Req: Info the best webcam software

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

I am trying to find one myself.
Have you found?

Please let me know.

Thanks,

galsaba@aol.com
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

>
> What is the best webcam software out there. ????
>

iCam2 works nice.. and it's free!

quote:" iCam2 is a webcam application built around Video4Linux and Imlib2.
The purpose for creating iCam2 was that, after (finally!) getting my
parallel-port QuickCam VC operating, I needed some software to make use of
it, but the only programs readily available either didn't support all the
features I wanted, or required a camera that supports mmap(), which mine
(currently) does not.."

More info @ http://linux.softpedia.com/progDownload/iCam2-Download-559.html

Noël

--
http://webcam.kijk.info
http://www.resize2mail.com
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

"R.T." <tassebob@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7fp1h1tncvd53520ke5g0bq3kuqot50eqd@4ax.com...
>
> What is the best webcam software out there. ????
>
>
> tia

Depends what you want, I use Active Webcam from www.pysoft.com
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

dylan wrote:
> "R.T." <tassebob@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7fp1h1tncvd53520ke5g0bq3kuqot50eqd@4ax.com...
>
>> What is the best webcam software out there. ????
>>
>>
>> tia
>
>
> Depends what you want, I use Active Webcam from www.pysoft.com
>
>
Yep. It is kind of like asking "How long is a piece of string?" Almost
evey piece of webcam software does the same thing. Some are just easier
to set up than others. I like Active Webcam also, but now use
Conquercam, simply because of it's low system requirements as the
computer I want to use to send images to the web is an old PII 300Mhz,
2.1G HDD and only 64M of memory, but suitable for that sole purpose, and
Conquercam will run quite happily under W98, even 95
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

others. I like Active Webcam also, but now use
> Conquercam, simply because of it's low system requirements as the
> computer I want to use to send images to the web is an old PII 300Mhz,
> 2.1G HDD and only 64M of memory, but suitable for that sole purpose,
> and Conquercam will run quite happily under W98, even 95

I like Active webcam, but it is a glutton for resources, using 70% of my
2600+ system (10% directly and another 60% in a system thread which vanishes
on exiting the program).
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 00:44:28 +0100, "Stuart Brooks"
<test@test.com> wrote:

>others. I like Active Webcam also, but now use
>> Conquercam, simply because of it's low system requirements as the
>> computer I want to use to send images to the web is an old PII 300Mhz,
>> 2.1G HDD and only 64M of memory, but suitable for that sole purpose,
>> and Conquercam will run quite happily under W98, even 95
>
>I like Active webcam, but it is a glutton for resources, using 70% of my
>2600+ system (10% directly and another 60% in a system thread which vanishes
>on exiting the program).

Sounds like motion detection, preview mode, or some such is
turned on. With no body watching my 633 mhz machine runs at 10%
cpu useage and I have three instances of webcam32 running and
four instances of webcam2000 running on it.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

R.T. ha scritto:

> What is the best webcam software out there. ????
>
>
> tia

www.errevideo.com/livelife.htm

it's FREE.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Riccardo wrote:
> R.T. ha scritto:
>
>
>>What is the best webcam software out there. ????
>>
>>
>> tia
>
>
> www.errevideo.com/livelife.htm
>
> it's FREE.
>
Hmmm...maybe free, but it is a bit 'young' (V0.1), and anyway...'Free'
does not always mean 'Best'
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Si Ballenger wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 00:44:28 +0100, "Stuart Brooks"
> <test@test.com> wrote:
>
>
>>others. I like Active Webcam also, but now use
>>
>>>Conquercam, simply because of it's low system requirements as the
>>>computer I want to use to send images to the web is an old PII 300Mhz,
>>>2.1G HDD and only 64M of memory, but suitable for that sole purpose,
>>>and Conquercam will run quite happily under W98, even 95
>>
>>I like Active webcam, but it is a glutton for resources, using 70% of my
>>2600+ system (10% directly and another 60% in a system thread which vanishes
>>on exiting the program).
>
>
> Sounds like motion detection, preview mode, or some such is
> turned on. With no body watching my 633 mhz machine runs at 10%
> cpu useage and I have three instances of webcam32 running and
> four instances of webcam2000 running on it.
All at once?
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:37:00 +1000, kim <relique_50@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>Si Ballenger wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 00:44:28 +0100, "Stuart Brooks"
>> <test@test.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>others. I like Active Webcam also, but now use
>>>
>>>>Conquercam, simply because of it's low system requirements as the
>>>>computer I want to use to send images to the web is an old PII 300Mhz,
>>>>2.1G HDD and only 64M of memory, but suitable for that sole purpose,
>>>>and Conquercam will run quite happily under W98, even 95
>>>
>>>I like Active webcam, but it is a glutton for resources, using 70% of my
>>>2600+ system (10% directly and another 60% in a system thread which vanishes
>>>on exiting the program).
>>
>>
>> Sounds like motion detection, preview mode, or some such is
>> turned on. With no body watching my 633 mhz machine runs at 10%
>> cpu useage and I have three instances of webcam32 running and
>> four instances of webcam2000 running on it.

>All at once?

Yes. Below are the test pages with the webcam2000 and webcam32
webcams. CPU useage goes up when people wre watching the cams,
but is vey low with no watchers.

http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/wc2000apptest.htm
http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/multiwc32.htm
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Si Ballenger wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:37:00 +1000, kim <relique_50@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Si Ballenger wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 00:44:28 +0100, "Stuart Brooks"
>>><test@test.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>others. I like Active Webcam also, but now use
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Conquercam, simply because of it's low system requirements as the
>>>>>computer I want to use to send images to the web is an old PII 300Mhz,
>>>>>2.1G HDD and only 64M of memory, but suitable for that sole purpose,
>>>>>and Conquercam will run quite happily under W98, even 95
>>>>
>>>>I like Active webcam, but it is a glutton for resources, using 70% of my
>>>>2600+ system (10% directly and another 60% in a system thread which vanishes
>>>>on exiting the program).
>>>
>>>
>>>Sounds like motion detection, preview mode, or some such is
>>>turned on. With no body watching my 633 mhz machine runs at 10%
>>>cpu useage and I have three instances of webcam32 running and
>>>four instances of webcam2000 running on it.
>
>
>>All at once?
>
>
> Yes. Below are the test pages with the webcam2000 and webcam32
> webcams. CPU useage goes up when people wre watching the cams,
> but is vey low with no watchers.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/wc2000apptest.htm
> http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/multiwc32.htm
>
>
I've bookmarked those pages and will come back in (your) daylight. I
assume you are using http protocol on those programs so that they are
only uploading when a 'request' to view comes in? This would explain the
10% cpu usage when no one is viewing as the programs are just idling
along waiting for a request. I have been trying this with mine, but
having trouble getting anything like no-ip, etc past my router.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 19:41:41 +1000, kim <relique_50@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>Si Ballenger wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:37:00 +1000, kim <relique_50@yahoo.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Si Ballenger wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 00:44:28 +0100, "Stuart Brooks"
>>>><test@test.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>others. I like Active Webcam also, but now use
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Conquercam, simply because of it's low system requirements as the
>>>>>>computer I want to use to send images to the web is an old PII 300Mhz,
>>>>>>2.1G HDD and only 64M of memory, but suitable for that sole purpose,
>>>>>>and Conquercam will run quite happily under W98, even 95
>>>>>
>>>>>I like Active webcam, but it is a glutton for resources, using 70% of my
>>>>>2600+ system (10% directly and another 60% in a system thread which vanishes
>>>>>on exiting the program).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like motion detection, preview mode, or some such is
>>>>turned on. With no body watching my 633 mhz machine runs at 10%
>>>>cpu useage and I have three instances of webcam32 running and
>>>>four instances of webcam2000 running on it.
>>
>>
>>>All at once?
>>
>>
>> Yes. Below are the test pages with the webcam2000 and webcam32
>> webcams. CPU useage goes up when people wre watching the cams,
>> but is vey low with no watchers.
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/wc2000apptest.htm
>> http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/multiwc32.htm
>>
>>
>I've bookmarked those pages and will come back in (your) daylight. I
>assume you are using http protocol on those programs so that they are
>only uploading when a 'request' to view comes in? This would explain the
>10% cpu usage when no one is viewing as the programs are just idling
>along waiting for a request. I have been trying this with mine, but
>having trouble getting anything like no-ip, etc past my router.

Serving video on demand is much better on total bandwidth usesage
than something like FTP that uses bandwidth even when no body is
watching. Below is a page describing a typical setup for a webcam
behind a router.

http://www.sonicjay.com/cam/cam_how_to.htm
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Si Ballenger wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 19:41:41 +1000, kim <relique_50@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Si Ballenger wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:37:00 +1000, kim <relique_50@yahoo.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Si Ballenger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 00:44:28 +0100, "Stuart Brooks"
>>>>><test@test.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>others. I like Active Webcam also, but now use
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Conquercam, simply because of it's low system requirements as the
>>>>>>>computer I want to use to send images to the web is an old PII 300Mhz,
>>>>>>>2.1G HDD and only 64M of memory, but suitable for that sole purpose,
>>>>>>>and Conquercam will run quite happily under W98, even 95
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I like Active webcam, but it is a glutton for resources, using 70% of my
>>>>>>2600+ system (10% directly and another 60% in a system thread which vanishes
>>>>>>on exiting the program).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds like motion detection, preview mode, or some such is
>>>>>turned on. With no body watching my 633 mhz machine runs at 10%
>>>>>cpu useage and I have three instances of webcam32 running and
>>>>>four instances of webcam2000 running on it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>All at once?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes. Below are the test pages with the webcam2000 and webcam32
>>>webcams. CPU useage goes up when people wre watching the cams,
>>>but is vey low with no watchers.
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/wc2000apptest.htm
>>>http://www.geocities.com/zoomkat/multiwc32.htm
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I've bookmarked those pages and will come back in (your) daylight. I
>>assume you are using http protocol on those programs so that they are
>>only uploading when a 'request' to view comes in? This would explain the
>>10% cpu usage when no one is viewing as the programs are just idling
>>along waiting for a request. I have been trying this with mine, but
>>having trouble getting anything like no-ip, etc past my router.
>
>
> Serving video on demand is much better on total bandwidth usesage
> than something like FTP that uses bandwidth even when no body is
> watching. Below is a page describing a typical setup for a webcam
> behind a router.
>
> http://www.sonicjay.com/cam/cam_how_to.htm
>
>
Thanks for that page Si. As for bandwidth, it doesn't matter to me as my
page is only located on mt ISPs server and they don't charge for
uploads. I can upload a 70k image every 3-5 secs 24/7 without it costing
anything. But I agree that it is better to only upload when someone
wants to view if for no other reason than it is less of a strain on the
ageing PII 300!
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.webcam (More info?)

Si Ballenger wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 00:44:28 +0100, "Stuart Brooks"
> <test@test.com> wrote:
>
>> others. I like Active Webcam also, but now use
>>> Conquercam, simply because of it's low system requirements as the
>>> computer I want to use to send images to the web is an old PII
>>> 300Mhz,
>>> 2.1G HDD and only 64M of memory, but suitable for that sole purpose,
>>> and Conquercam will run quite happily under W98, even 95
>>
>> I like Active webcam, but it is a glutton for resources, using 70%
>> of my 2600+ system (10% directly and another 60% in a system thread
>> which vanishes on exiting the program).
>
> Sounds like motion detection, preview mode, or some such is
> turned on. With no body watching my 633 mhz machine runs at 10%
> cpu useage and I have three instances of webcam32 running and
> four instances of webcam2000 running on it.

No, everything off apart from what is needed to send 5-minutely images to my
website via ftp. I've given up on this one as it is not possible to create a
rolling archive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom