Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Using webcam32 and camerapad: please help...

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 7:20:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Everything looks great at the server but I cannot see the video from
another computer in my network or from outside of my network. Notice
that I said the video. I can see everything else but not the video.
Please check and let me know what should I change.
I am using port 80 and 800.

I am able to see the demo cameras from camerapad.com and I am using
almost the same set up if not the same. You may check their cameras
at:
http://www.camerapad.com/demo.asp


I almost forgot, please try my camera:
http://miracamera.blogdns.com:800

PD - On the java script, I don't see reference to the 800 port but
neither in theirs.

More about : webcam32 camerapad

October 12, 2004 12:42:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Norberto Rivera <Norberto_Rivera@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Everything looks great at the server but I cannot see the video from
> another computer in my network or from outside of my network. Notice
> that I said the video. I can see everything else but not the video.
> Please check and let me know what should I change.
> I am using port 80 and 800.
>
> I am able to see the demo cameras from camerapad.com and I am using
> almost the same set up if not the same. You may check their cameras
> at:
> http://www.camerapad.com/demo.asp
>
>
> I almost forgot, please try my camera:
> http://miracamera.blogdns.com:800
>
> PD - On the java script, I don't see reference to the 800 port but
> neither in theirs.

I'm not real sure what you're doing here. Did you just copy and paste the
code from the camerapad site and upload it to yours? If so? It won't work
for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, the fact that you don't appear
to have the JavaCamPush applet uploaded to your server. Anyway. Following
is the error report generated by *your* page, as copied from the Java
runtime console on my machine. Hopefully it'll be of some use to you:

-----------------------------------

load: class JavaCamPush.class not found.
java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: JavaCamPush.class
at sun.applet.AppletClassLoader.findClass(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(Unknown Source)
at sun.applet.AppletClassLoader.loadClass(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(Unknown Source)
at sun.applet.AppletClassLoader.loadCode(Unknown Source)
at sun.applet.AppletPanel.createApplet(Unknown Source)
at sun.plugin.AppletViewer.createApplet(Unknown Source)
at sun.applet.AppletPanel.runLoader(Unknown Source)
at sun.applet.AppletPanel.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
Caused by: java.net.ConnectException: Connection refused: connect

at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.socketConnect(Native Method)
at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.doConnect(Unknown Source)
at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connectToAddress(Unknown Source)
at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connect(Unknown Source)
at java.net.Socket.connect(Unknown Source)
at sun.net.NetworkClient.doConnect(Unknown Source)
at sun.plugin.net.protocol.http.HttpClient.doConnect(Unknown Source)
at sun.net.www.http.HttpClient.openServer(Unknown Source)
at sun.net.www.http.HttpClient.openServer(Unknown Source)
at sun.net.www.http.HttpClient.&lt;init>(Unknown Source)
at sun.net.www.http.HttpClient.&lt;init>(Unknown Source)
at sun.plugin.net.protocol.http.HttpClient.<init>(Unknown Source)
at sun.plugin.net.protocol.http.HttpClient.New(Unknown Source)
at sun.plugin.net.protocol.http.HttpURLConnection.createConnection(Unknown
Source)
at sun.plugin.net.protocol.http.HttpURLConnection.connect(Unknown Source)
at sun.plugin.net.protocol.http.HttpURLConnection.getInputStream(Unknown
Source)
at java.net.HttpURLConnection.getResponseCode(Unknown Source)
at sun.applet.AppletClassLoader.getBytes(Unknown Source)
at sun.applet.AppletClassLoader.access$100(Unknown Source)
at sun.applet.AppletClassLoader$1.run(Unknown Source)

....10 more

------------------------------------------

Regards,
Thom
http://www.crampy.com/webcam.htm
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 3:40:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

your cam url wont work for outsiders when your jave applet codebase url is
localhost
Related resources
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 10:37:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

On 12 Oct 2004 03:20:04 -0700, Norberto_Rivera@yahoo.com
(Norberto Rivera) wrote:

>Everything looks great at the server but I cannot see the video from
>another computer in my network or from outside of my network. Notice
>that I said the video. I can see everything else but not the video.
>Please check and let me know what should I change.
>I am using port 80 and 800.
>
>I am able to see the demo cameras from camerapad.com and I am using
>almost the same set up if not the same. You may check their cameras
>at:
>http://www.camerapad.com/demo.asp
>
>
>I almost forgot, please try my camera:
>http://miracamera.blogdns.com:800
>
>PD - On the java script, I don't see reference to the 800 port but
>neither in theirs.

You may want to check below for some webcam32 setup info.

http://www.webcam32.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi?act...
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 11:04:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

"bumtracks" <justaposter@usenet.bud> wrote in message news:<ooPad.5147$gd1.2945@trnddc08>...
> your cam url wont work for outsiders when your jave applet codebase url is
> localhost

Changing localhost for the ddns name help a lot but I am still have
problems. that is besides not having the knowledge to fix this
problem.

Lets see:

<applet code="JavaCamPush.class"
codebase="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:80/applet"
archive="JavaCamPush.jar" width="320" height="240"><param name="URL"
value="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:80"><param name="cabbase"
value="JavaCamPush.cab">
</applet>

In the script above, If I place an 800 number for port to read <param
name="URL" value="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:800"> (I am using 80
and 800) I cannot see the video on the homepage at the pc with the
camera or from outsite my home network. I am able to control camera
from in or outside my home network. If I place a 80 in both location
I can control the camera and I can see the video at the pc with the
camera, another pc on my home network but not from outside.


This is the other example:

<applet width="320" height="240"
codebase="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:80/camera"
archive="JavaCamPush.jar" code="JavaCamPush.class">
<param name="cabbase" value="JavaCamPush.cab">
<param name="URL" value="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:800">
</applet>

This one does not work at all.

Help.
PD - This is my camera address:
http://miracamera.blogdns.com:800

I have two more cameras on my network but they are IP cameras: ports
82 and 83.

Thank you for the time your setting apart to help me with this
situation.
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 7:44:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

I piddled, I cant find
JavaCamPush.cab
on url at 80 or 800

maybe put .cab in dir with index.htm and path it from there
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 9:41:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

"bumtracks" <justaposter@usenet.bud> wrote in message news:<ow1bd.4140$Rp4.32@trnddc01>...
> I piddled, I cant find
> JavaCamPush.cab
> on url at 80 or 800
>
> maybe put .cab in dir with index.htm and path it from there

You know, I think you are correct. But can you be a bit more
specific in how to path it. Let me think... something like that:

No. I cannot think in how could I path it at this moment.
I now where is my index.htm... Wait a minute.. Why you mentioned
index.htm?
I am using example14.html. I did not rename it. You think this is
something I should look into. If not just give me an idea in how to
path this javacampush.cam.

Thanks.
October 13, 2004 5:21:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Norberto Rivera <Norberto_Rivera@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "bumtracks" <justaposter@usenet.bud> wrote in message
> news:o oPad.5147$gd1.2945@trnddc08...

>> your cam url wont work for outsiders when your jave applet codebase
>> url is localhost
>
> Changing localhost for the ddns name help a lot but I am still have
> problems. that is besides not having the knowledge to fix this
> problem.
>
> Lets see:
>
> <applet code="JavaCamPush.class"
> codebase="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:80/applet"
> archive="JavaCamPush.jar" width="320" height="240"><param name="URL"
> value="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:80"><param name="cabbase"
> value="JavaCamPush.cab">
> </applet>
>
> In the script above, If I place an 800 number for port to read <param
> name="URL" value="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:800"> (I am using 80
> and 800) I cannot see the video on the homepage at the pc with the
> camera or from outsite my home network. I am able to control camera
> from in or outside my home network. If I place a 80 in both location
> I can control the camera and I can see the video at the pc with the
> camera, another pc on my home network but not from outside.
>
>
> This is the other example:
>
> <applet width="320" height="240"
> codebase="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:80/camera"
> archive="JavaCamPush.jar" code="JavaCamPush.class">
> <param name="cabbase" value="JavaCamPush.cab">
> <param name="URL" value="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:800">
> </applet>
>
> This one does not work at all.

If the above are examples of the code for the two cams on the page below?
Neither of them seem to work.

> Help.
> PD - This is my camera address:
> http://miracamera.blogdns.com:800

This page now has two camera applets. (One atop the other) Neither work
for me. Either that? Or the cams are off.

I see the rest of the graphics, but where the cams should be, there are just
gray boxes.

On the upside? My Java Runtime Console has stopped insisting there are
"errors" on the page.

On the downside? If the cams are on? I can't see them.

As an aside? I'm wondering why you're using "server push", as opposed to
"client pull", especially since you keep mentioning the word video.

Anyone and everyone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the
assumption that allowing the client to "pull" the video (streaming or
otherwise) is much more reliable and resource-saving than "pushing" it.

When you set up to "push" video, you're sending the info whether anybody's
looking at it or not, right?

When you set up to "pull" video, that means there's not much going on
(bandwidth-wise) unless someone makes a connection, no?

I've tried my cam both ways, and "client pull" (limited to 5 simultaneous
connections) works best for me.

Using a P4 at 3GHz with a Gig of RAM ....

The only differences I see between "push" and "pull" are;

When I "push" the video, the connection is almost instantaneous and the
video is happening in real time. But it's a resource hog. (Upwards of 40%
of CPU)

When I allow the client to "pull" the video, it takes about five seconds to
buffer, and then I get a "still frame" for a couple more seconds, but then
it streams nicely, though about seven seconds behind "real time". I can
live with the delay. In fact? I like it! Gives me a small window of
opportunity to kill the cam in case I do something stupid. :-) Plus?
Unless 3 to 5 people are viewing at the same time, It's using less than 15%
of my CPU.

I personally don't see any reason to "push" video to a web page, unless for
some reason it's absolutely neccessary that it be in real time.

Again. Please feel free to comment or correct me if I'm wrong. I'm
admittedly not any kind of authority on this stuff. I'm just speaking from
personal experience, and I'm always willing to listen and learn. :-)

Thom

--
Wanna see some filthy fish?
www.crampy.com/webcam.htm
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 9:47:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

"Thom" <Thom@no.invalid> wrote in message news:<_OudnU_d1cbPTPbcRVn-pQ@comcast.com>...
>
> I'm not real sure what you're doing here. Did you just copy and paste the
> code from the camerapad site and upload it to yours? If so? It won't work
> for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, the fact that you don't appear
> to have the JavaCamPush applet uploaded to your server. Anyway. Following
> is the error report generated by *your* page, as copied from the Java
> runtime console on my machine. Hopefully it'll be of some use to you:
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> load: class JavaCamPush.class not found.
> java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: JavaCamPush.class

Thom: Thanks for taking the time and answering my emails. I am trying
to set up a camera (Picturetel) to stream video (webcam32) and control
it also (camerapad) tru a router (linksys) but I am ready to quit with
webcam32 and this javacampush.

I am about to remove the two ip cameras from the router to see if
there is any difference. Any other suggestions. Right now I have
three slightly different javascripts. The two first works but the
last one does not. And when I say work, I mean inside my home network
because I cannot see the video out side the network.

Someone suggested to path the javacampush's programs but I have not
idea how to do that. I don't think I should give the exact harddrive
letter but I am not sure. Help.
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 11:37:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:21:01 -0400, "Thom" <Thom@no.invalid>
wrote:


>As an aside? I'm wondering why you're using "server push", as opposed to
>"client pull", especially since you keep mentioning the word video.
>
>Anyone and everyone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the
>assumption that allowing the client to "pull" the video (streaming or
>otherwise) is much more reliable and resource-saving than "pushing" it.

Not a good assumption. There is very little difference between
the push and pull operation. Push may be a little faster and more
efficient than pull. Push sets a constant connection between the
server client. Pull has to open and close the connection for each
frame sent.

>When you set up to "push" video, you're sending the info whether anybody's
>looking at it or not, right?

Wrong, ftp is what sends data when nobody is watching. Push/pull
only sends data when a client is watching.

>When you set up to "pull" video, that means there's not much going on
>(bandwidth-wise) unless someone makes a connection, no?

True, but the same is true for push.
October 13, 2004 11:37:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Si Ballenger <shb*NO*SPAM*@comporium.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:21:01 -0400, "Thom" <Thom@no.invalid>
> wrote:

>>As an aside? I'm wondering why you're using "server push", as
>>opposed to "client pull", especially since you keep mentioning the
>>word video.
>>
>>Anyone and everyone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the
>>assumption that allowing the client to "pull" the video (streaming or
>>otherwise) is much more reliable and resource-saving than "pushing"
>>it.

> Not a good assumption. There is very little difference between
> the push and pull operation. Push may be a little faster and more
> efficient than pull. Push sets a constant connection between the
> server client. Pull has to open and close the connection for each
> frame sent.

Even for streaming video? My cam for instance. Are you saying that since
I'm allowing people to "pull" the stream, that they are opening and closing
a connection every 1/8th of a second given that I'm "sending" at about 8fps?
Not saying you're wrong. Just saying my logs don't support that theory, and
I don't understand.

>>When you set up to "push" video, you're sending the info whether
>>anybody's looking at it or not, right?
>
> Wrong, ftp is what sends data when nobody is watching. Push/pull
> only sends data when a client is watching.

OK. Then, if you'd be so kind? Please explain. You say "Push/pull" as
though they amount to the same thing. The webcamworld website
www.webcamworld.com begs to differ. And I quote:
----------------
Client pull:

This method is the most used by WebCam users to show single snapshots of
whatever the WebCam points to. It is the most easy method to set up, and the
one that works perfectly for dial-up style Internet connections. It also
won't take much bandwith from your connection, so you're still able to surf
the Web, get e-mail, IRCing and many more things while your WebCam snaps
shots. Thus, you won't be able to serve video feeds with this method.

This method is usually accomplished with an FTP connection that sends the
last shot captured by the WebCam to your ISP's hard drive or site hosting
your web pages.

Server push:

This is the most resource-consuming method, and thus, the least implemented.
But it is also the most live method, as it will allow the users to view
real-time video streams coming directly from your WebCam. It has its obvious
limitations; to mention some:

a.. It requires a high bandwith connection to be at least a bit live.
b.. You must put a limit to the video stream for each user connecting to it.
c.. A dial-up connection is almost useless to apply this method.
d.. Firewall based networks can have limited the access to this kind of
method.
e. Only the most recent browser versions support Server push
-------------

>>When you set up to "pull" video, that means there's not much going on
>>(bandwidth-wise) unless someone makes a connection, no?
>
> True, but the same is true for push.

That's not the way I understand the above. And again. I'm not saying
you're wrong. I'm just saying I don't follow you. Perhaps the information
above is outdated?

Thanks for replying,

Thom
--
Wanna see some filthy fish?
www.crampy.com/webcam.htm
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 3:01:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:03:50 -0400, "Thom" <Thom@no.invalid>
wrote:

>Si Ballenger <shb*NO*SPAM*@comporium.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:21:01 -0400, "Thom" <Thom@no.invalid>
>> wrote:
>
>>>As an aside? I'm wondering why you're using "server push", as
>>>opposed to "client pull", especially since you keep mentioning the
>>>word video.
>>>
>>>Anyone and everyone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the
>>>assumption that allowing the client to "pull" the video (streaming or
>>>otherwise) is much more reliable and resource-saving than "pushing"
>>>it.
>
>> Not a good assumption. There is very little difference between
>> the push and pull operation. Push may be a little faster and more
>> efficient than pull. Push sets a constant connection between the
>> server client. Pull has to open and close the connection for each
>> frame sent.
>
>Even for streaming video? My cam for instance. Are you saying that since
>I'm allowing people to "pull" the stream, that they are opening and closing
>a connection every 1/8th of a second given that I'm "sending" at about 8fps?
>Not saying you're wrong. Just saying my logs don't support that theory, and
>I don't understand.

If you are talknig about MS media encoder and media player, then
the connection is not necessarly an http based web connection.
They are specialized server/client applications that aren't using
http protocal to transfer data. It is probably more similar to a
java based "push" webcam setup than a "pull", where the
connection between the applications is kept open. Normal "web"
pages don't maintain a connection between the web server and the
web brouser after the page is downloaded. Be sure you understand
just what constitutes a "frame" in your particular application.
Various compression schemes only send the pixels that have
changed from the previous captured frame by a certian amount,
making for less data sent and faster "frame rates", but giving
the video a bit of waveyness. Media encoder and ivista use this
type of compression. Applications like webcam32 capture a frame,
jpg compress the whole frame, and send it to the brouser. The
"frame rate" is slower and blockier, but generally each frame is
clearer.

>>>When you set up to "push" video, you're sending the info whether
>>>anybody's looking at it or not, right?
>>
>> Wrong, ftp is what sends data when nobody is watching. Push/pull
>> only sends data when a client is watching.
>
>OK. Then, if you'd be so kind? Please explain. You say "Push/pull" as
>though they amount to the same thing. The webcamworld website
>www.webcamworld.com begs to differ. And I quote:
>----------------
>Client pull:
>
>This method is the most used by WebCam users to show single snapshots of
>whatever the WebCam points to. It is the most easy method to set up, and the
>one that works perfectly for dial-up style Internet connections. It also
>won't take much bandwith from your connection, so you're still able to surf
>the Web, get e-mail, IRCing and many more things while your WebCam snaps
>shots. Thus, you won't be able to serve video feeds with this method.
>
>This method is usually accomplished with an FTP connection that sends the
>last shot captured by the WebCam to your ISP's hard drive or site hosting
>your web pages.

Note that webcamworld above is talking about using a dialin
connection to the net. Below is one of my server pull test pages
on a cable connection. See if it supplys a video feed. The java
in the web page request a new image as soon as one is downloaded,
similar to clicking the page reload button on your brouser.

http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/wc2000.htm

>Server push:
>
>This is the most resource-consuming method, and thus, the least implemented.
>But it is also the most live method, as it will allow the users to view
>real-time video streams coming directly from your WebCam. It has its obvious
>limitations; to mention some:
>
>a.. It requires a high bandwith connection to be at least a bit live.
>b.. You must put a limit to the video stream for each user connecting to it.
>c.. A dial-up connection is almost useless to apply this method.
>d.. Firewall based networks can have limited the access to this kind of
>method.
>e. Only the most recent browser versions support Server push
>-------------
>
>>>When you set up to "pull" video, that means there's not much going on
>>>(bandwidth-wise) unless someone makes a connection, no?
>>
>> True, but the same is true for push.
>
>That's not the way I understand the above. And again. I'm not saying
>you're wrong. I'm just saying I don't follow you. Perhaps the information
>above is outdated?

The info does seem to be somewhat dated and simplified. The below
test page uses the server push setup. As I understand it, the
http connection is maintained and the java applet has the server
send another frame as soon as the previously sent one is
downloaded.

http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/ezservo1.htm
October 14, 2004 3:01:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Si Ballenger <shb*NO*SPAM*@comporium.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:03:50 -0400, "Thom" <Thom@no.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Si Ballenger <shb*NO*SPAM*@comporium.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:21:01 -0400, "Thom" <Thom@no.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>As an aside? I'm wondering why you're using "server push", as
>>>>opposed to "client pull", especially since you keep mentioning the
>>>>word video.
>>>>
>>>>Anyone and everyone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under
>>>>the assumption that allowing the client to "pull" the video
>>>>(streaming or otherwise) is much more reliable and resource-saving
>>>>than "pushing" it.
>>
>>> Not a good assumption. There is very little difference between
>>> the push and pull operation. Push may be a little faster and more
>>> efficient than pull. Push sets a constant connection between the
>>> server client. Pull has to open and close the connection for each
>>> frame sent.
>>
>>Even for streaming video? My cam for instance. Are you saying that
>>since I'm allowing people to "pull" the stream, that they are opening
>>and closing a connection every 1/8th of a second given that I'm
>>"sending" at about 8fps? Not saying you're wrong. Just saying my
>>logs don't support that theory, and I don't understand.
>
> If you are talknig about MS media encoder and media player, then
> the connection is not necessarly an http based web connection.
> They are specialized server/client applications that aren't using
> http protocal to transfer data.

That makes sense, as I *am* using Windows Media Encoder.

I just don't see how you can beat it (WME) for streaming, given that it's
free, easy to set up, and works with pretty-much anything.

> It is probably more similar to a
> java based "push" webcam setup than a "pull", where the
> connection between the applications is kept open. Normal "web"
> pages don't maintain a connection between the web server and the
> web brouser after the page is downloaded. Be sure you understand
> just what constitutes a "frame" in your particular application.
> Various compression schemes only send the pixels that have
> changed from the previous captured frame by a certian amount,
> making for less data sent and faster "frame rates", but giving
> the video a bit of waveyness. Media encoder and ivista use this
> type of compression. Applications like webcam32 capture a frame,
> jpg compress the whole frame, and send it to the brouser. The
> "frame rate" is slower and blockier, but generally each frame is
> clearer.

That's not been my personal experience. My live feed looks (to me) way
better than;

> http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/wc2000.htm

The link above looks like it's uploading single images, and has a
"Meta-Refresh" going on. It certainly does *NOT* stream.

> http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/ezservo1.htm

The link above appears to be a pre-recorded video of one of those "drinking
birds" on a loop.

Regards,
Thom
--

Wanna see streaming video of some filthy fish --- seven seconds ago? :-)
www.crampy.com/webcam.htm
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 6:50:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:36:58 -0400, "Thom" <Thom@no.invalid>
wrote:


>That makes sense, as I *am* using Windows Media Encoder.
>
>I just don't see how you can beat it (WME) for streaming, given that it's
>free, easy to set up, and works with pretty-much anything.

It only works with media player.

>> It is probably more similar to a
>> java based "push" webcam setup than a "pull", where the
>> connection between the applications is kept open. Normal "web"
>> pages don't maintain a connection between the web server and the
>> web brouser after the page is downloaded. Be sure you understand
>> just what constitutes a "frame" in your particular application.
>> Various compression schemes only send the pixels that have
>> changed from the previous captured frame by a certian amount,
>> making for less data sent and faster "frame rates", but giving
>> the video a bit of waveyness. Media encoder and ivista use this
>> type of compression. Applications like webcam32 capture a frame,
>> jpg compress the whole frame, and send it to the brouser. The
>> "frame rate" is slower and blockier, but generally each frame is
>> clearer.
>
>That's not been my personal experience. My live feed looks (to me) way
>better than;
>
>> http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/wc2000.htm
>
>The link above looks like it's uploading single images, and has a
>"Meta-Refresh" going on. It certainly does *NOT* stream.

It is in fact uploading single images. It may be "choppy", but
it is certainly more real time than media encoder. Media encoder
is good for things like streaming your favorite tv show, beach
sceens, the fish tank,etc. It is generally unusable for real time
security, surveillance, and pan/tilt cams due to the buffering
lag, which can be anywhere from 5 to 20 seconds. Try running a
pan/tilt cam like below with media encoder.

>> http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/ezservo1.htm
>
>The link above appears to be a pre-recorded video of one of those "drinking
>birds" on a loop.

Guess I'm pretty clever to have pre recorded where you are going
to move the cam. ;-)
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 9:42:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

I don't know much about this technology. Pull or Push. I did send
you a email because I saw your fish and I like the what I saw. What
do I need to do to start pulling.

Do I need another program or webcam32 is capable of pulling. Let me
know. In the mean time I will try to pull some pulling knowledge.
Thanks for the time taking answering these emails.


"Thom" <Thom@no.invalid> wrote in message news:<ccmdnWH9W8pi_vDcRVn-vQ@comcast.com>...
> Norberto Rivera <Norberto_Rivera@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "bumtracks" <justaposter@usenet.bud> wrote in message
> > news:o oPad.5147$gd1.2945@trnddc08...
>
> >> your cam url wont work for outsiders when your jave applet codebase
> >> url is localhost
> >
> > Changing localhost for the ddns name help a lot but I am still have
> > problems. that is besides not having the knowledge to fix this
> > problem.
> >
> > Lets see:
> >
> > <applet code="JavaCamPush.class"
> > codebase="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:80/applet"
> > archive="JavaCamPush.jar" width="320" height="240"><param name="URL"
> > value="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:80"><param name="cabbase"
> > value="JavaCamPush.cab">
> > </applet>
> >
> > In the script above, If I place an 800 number for port to read <param
> > name="URL" value="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:800"> (I am using 80
> > and 800) I cannot see the video on the homepage at the pc with the
> > camera or from outsite my home network. I am able to control camera
> > from in or outside my home network. If I place a 80 in both location
> > I can control the camera and I can see the video at the pc with the
> > camera, another pc on my home network but not from outside.
> >
> >
> > This is the other example:
> >
> > <applet width="320" height="240"
> > codebase="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:80/camera"
> > archive="JavaCamPush.jar" code="JavaCamPush.class">
> > <param name="cabbase" value="JavaCamPush.cab">
> > <param name="URL" value="http://miracamera.blogdns.com:800">
> > </applet>
> >
> > This one does not work at all.
>
> If the above are examples of the code for the two cams on the page below?
> Neither of them seem to work.
>
> > Help.
> > PD - This is my camera address:
> > http://miracamera.blogdns.com:800
>
> This page now has two camera applets. (One atop the other) Neither work
> for me. Either that? Or the cams are off.
>
> I see the rest of the graphics, but where the cams should be, there are just
> gray boxes.
>
> On the upside? My Java Runtime Console has stopped insisting there are
> "errors" on the page.
>
> On the downside? If the cams are on? I can't see them.
>
> As an aside? I'm wondering why you're using "server push", as opposed to
> "client pull", especially since you keep mentioning the word video.
>
> Anyone and everyone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the
> assumption that allowing the client to "pull" the video (streaming or
> otherwise) is much more reliable and resource-saving than "pushing" it.
>
> When you set up to "push" video, you're sending the info whether anybody's
> looking at it or not, right?
>
> When you set up to "pull" video, that means there's not much going on
> (bandwidth-wise) unless someone makes a connection, no?
>
> I've tried my cam both ways, and "client pull" (limited to 5 simultaneous
> connections) works best for me.
>
> Using a P4 at 3GHz with a Gig of RAM ....
>
> The only differences I see between "push" and "pull" are;
>
> When I "push" the video, the connection is almost instantaneous and the
> video is happening in real time. But it's a resource hog. (Upwards of 40%
> of CPU)
>
> When I allow the client to "pull" the video, it takes about five seconds to
> buffer, and then I get a "still frame" for a couple more seconds, but then
> it streams nicely, though about seven seconds behind "real time". I can
> live with the delay. In fact? I like it! Gives me a small window of
> opportunity to kill the cam in case I do something stupid. :-) Plus?
> Unless 3 to 5 people are viewing at the same time, It's using less than 15%
> of my CPU.
>
> I personally don't see any reason to "push" video to a web page, unless for
> some reason it's absolutely neccessary that it be in real time.
>
> Again. Please feel free to comment or correct me if I'm wrong. I'm
> admittedly not any kind of authority on this stuff. I'm just speaking from
> personal experience, and I'm always willing to listen and learn. :-)
>
> Thom
October 14, 2004 4:17:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Si Ballenger <shb*NO*SPAM*@comporium.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:36:58 -0400, "Thom" <Thom@no.invalid>
> wrote:

>>That makes sense, as I *am* using Windows Media Encoder.
>>
>>I just don't see how you can beat it (WME) for streaming, given that
>>it's free, easy to set up, and works with pretty-much anything.
>
> It only works with media player.

Most people seem to have some version of WMP installed. (Even Mac users)
Besides? It's all I really need for my purposes. :-)

>>> It is probably more similar to a
>>> java based "push" webcam setup than a "pull", where the
>>> connection between the applications is kept open. Normal "web"
>>> pages don't maintain a connection between the web server and the
>>> web brouser after the page is downloaded. Be sure you understand
>>> just what constitutes a "frame" in your particular application.
>>> Various compression schemes only send the pixels that have
>>> changed from the previous captured frame by a certian amount,
>>> making for less data sent and faster "frame rates", but giving
>>> the video a bit of waveyness. Media encoder and ivista use this
>>> type of compression. Applications like webcam32 capture a frame,
>>> jpg compress the whole frame, and send it to the brouser. The
>>> "frame rate" is slower and blockier, but generally each frame is
>>> clearer.
>>
>>That's not been my personal experience. My live feed looks (to me)
>>way better than;
>>
>>> http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/wc2000.htm
>>
>>The link above looks like it's uploading single images, and has a
>>"Meta-Refresh" going on. It certainly does *NOT* stream.
>
> It is in fact uploading single images. It may be "choppy", but
> it is certainly more real time than media encoder. Media encoder
> is good for things like streaming your favorite tv show, beach
> sceens, the fish tank,etc. It is generally unusable for real time
> security, surveillance, and pan/tilt cams due to the buffering
> lag, which can be anywhere from 5 to 20 seconds. Try running a
> pan/tilt cam like below with media encoder.

I have no use for a pan/tilt camera. All I was really doing was seeing if I
could make the darn thing work at all. A *smoothe* stream is what I was
shooting for. And even one on a seven second "delay", is preferable (to me)
than a "choppy" one happening in real time. It's just a silly fish tank,
and a matter of preference. No security threats. :-)

>>> http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/ezservo1.htm
>>
>>The link above appears to be a pre-recorded video of one of those
>>"drinking birds" on a loop.
>
> Guess I'm pretty clever to have pre recorded where you are going
> to move the cam. ;-)

I said it "appears to be" because I had a lot of trouble getting that page
to load last night. It was fine earlier today. And obviously, I was
wrong. :-)

I'm sorry if I crossed you. I assure you it was not my intention to do so.
I'm just here trying to learn.

Regards,
Thom

www.crampy.com/webcam.htm
October 14, 2004 4:26:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Norberto Rivera <Norberto_Rivera@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I don't know much about this technology. Pull or Push. I did send
> you a email because I saw your fish and I like the what I saw. What
> do I need to do to start pulling.
>
> Do I need another program or webcam32 is capable of pulling. Let me
> know. In the mean time I will try to pull some pulling knowledge.
> Thanks for the time taking answering these emails.

Sorry. I am not familiar with the webcam32 software.

I am using Windows Media Encoder to stream the video of my fish tank.

It's free. But only available to Windows XP and 2000 users (I believe).
Also? Using Windows Media Encoder to stream video limits you to only those
who have Windows Media Player on their machines. It's not really much of a
limitation though, as the majority of folks seem to have some form of WMP
installed.

Besides. I'm not sure, but I *think* you may have server issues at
blogdns.com. Did you see my other post, Subject: Attention Norberto?

Regards,
Thom
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 8:06:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

It is finally working. What a relief. The Blogdns.com is just a
ddns service. Nothing is being streamed tru. their servers. Yes, I
saw your previous posts and I thank you for your time and comments.

thanks again.

>
> Sorry. I am not familiar with the webcam32 software.
>
> I am using Windows Media Encoder to stream the video of my fish tank.
>
> It's free. But only available to Windows XP and 2000 users (I believe).
> Also? Using Windows Media Encoder to stream video limits you to only those
> who have Windows Media Player on their machines. It's not really much of a
> limitation though, as the majority of folks seem to have some form of WMP
> installed.
>
> Besides. I'm not sure, but I *think* you may have server issues at
> blogdns.com. Did you see my other post, Subject: Attention Norberto?
>
> Regards,
> Thom
October 16, 2004 12:33:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Norberto Rivera <Norberto_Rivera@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It is finally working. What a relief. The Blogdns.com is just a
> ddns service. Nothing is being streamed tru. their servers. Yes, I
> saw your previous posts and I thank you for your time and comments.
>
> thanks again.

Glad you got it sorted out. :-)

BTW? I replied to your email *before* I saw this post. Just ditch it.

Regards,
Thom

www.crampy.com/webcam.htm
!