 350 IEC and 330 US wall plug
Whatgate? Oh...
<http://www.wattgate.com>
I gotta admit, that is a nifty looking connector.
* UL-listed parts throughout
Really? I couldn't find anything in the UL certification search under
Kimber Kable and associated trademarks.
<http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.htm>
>I think the big point of "Monster cables" is that it caters to the "mine
>is bigger that yours" bragging rights crowd.
Yep. There's a technically ignorant sucker born every millisecond
brought to you by our American edukational system. "Education through
Advertising" and such.
In article <wsSdnYeISrxVd2bYnZ2dnUVZ_uGjnZ2d@adelphia.com>, George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:34:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>> <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
>> <uiflv29glo3lck8v76iip5lovnh95sgll0@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> George <george@nospam.invalid> hath wroth:
>>
>>>> Yet they don't hesitate going to "barginfinder.com" to buy electronic
>>>> gear thinking they somehow "you get what you pay for" doesn't apply.
>>> That's because they don't understand (or don't want to understand) the
>>> underlying technology.
>>
>> I think it's more because they assume technical products are a
>> commodity. That's because no technical product vendor has done a decent
>> job of product differentiation. People are willing to pay more (much
>> more) when they perceive a product to be better, even when they don't
>> understand why, and even when the products aren't actually better.
>> Cases in point: Bose Wave Radio. Monster cable.
>
>
>And I think a big motivator for that thinking is Walmart. According to
>them the only think that matters is price.
They (walmart) have a point, otherwise they would not be the biggest
retailer in the world. In my town we still have an old fashion service
station. You pull in a fellow comes to your car puts gas in, washes the
windshield, checks the oil and vacummes out the inside. Gas costs about
$0.40 +- a gallon more then the 'zippy' mart about half a mile away. I know
the owners of both, guess who ends up with the greatest profit from gas
sales. Of course zippy, what keeps the other one actually going is tune ups
and normal mechanic stuff (he's one of those few you can say somthing isn't
right, fix it and charge my credit card what you think is fair - and you
know you won't be burned). The public is not willing to spend on quality
nor service anymore. Yes there are a few exceptions, but the key here is
FEW.
> And then throw in the stores
>such as best buy with all of the marketing about low prices and how
>their almost minimum wage "associates" are all experts.
>
>>
>>>>> Under ideal conditions, a cheap camera works well enough.
>>
>> Actually not -- a crap lens gives crap results. I can easily
>> demonstrate the real difference between a cheap camera and a good
>> camera, even under ideal conditions. For example, I recently took a
>> portrait with my Leica lens, and the subject was literally blown away
>> when he saw how sharp it was. "My God! I can actually see each and
>> every hair in my beard!"
>>
>
>Agree, you get what you pay for definitely applies to cameras.
Of course, but then two most people are just taking snapshots anyway, a
cheap camera is good enough...
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:10:56 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<q83ov2dq75ndfkpta9profgdamfr1pfo87@4ax.com>:
>* 10-gauge conductors
>
>Neato. Same as my shotgun.
Neato. Same as my cheap Romex. :)
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:18:50 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
<D2YKh.18579$sC.3119@bignews2.bellsouth.net>:
>In article <wsSdnYeISrxVd2bYnZ2dnUVZ_uGjnZ2d@adelphia.com>, George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>And I think a big motivator for that thinking is Walmart. According to
>>them the only think that matters is price.
>
>They (walmart) have a point, otherwise they would not be the biggest
>retailer in the world.
Walmart has been struggling of late -- the bloom appears to be off the
low price rose.
>>Agree, you get what you pay for definitely applies to cameras.
>
>Of course, but then two most people are just taking snapshots anyway, a
>cheap camera is good enough...
I strongly disagree -- the difference is patently obvious.
--
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 Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:51:50 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <q8UKh.13703$Jl.11092@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> "My God! I can actually see each and
>> every hair in my beard!"
>
>Test pictures using the Toshiba IK-WB21A. Can't give out dealer cost, but
>it retails for $1,300.
>http://geocities.com/dfwramp
>
>I also have one of my IK-WB21A cameras mounted on my truck roof for remote
>broadcasts.
Blurry. My Leica lens, which cost less than $200 (camera included),
will blow it away. For example, see
<http://www.imagestation.com/3032925/3931733209> -- click on More Image
Info and then View Original Image.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:51:50 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
> wrote in <q8UKh.13703$Jl.11092@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> "My God! I can actually see each and
>>> every hair in my beard!"
>> Test pictures using the Toshiba IK-WB21A. Can't give out dealer cost, but
>> it retails for $1,300.
>> http://geocities.com/dfwramp
>>
>> I also have one of my IK-WB21A cameras mounted on my truck roof for remote
>> broadcasts.
>
> Blurry. My Leica lens, which cost less than $200 (camera included),
> will blow it away. For example, see
> <http://www.imagestation.com/3032925/3931733209> -- click on More Image
> Info and then View Original Image.
>
> Of course, but then two most people are just taking snapshots anyway, a
> cheap camera is good enough...
>
I disagree, why accept mediocrity when it is so easy to take decent
photos? This isn't decades ago where the only way you could get a decent
photo was by going to a studio/hiring a photographer.
John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:51:50 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
> wrote in <q8UKh.13703$Jl.11092@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> "My God! I can actually see each and
>>> every hair in my beard!"
>> Test pictures using the Toshiba IK-WB21A. Can't give out dealer cost, but
>> it retails for $1,300.
>> http://geocities.com/dfwramp
>>
>> I also have one of my IK-WB21A cameras mounted on my truck roof for remote
>> broadcasts.
>
> Blurry. My Leica lens, which cost less than $200 (camera included),
> will blow it away. For example, see
> <http://www.imagestation.com/3032925/3931733209> -- click on More Image
> Info and then View Original Image.
>
But just consider it is 100x better than what someone will get from the
"security" camera they are going to find at "reallycheapsecurity.com".
John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:51:50 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
> wrote in <q8UKh.13703$Jl.11092@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> "My God! I can actually see each and
>>> every hair in my beard!"
>> Test pictures using the Toshiba IK-WB21A. Can't give out dealer cost, but
>> it retails for $1,300.
>> http://geocities.com/dfwramp
>>
>> I also have one of my IK-WB21A cameras mounted on my truck roof for remote
>> broadcasts.
>
> Blurry. My Leica lens, which cost less than $200 (camera included),
> will blow it away.
Moot point, the OP was talking about wireless web cams not digital cameras.
My IP camera will blow your digital camera away with remote control pan,
tilt, and 22x zoom, full motion video, and virtually unlimited storage
capacity. No comparison to your set up at all.
Please insert another quarter to play Scrabble again.
In article <9JudncC97oxagWDYnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@adelphia.com>, George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Rico wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course, but then two most people are just taking snapshots anyway, a
>> cheap camera is good enough...
>>
>
>I disagree, why accept mediocrity when it is so easy to take decent
>photos? This isn't decades ago where the only way you could get a decent
>photo was by going to a studio/hiring a photographer.
>
You travel in a rarified world (lucky you). Most people I know are just
literally taking snap shots. Often with disposable/one time cameras. Indeed
there are photographers and then there are the rest of us.
Re: Looking for a Wireless Video Camera 
