Sharper Image?

[Guest]

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

Hi I would like to get a clearer image for my webcam. I have posted a link for it below. It is on approx Noon til 10PM EST. It is
a image of one of my clownfishes in its Anemone, so the anemone doesn't fully open till the light is on it for a half hour or so
(aprox 12:45PM EST). Right now I am using a Panasonic VHS-C camcorder, hooked thru AverTV USB to a spair Laptop, using Webcam 32
software. I purchased a Logitech Pro 4000 camera, but didn't like the close-up image at all. The webcam is better, but I really am
looking for MUCH better, if possible. This is all hooked up to a high speed modem connection. Is there a way to get a nice CLEAR
close-up of corals and fish from a webcam, such as this pic: http://tinyurl.com/4hdae
Or is technology just not there yet? Here's the link to the cam: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
Thanks for any help. Tim

 

[Guest]

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

You should be happy with the image you have for what you are using...pretty
good for a webcam. The link you provided was a professional type NTSC camera
with lighting ,etc. (actually I think it was a still photo, either digital
or film) sent as a .jpg. You could improve your setup somewhat by going to
ebay and finding a Sony EVI-D30 used for around $200-$250 (sometimes less).
For even less money and still a respectable picture you could pick up a
Picture-Tel PTZ-2N ($100 or less). Also both of those cameras are PTZ (pan,
tilt, zoom ((really nice zoom with autofocus)). You can control the PTZ
over the web using a program like BDL Webcam. Do a search on BDL Camera.
There is also a Yahoo group devoted to those type cameras, it is the Sony
EVI-D30 users group, look over the messages for a lot of info. Nice site you
have there already but check out those two cameras for higher definition...
Regards, David


"Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Uysjd.7570$Gm6.6967@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Hi I would like to get a clearer image for my webcam. I have posted a
> link for it below. It is on approx Noon til 10PM EST. It is a image of
> one of my clownfishes in its Anemone, so the anemone doesn't fully open
> till the light is on it for a half hour or so (aprox 12:45PM EST). Right
> now I am using a Panasonic VHS-C camcorder, hooked thru AverTV USB to a
> spair Laptop, using Webcam 32 software. I purchased a Logitech Pro 4000
> camera, but didn't like the close-up image at all. The webcam is better,
> but I really am looking for MUCH better, if possible. This is all hooked
> up to a high speed modem connection. Is there a way to get a nice CLEAR
> close-up of corals and fish from a webcam, such as this pic:
> http://tinyurl.com/4hdae
> Or is technology just not there yet? Here's the link to the cam:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
> Thanks for any help. Tim
>
>

 

[Rob]

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

Looks like your picture has some jpg compression aritifacts. Try easing up
on the compression a lot. As the previous poster said, it's pretty good
for what it is.

The technology is there here for the one you want to emulate, but you
probably can't afford it.






On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:02:44 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Hi I would like to get a clearer image for my webcam. I have posted a link for it below. It is on approx Noon til 10PM EST. It is
>a image of one of my clownfishes in its Anemone, so the anemone doesn't fully open till the light is on it for a half hour or so
>(aprox 12:45PM EST). Right now I am using a Panasonic VHS-C camcorder, hooked thru AverTV USB to a spair Laptop, using Webcam 32
>software. I purchased a Logitech Pro 4000 camera, but didn't like the close-up image at all. The webcam is better, but I really am
>looking for MUCH better, if possible. This is all hooked up to a high speed modem connection. Is there a way to get a nice CLEAR
>close-up of corals and fish from a webcam, such as this pic: http://tinyurl.com/4hdae
>Or is technology just not there yet? Here's the link to the cam: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>Thanks for any help. Tim
>

 

[Guest]

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

"David Gerard" <nospamdavid@comcast.net> wrote in message news:eI6dncIxCaQi8RPcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
> You should be happy with the image you have for what you are using...pretty good for a webcam. The link you provided was a
> professional type NTSC camera with lighting ,etc. (actually I think it was a still photo, either digital or film) sent as a .jpg.
> You could improve your setup somewhat by going to ebay and finding a Sony EVI-D30 used for around $200-$250 (sometimes less). For
> even less money and still a respectable picture you could pick up a Picture-Tel PTZ-2N ($100 or less). Also both of those cameras
> are PTZ (pan, tilt, zoom ((really nice zoom with autofocus)). You can control the PTZ over the web using a program like BDL
> Webcam. Do a search on BDL Camera. There is also a Yahoo group devoted to those type cameras, it is the Sony EVI-D30 users group,
> look over the messages for a lot of info. Nice site you have there already but check out those two cameras for higher
> definition...
> Regards, David
>
>

Thanks alot for the ideas David. I like the idea of PTZ. Thanks again.






> "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Uysjd.7570$Gm6.6967@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Hi I would like to get a clearer image for my webcam. I have posted a link for it below. It is on approx Noon til 10PM EST. It
>> is a image of one of my clownfishes in its Anemone, so the anemone doesn't fully open till the light is on it for a half hour or
>> so (aprox 12:45PM EST). Right now I am using a Panasonic VHS-C camcorder, hooked thru AverTV USB to a spair Laptop, using Webcam
>> 32 software. I purchased a Logitech Pro 4000 camera, but didn't like the close-up image at all. The webcam is better, but I
>> really am looking for MUCH better, if possible. This is all hooked up to a high speed modem connection. Is there a way to get a
>> nice CLEAR close-up of corals and fish from a webcam, such as this pic: http://tinyurl.com/4hdae
>> Or is technology just not there yet? Here's the link to the cam: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>> Thanks for any help. Tim
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Rob" <oersted@sonic.net> wrote in message news:sphto0h830gq8mukcjg1df2il3u22u9jb8@4ax.com...
> Looks like your picture has some jpg compression aritifacts. Try easing up
> on the compression a lot. As the previous poster said, it's pretty good
> for what it is.
>
> The technology is there here for the one you want to emulate, but you
> probably can't afford it.
>
>

Thanks. I eased up on the compression, and it does look better. Thanks Rob.





>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:02:44 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Hi I would like to get a clearer image for my webcam. I have posted a link for it below. It is on approx Noon til 10PM EST. It
>>is
>>a image of one of my clownfishes in its Anemone, so the anemone doesn't fully open till the light is on it for a half hour or so
>>(aprox 12:45PM EST). Right now I am using a Panasonic VHS-C camcorder, hooked thru AverTV USB to a spair Laptop, using Webcam 32
>>software. I purchased a Logitech Pro 4000 camera, but didn't like the close-up image at all. The webcam is better, but I really am
>>looking for MUCH better, if possible. This is all hooked up to a high speed modem connection. Is there a way to get a nice CLEAR
>>close-up of corals and fish from a webcam, such as this pic: http://tinyurl.com/4hdae
>>Or is technology just not there yet? Here's the link to the cam: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>Thanks for any help. Tim
>>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I think it is better now. Thanks. 😉: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html





"Rob" <oersted@sonic.net> wrote in message news:sphto0h830gq8mukcjg1df2il3u22u9jb8@4ax.com...
> Looks like your picture has some jpg compression aritifacts. Try easing up
> on the compression a lot. As the previous poster said, it's pretty good
> for what it is.
>
> The technology is there here for the one you want to emulate, but you
> probably can't afford it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:02:44 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Hi I would like to get a clearer image for my webcam. I have posted a link for it below. It is on approx Noon til 10PM EST. It
>>is
>>a image of one of my clownfishes in its Anemone, so the anemone doesn't fully open till the light is on it for a half hour or so
>>(aprox 12:45PM EST). Right now I am using a Panasonic VHS-C camcorder, hooked thru AverTV USB to a spair Laptop, using Webcam 32
>>software. I purchased a Logitech Pro 4000 camera, but didn't like the close-up image at all. The webcam is better, but I really am
>>looking for MUCH better, if possible. This is all hooked up to a high speed modem connection. Is there a way to get a nice CLEAR
>>close-up of corals and fish from a webcam, such as this pic: http://tinyurl.com/4hdae
>>Or is technology just not there yet? Here's the link to the cam: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>Thanks for any help. Tim
>>
>

 

[Rob]

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

Much, much better. If I understand correctly, you are using the Panasonic
camcorder. Maybe it will do 640 x 480. The webcam32 software may limit you
to 320x240. You might want to try Active Webcam http://pysoft.com/ or
webcamxp http://www.webcamxp.com . They both have free trial periods; I'm
'auditioning' them myself right now. Some of my older software won't go
larger than 320x240 even when the camera supports it. The latest webcam32
version was released 5 years ago and the last patch was 3.5 years ago!
Bob


On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:39:49 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I think it is better now. Thanks. 😉: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>
>
>
>
>
>"Rob" <oersted@sonic.net> wrote in message news:sphto0h830gq8mukcjg1df2il3u22u9jb8@4ax.com...
>> Looks like your picture has some jpg compression aritifacts. Try easing up
>> on the compression a lot. As the previous poster said, it's pretty good
>> for what it is.
>>
>> The technology is there here for the one you want to emulate, but you
>> probably can't afford it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:02:44 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi I would like to get a clearer image for my webcam. I have posted a link for it below. It is on approx Noon til 10PM EST. It
>>>is
>>>a image of one of my clownfishes in its Anemone, so the anemone doesn't fully open till the light is on it for a half hour or so
>>>(aprox 12:45PM EST). Right now I am using a Panasonic VHS-C camcorder, hooked thru AverTV USB to a spair Laptop, using Webcam 32
>>>software. I purchased a Logitech Pro 4000 camera, but didn't like the close-up image at all. The webcam is better, but I really am
>>>looking for MUCH better, if possible. This is all hooked up to a high speed modem connection. Is there a way to get a nice CLEAR
>>>close-up of corals and fish from a webcam, such as this pic: http://tinyurl.com/4hdae
>>>Or is technology just not there yet? Here's the link to the cam: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>>Thanks for any help. Tim
>>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Much better with less compression. What were your percentages of compression
before and after?
David Gerard


"Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FbOjd.8687$Gm6.3617@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I think it is better now. Thanks. 😉:
>http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>
>
>
>
>
> "Rob" <oersted@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:sphto0h830gq8mukcjg1df2il3u22u9jb8@4ax.com...
>> Looks like your picture has some jpg compression aritifacts. Try easing
>> up
>> on the compression a lot. As the previous poster said, it's pretty good
>> for what it is.
>>
>> The technology is there here for the one you want to emulate, but you
>> probably can't afford it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:02:44 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi I would like to get a clearer image for my webcam. I have posted a
>>>link for it below. It is on approx Noon til 10PM EST. It is
>>>a image of one of my clownfishes in its Anemone, so the anemone doesn't
>>>fully open till the light is on it for a half hour or so
>>>(aprox 12:45PM EST). Right now I am using a Panasonic VHS-C camcorder,
>>>hooked thru AverTV USB to a spair Laptop, using Webcam 32
>>>software. I purchased a Logitech Pro 4000 camera, but didn't like the
>>>close-up image at all. The webcam is better, but I really am
>>>looking for MUCH better, if possible. This is all hooked up to a high
>>>speed modem connection. Is there a way to get a nice CLEAR
>>>close-up of corals and fish from a webcam, such as this pic:
>>>http://tinyurl.com/4hdae
>>>Or is technology just not there yet? Here's the link to the cam:
>>>http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>>Thanks for any help. Tim
>>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I had the slider bar at 28%. Now it is at 100%, and that made the difference.


"David Gerard" <nospamdavid@comcast.net> wrote in message news:NYSdnRSCYK7xYRLcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
> Much better with less compression. What were your percentages of compression before and after?
> David Gerard
>
>
> "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:FbOjd.8687$Gm6.3617@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>I think it is better now. Thanks. 😉: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Rob" <oersted@sonic.net> wrote in message news:sphto0h830gq8mukcjg1df2il3u22u9jb8@4ax.com...
>>> Looks like your picture has some jpg compression aritifacts. Try easing up
>>> on the compression a lot. As the previous poster said, it's pretty good
>>> for what it is.
>>>
>>> The technology is there here for the one you want to emulate, but you
>>> probably can't afford it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:02:44 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi I would like to get a clearer image for my webcam. I have posted a link for it below. It is on approx Noon til 10PM EST. It
>>>>is
>>>>a image of one of my clownfishes in its Anemone, so the anemone doesn't fully open till the light is on it for a half hour or so
>>>>(aprox 12:45PM EST). Right now I am using a Panasonic VHS-C camcorder, hooked thru AverTV USB to a spair Laptop, using Webcam 32
>>>>software. I purchased a Logitech Pro 4000 camera, but didn't like the close-up image at all. The webcam is better, but I really
>>>>am
>>>>looking for MUCH better, if possible. This is all hooked up to a high speed modem connection. Is there a way to get a nice CLEAR
>>>>close-up of corals and fish from a webcam, such as this pic: http://tinyurl.com/4hdae
>>>>Or is technology just not there yet? Here's the link to the cam: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>>>Thanks for any help. Tim
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Thanks, I'll check it out!


"Rob" <oersted@sonic.net> wrote in message news:0680p09o43qvt38njusd2jb05kh7loo9c9@4ax.com...
> Much, much better. If I understand correctly, you are using the Panasonic
> camcorder. Maybe it will do 640 x 480. The webcam32 software may limit you
> to 320x240. You might want to try Active Webcam http://pysoft.com/ or
> webcamxp http://www.webcamxp.com . They both have free trial periods; I'm
> 'auditioning' them myself right now. Some of my older software won't go
> larger than 320x240 even when the camera supports it. The latest webcam32
> version was released 5 years ago and the last patch was 3.5 years ago!
> Bob
>
>
> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:39:49 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>I think it is better now. Thanks. 😉: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Rob" <oersted@sonic.net> wrote in message news:sphto0h830gq8mukcjg1df2il3u22u9jb8@4ax.com...
>>> Looks like your picture has some jpg compression aritifacts. Try easing up
>>> on the compression a lot. As the previous poster said, it's pretty good
>>> for what it is.
>>>
>>> The technology is there here for the one you want to emulate, but you
>>> probably can't afford it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:02:44 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi I would like to get a clearer image for my webcam. I have posted a link for it below. It is on approx Noon til 10PM EST. It
>>>>is
>>>>a image of one of my clownfishes in its Anemone, so the anemone doesn't fully open till the light is on it for a half hour or so
>>>>(aprox 12:45PM EST). Right now I am using a Panasonic VHS-C camcorder, hooked thru AverTV USB to a spair Laptop, using Webcam 32
>>>>software. I purchased a Logitech Pro 4000 camera, but didn't like the close-up image at all. The webcam is better, but I really
>>>>am
>>>>looking for MUCH better, if possible. This is all hooked up to a high speed modem connection. Is there a way to get a nice CLEAR
>>>>close-up of corals and fish from a webcam, such as this pic: http://tinyurl.com/4hdae
>>>>Or is technology just not there yet? Here's the link to the cam: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>>>Thanks for any help. Tim
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I use both Active Webcam and Ivista separately, for two cameras at the same
location. Both deliver 480x640. I get about 2-3 frames per sec with minimal
(25%) compression on the Ivista. I get about 1-1.5 frames/sec with the
Active. Broadband on both ends. The Active requires more processor usage
then Ivista but both deliver a nice image. When you view them on a 1024x768
monitor it make for a nice presentation, no more squinting and crowding the
monitor to see what is happening. There is always a tradeoff between screen
size, compression, frame rate but I can live with 3fr/sec to see a larger
image. When I run 320x240 with same compression my frame rate is 7-9 fr/sec
but who needs it. Also the Ivista has a nice feature that you can change the
compression on the fly from the viewing computer to anything from none to
max. This would allow you to use no compression when interest in details and
more compression for casual observation. Both have free trials, watch out
for the pricing structure on Active Webcam, they have a way of sneaking up
on you the more features you use. I use the middle version (~ $50).
Regards, David Gerard


"Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ST9kd.5921$_J2.3936@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Thanks, I'll check it out!
>
>
> "Rob" <oersted@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:0680p09o43qvt38njusd2jb05kh7loo9c9@4ax.com...
>> Much, much better. If I understand correctly, you are using the
>> Panasonic
>> camcorder. Maybe it will do 640 x 480. The webcam32 software may limit
>> you
>> to 320x240. You might want to try Active Webcam http://pysoft.com/ or
>> webcamxp http://www.webcamxp.com . They both have free trial periods;
>> I'm
>> 'auditioning' them myself right now. Some of my older software won't go
>> larger than 320x240 even when the camera supports it. The latest
>> webcam32
>> version was released 5 years ago and the last patch was 3.5 years ago!
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:39:49 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I think it is better now. Thanks. 😉:
>>>http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Rob" <oersted@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>news:sphto0h830gq8mukcjg1df2il3u22u9jb8@4ax.com...
>>>> Looks like your picture has some jpg compression aritifacts. Try
>>>> easing up
>>>> on the compression a lot. As the previous poster said, it's pretty
>>>> good
>>>> for what it is.
>>>>
>>>> The technology is there here for the one you want to emulate, but you
>>>> probably can't afford it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:02:44 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi I would like to get a clearer image for my webcam. I have posted a
>>>>>link for it below. It is on approx Noon til 10PM EST. It
>>>>>is
>>>>>a image of one of my clownfishes in its Anemone, so the anemone doesn't
>>>>>fully open till the light is on it for a half hour or so
>>>>>(aprox 12:45PM EST). Right now I am using a Panasonic VHS-C camcorder,
>>>>>hooked thru AverTV USB to a spair Laptop, using Webcam 32
>>>>>software. I purchased a Logitech Pro 4000 camera, but didn't like the
>>>>>close-up image at all. The webcam is better, but I really am
>>>>>looking for MUCH better, if possible. This is all hooked up to a high
>>>>>speed modem connection. Is there a way to get a nice CLEAR
>>>>>close-up of corals and fish from a webcam, such as this pic:
>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/4hdae
>>>>>Or is technology just not there yet? Here's the link to the cam:
>>>>>http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>>>>Thanks for any help. Tim
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Thanks

"David Gerard" <nospamdavid@comcast.net> wrote in message news:YvudnTL7TJs_pQzcRVn-jA@comcast.com...
>I use both Active Webcam and Ivista separately, for two cameras at the same location. Both deliver 480x640. I get about 2-3 frames
>per sec with minimal (25%) compression on the Ivista. I get about 1-1.5 frames/sec with the Active. Broadband on both ends. The
>Active requires more processor usage then Ivista but both deliver a nice image. When you view them on a 1024x768 monitor it make
>for a nice presentation, no more squinting and crowding the monitor to see what is happening. There is always a tradeoff between
>screen size, compression, frame rate but I can live with 3fr/sec to see a larger image. When I run 320x240 with same compression my
>frame rate is 7-9 fr/sec but who needs it. Also the Ivista has a nice feature that you can change the compression on the fly from
>the viewing computer to anything from none to max. This would allow you to use no compression when interest in details and more
>compression for casual observation. Both have free trials, watch out for the pricing structure on Active Webcam, they have a way of
>sneaking up on you the more features you use. I use the middle version (~ $50).
> Regards, David Gerard
>
>
> "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ST9kd.5921$_J2.3936@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Thanks, I'll check it out!
>>
>>
>> "Rob" <oersted@sonic.net> wrote in message news:0680p09o43qvt38njusd2jb05kh7loo9c9@4ax.com...
>>> Much, much better. If I understand correctly, you are using the Panasonic
>>> camcorder. Maybe it will do 640 x 480. The webcam32 software may limit you
>>> to 320x240. You might want to try Active Webcam http://pysoft.com/ or
>>> webcamxp http://www.webcamxp.com . They both have free trial periods; I'm
>>> 'auditioning' them myself right now. Some of my older software won't go
>>> larger than 320x240 even when the camera supports it. The latest webcam32
>>> version was released 5 years ago and the last patch was 3.5 years ago!
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:39:49 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think it is better now. Thanks. 😉: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Rob" <oersted@sonic.net> wrote in message news:sphto0h830gq8mukcjg1df2il3u22u9jb8@4ax.com...
>>>>> Looks like your picture has some jpg compression aritifacts. Try easing up
>>>>> on the compression a lot. As the previous poster said, it's pretty good
>>>>> for what it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> The technology is there here for the one you want to emulate, but you
>>>>> probably can't afford it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:02:44 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi I would like to get a clearer image for my webcam. I have posted a link for it below. It is on approx Noon til 10PM EST.
>>>>>>It
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>a image of one of my clownfishes in its Anemone, so the anemone doesn't fully open till the light is on it for a half hour or
>>>>>>so
>>>>>>(aprox 12:45PM EST). Right now I am using a Panasonic VHS-C camcorder, hooked thru AverTV USB to a spair Laptop, using Webcam
>>>>>>32
>>>>>>software. I purchased a Logitech Pro 4000 camera, but didn't like the close-up image at all. The webcam is better, but I
>>>>>>really am
>>>>>>looking for MUCH better, if possible. This is all hooked up to a high speed modem connection. Is there a way to get a nice
>>>>>>CLEAR
>>>>>>close-up of corals and fish from a webcam, such as this pic: http://tinyurl.com/4hdae
>>>>>>Or is technology just not there yet? Here's the link to the cam: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>>>>>Thanks for any help. Tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I've seen the 1024x768. You're right, very nice.


"David Gerard" <nospamdavid@comcast.net> wrote in message news:YvudnTL7TJs_pQzcRVn-jA@comcast.com...
>I use both Active Webcam and Ivista separately, for two cameras at the same location. Both deliver 480x640. I get about 2-3 frames
>per sec with minimal (25%) compression on the Ivista. I get about 1-1.5 frames/sec with the Active. Broadband on both ends. The
>Active requires more processor usage then Ivista but both deliver a nice image. When you view them on a 1024x768 monitor it make
>for a nice presentation, no more squinting and crowding the monitor to see what is happening. There is always a tradeoff between
>screen size, compression, frame rate but I can live with 3fr/sec to see a larger image. When I run 320x240 with same compression my
>frame rate is 7-9 fr/sec but who needs it. Also the Ivista has a nice feature that you can change the compression on the fly from
>the viewing computer to anything from none to max. This would allow you to use no compression when interest in details and more
>compression for casual observation. Both have free trials, watch out for the pricing structure on Active Webcam, they have a way of
>sneaking up on you the more features you use. I use the middle version (~ $50).
> Regards, David Gerard
>
>
> "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ST9kd.5921$_J2.3936@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Thanks, I'll check it out!
>>
>>
>> "Rob" <oersted@sonic.net> wrote in message news:0680p09o43qvt38njusd2jb05kh7loo9c9@4ax.com...
>>> Much, much better. If I understand correctly, you are using the Panasonic
>>> camcorder. Maybe it will do 640 x 480. The webcam32 software may limit you
>>> to 320x240. You might want to try Active Webcam http://pysoft.com/ or
>>> webcamxp http://www.webcamxp.com . They both have free trial periods; I'm
>>> 'auditioning' them myself right now. Some of my older software won't go
>>> larger than 320x240 even when the camera supports it. The latest webcam32
>>> version was released 5 years ago and the last patch was 3.5 years ago!
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:39:49 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think it is better now. Thanks. 😉: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Rob" <oersted@sonic.net> wrote in message news:sphto0h830gq8mukcjg1df2il3u22u9jb8@4ax.com...
>>>>> Looks like your picture has some jpg compression aritifacts. Try easing up
>>>>> on the compression a lot. As the previous poster said, it's pretty good
>>>>> for what it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> The technology is there here for the one you want to emulate, but you
>>>>> probably can't afford it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:02:44 GMT, "Yukon" <wallswall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi I would like to get a clearer image for my webcam. I have posted a link for it below. It is on approx Noon til 10PM EST.
>>>>>>It
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>a image of one of my clownfishes in its Anemone, so the anemone doesn't fully open till the light is on it for a half hour or
>>>>>>so
>>>>>>(aprox 12:45PM EST). Right now I am using a Panasonic VHS-C camcorder, hooked thru AverTV USB to a spair Laptop, using Webcam
>>>>>>32
>>>>>>software. I purchased a Logitech Pro 4000 camera, but didn't like the close-up image at all. The webcam is better, but I
>>>>>>really am
>>>>>>looking for MUCH better, if possible. This is all hooked up to a high speed modem connection. Is there a way to get a nice
>>>>>>CLEAR
>>>>>>close-up of corals and fish from a webcam, such as this pic: http://tinyurl.com/4hdae
>>>>>>Or is technology just not there yet? Here's the link to the cam: http://home.earthlink.net/~wallswall/webcam.html
>>>>>>Thanks for any help. Tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>