PC camera at top of 20-foot pole, wired or wireless?

[micky]

I want to attach a video camera to the top of a 20 foot pole and see
what the camera sees.


A Wired: I have an old USB camera, never used, and it won't install
right now (but that's a separate topic) Assuming I can install it, it
has a 6' cord. Is it likely I'll be able to attach a 20' extension USB
cord and still get the same quality picture? Or a decent picture at
all?



B) Wireless: My first thought is that I wanted to get a wireless
camera for my winXP PC.

One that looks good is wireless N, but my router is only B and G, Can
I assume a camera that transmits in N will also transmit in G?
.......That was my original quesiton but it says, "802.11b/g/n Wireless
with WEP/WPA/WPA2 security", so I guess that settles it, right?

If it matters or you're curious, here is the camera
http://mydlink.dlink.com/products/DCS-930L
Video and audio, and an app for Iphone and Androild so you can use a
smart phone to log into the Dlink website and watch what's on the
camera!!! Or you can save on your computer or your NAS harddrive,

According to Amazon and Walmart and This is suposedly a $120 camera for
$33 now. Should that make me suspicious that it doesn't work right?
It's on Dlink's own website for $40, and another page there has it at
$80. I guess that's an older page. The software and manual are only
about a year old. There are other cameras in the series that are still
60, 70, 80, and 100 dollars, but their Overview and Specs are about 1/8
the length of the one for this camera. Yet only this one is so cheap.

On Amazon it actually has 860 reviews averaging 3.4 or so out of 5.
(Not all gathered by Amazon, I'm pretty sure.)

500 of these are 4's and 5's but if the software is really no good as a
few people say, shouldnt' I be able to find other software to display
the video (which is all I want now) and even to save the video?

 

[Norm X]

Wireless sounds good but you still need power. USB carries +5V but the USB
specs limit it to 10'. Therefor you need a USB hub halfway. Trust me it
works.

 

[Norm X]

I should expand. USB 2.0 specs limit signal transmission to 10'. USB 2.0
cable is unshielded and acts like an antenna so maybe signal loss by
radiation is the problem. The USB specs in Wikipedia are informative. As far
as I know USB 3.0 cable is shielded but more expensive. If a vendor carries
20' USB 3.0 cable it would do the trick without a hub repeater. However,
maybe the pinout would oblige you to use a USB 3.0 webcam.

 

[micky]

Wireless sounds good but you still need power.

Yeah, I didn't think about that at first.

USB carries +5V but the USB
specs limit it to 10'.

So it's because of the power that there's a 10' limit? Not the signal
itself?

Therefor you need a USB hub halfway. Trust me it
works.

Great.

I had found a wireless camera that would run on a 9-v battery, but the
review said they had used old batteries and could only estimate the time
it would last on a new one as 30 minutes. While that would be plenty of
time for this project, I can't think of any other time it would be, and
the camera design seemed strange. So as you say, if i need a wire for
power, I might as well have a wire for the signal. I'tll tape them to
the pole.

But I still need an excuse to buy the wireless one. :-(

 

[Paul]

Yeah, I didn't think about that at first.


So it's because of the power that there's a 10' limit? Not the signal
itself?


Great.

I had found a wireless camera that would run on a 9-v battery, but the
review said they had used old batteries and could only estimate the time
it would last on a new one as 30 minutes. While that would be plenty of
time for this project, I can't think of any other time it would be, and
the camera design seemed strange. So as you say, if i need a wire for
power, I might as well have a wire for the signal. I'tll tape them to
the pole.

But I still need an excuse to buy the wireless one. :-(

I've tested this. I run a Logitech Quickcam Pro 9000 on the end
of 3x16' active repeater cables. Each cable has a "one port hub"
in the blob at the end of the cable. That regenerates the
USB packets.

I figured I would need a powered hub, at the remote end of the
cable, to get enough power to run the camera. But for some
reason, it just works. I was shocked. I figured the voltage
drop on this long a cable, would be too great. But it
did not complain, that I could tell.

http://www.startech.com/Cables/USB-2.0/USB-2.0-Cables/Active-USB-Extension-Cable~USB2FAAEXT15

PC(USB2) ----- Rpt ----- Rpt ----- Rpt->Logitech_9000
16' 16' 16'

The Startech page claims you can run five of these. You
can run five on an old motherboard, only four on a modern
motherboard. Intel switched the USB design to "hub" style
on the newer chipsets, which as far as I know, reduces
the repeater cables to four. Someone richer than me,
can test this... I only bought enough cables, to solve my
specific problem.

*******

Mounting electronics like this, carries some lightning risk.
If you lived in Florida, I would not do it. I've heard
stories from one Floridian, that lightning there is evil.
Whereas here, the risk is a bit lower. Even if you used
a Wifi cam, it would still need a power source.

As a kid, I ran a 50 foot antenna wire from my bedroom
window, and never got blown out of my socks. How dumb
can you get.

Paul

 

[David W. Hodgins]

I want to attach a video camera to the top of a 20 foot pole and see
what the camera sees.

What is the distance from the computer to the pole? I've found wireless
camera really don't work very well. Usb also has a very low bandwidth,
so If the computer is close enough, I'd suggest using an ethernet
connected camera. While ethernet is supposed to be good up to 50 feet,
I found it better to put a powered router in between, at roughly 25
feet, to get good connections and video from the camera. It's been
a few years since I tried using a wireless camera, so things may have
improved since then. Probably depends both on what camera you choose,
and the router being used.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

 

[micky]

Don't go overthinking it. This is a common need and it has been solved in a
variety of ways, all of them probably simpler than what you propose.

Take a look at:

http://www.amazon.com/HDE-over-Extension-Cable-Adapter/dp/B002WJ9S6Y

Other companies make similar adapter sets.

Thanks. I didnt' think there would be a USB to CAT6 adapter.

Could I do this, Run a CAT6 cable from the router to the adapter and
plug the camera into the other end of the adapter, so that the camera
had its own jack on the router?

Or is the only way to do it to run from the computer via one adapter to
the CAT6, and then via the other adapter in the set to the camera?

 

[micky]

I should expand. USB 2.0 specs limit signal transmission to 10'. USB 2.0
cable is unshielded and acts like an antenna so maybe signal loss by
radiation is the problem. The USB specs in Wikipedia are informative. As far
as I know USB 3.0 cable is shielded but more expensive. If a vendor carries
20' USB 3.0 cable it would do the trick without a hub repeater. However,
maybe the pinout would oblige you to use a USB 3.0 webcam.

As to pinout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.1#3.1 which redirects to
the USB entry shows the pinout and I'm confused, though I don't think
you can unconfuse me easily, and I'm stil trying to get an old camera to
work. But for the record, at first I thought they were all the same,
because at the top in the box it shows the pinout for A plugs and B
plugs, and doesn't distinguish among USB 1, 2, or 3. But further down
it goes into changes, esp. mostly if I understand wrt micro-B.

As to 20 feet, almost. 16 feet USB 3 is available for 14 dollars
http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=103&cp_id=10303&cs_id=1030309&p_id=9470&seq=1&format=2
This doesn't have the two stacked sections that USB3 micro-B has and is
probably fully compatible with USB2. In fact the page says that it is.

But when 20 feet was announced, 3 years ago, it got a whole press
release.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/08/icron-technologies-unveils-20-meter-usb-3-0-cable-mostly-becaus/

I'm not ready to buy either yet because I'm still trying to get my
never-used webcam to work. I found the CD that came with it today.

 

[micky]

I've tested this. I run a Logitech Quickcam Pro 9000 on the end
of 3x16' active repeater cables. Each cable has a "one port hub"
in the blob at the end of the cable. That regenerates the
USB packets.

I figured I would need a powered hub, at the remote end of the
cable, to get enough power to run the camera. But for some
reason, it just works. I was shocked. I figured the voltage
drop on this long a cable, would be too great. But it
did not complain, that I could tell.

http://www.startech.com/Cables/USB-2.0/USB-2.0-Cables/Active-USB-Extension-Cable~USB2FAAEXT15

PC(USB2) ----- Rpt ----- Rpt ----- Rpt->Logitech_9000
16' 16' 16'

The Startech page claims you can run five of these. You
can run five on an old motherboard, only four on a modern
motherboard. Intel switched the USB design to "hub" style
on the newer chipsets, which as far as I know, reduces
the repeater cables to four. Someone richer than me,
can test this... I only bought enough cables, to solve my
specific problem.

Also a possibility. I would only need two of the cables at most.

*******

Mounting electronics like this, carries some lightning risk.

Thanks for the warning. I'll do this only in clear weather.

If you lived in Florida, I would not do it. I've heard

30 years ago, when I first bought this house, I thought I could make a
couple changes at each end of the metal chimney and have a lightning rod
for it. But when I called the 800 number for lightning, and he learned
I wasn't in Florida, he lost interest in me. Strange I thought.

stories from one Floridian, that lightning there is evil.
Whereas here, the risk is a bit lower. Even if you used
a Wifi cam, it would still need a power source.

I did find one wireless camera that would run on a 9-volt battery. I
can find it again if anyone wants. The reviewer who talked about this
said he had only used second-hand batteries so he didnt' know how long a
full one would last but he guessed 30 minutes. I don't know what I'll
use this camera for after this, but 30 minutes didn't seem long enough
for any subsequent project. It also had a second box and a strange
connector coming out of the camera. Didnt' look like others,
physcially.

As a kid, I ran a 50 foot antenna wire from my bedroom
window, and never got blown out of my socks. How dumb
can you get.

Hopefully you get smarter after age 15...... or 21.

 

[micky]

I want to attach a video camera to the top of a 20 foot pole and see
what the camera sees.


A Wired: I have an old USB camera, never used, and it won't install
right now (but that's a separate topic) Assuming I can install it, it
has a 6' cord. Is it likely I'll be able to attach a 20' extension USB
cord and still get the same quality picture? Or a decent picture at
all?

First I need to install the wired camera I have already.

Not being too vain or having anyone to video skype with, I had never
installed this camera. First I had to find it, and then I couldn't find
any drivers online -- although one or more that claimed to be the one
had a virus in it -- but today I finally found the CD that came with
the camera, and yet I'm having a lot of trouble getting the camera to
work. (even with a 6 foot cord, let alone 20 feet!)

The CD is good for win 98 SE, Me, 2000 and XP and I have XP SP3. It's
called Webcam Basic, IC50C Software. I already searched online for
IC50C and that's how I bumped into the virus, which AVG caught**.

The CD offered to install the driver and 3 software packages. I chose
only the driver. Do you think that could cause a problem later, maybe
becaues of an error on their part?

Anyhow, I installed and then repair installed the driver. The second
time at least I got a message that it completed. And I restarted the
computer.

It found the camera and brought up the new hardware wizard, but no
matter what choices I make, it can't find the driver.

I let it install Automatically, but it didnt' find the driver.

So I pointed it to a variety of specific locations:

I let it look in the Camera CD, and in the Camera CD Driver\XP
directory, but there is no .INF file there, only the EXE file that the
driver installation process started off with.

I pointed it to C:\Windows\INF and
" \drivers

I pointed it to its first choice, Removeable Media, but based on the
lights that went on, it looked only in the floppy drive and not the CD
drive with the Webcam CD in it.

I let it look onlline (even though I had done so by hand already).

I let it look by Hardware Type, and I noticed there was no entry for
Cameras. (How come?) There were Imaging Devices (what are they?) but
choosing that came up with no entries. "Unable to find drivers for this
device":

It always ends up at Cannot Install this Hardware

Have I forgotten how to do this?

The CD looks pristine.

Should I go back and install all 3 programs, Presto Mr. Photo,
VideoWorks, and ImageFolio? I only checked the box for Driver the
first two times. That's the only idea I have left.

Thanks



**I also found a lot of people looking for this driver, although I
didnt' keep a record of when they were looking. Once it actually works
for me, I'd be glad to upload it, but not to the download place that
offered me a virus and I've lost track of reliable driver download
places that want uploads. Suggestions?

Then there is the question of what to send them. Just the 8 Meg .exe
file, SETUP.exe? For XP.


The company, Micro Innovations, http://www.microinv.com , may have
turned into Digital Innovatoins but I don't think they know about the
old products and they're closed on the weekend. They list about 4
webcams but only one has a download offered. I guess for the others,
they expect the driver to come with windows?

 

[micky]

Should I go back and install all 3 programs, Presto Mr. Photo,
VideoWorks, and ImageFolio? I only checked the box for Driver the
first two times. That's the only idea I have left.

They give another link for the software and it's still running and
maintaining all three programs, so since it's a different company, not
with a similar name even, those programs most likely have nothing to do
with the driver for the hardware, I would think.

So now I'm out of ideas entirely.

FTR http://www.newsoftinc.com ,

 

[Paul]

Thanks. I didnt' think there would be a USB to CAT6 adapter.

Could I do this, Run a CAT6 cable from the router to the adapter and
plug the camera into the other end of the adapter, so that the camera
had its own jack on the router?

Or is the only way to do it to run from the computer via one adapter to
the CAT6, and then via the other adapter in the set to the camera?

Cameras run over Ethernet cable (so-called IP cameras), they can have
a power adapter located right near the camera. Or, you can send power
to them remotely, using a method called PoE. Obtaining "local power",
the first option, would not be easy with a flag pole. PoE would
be a neater solution in that case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_over_Ethernet

USB, on the other hand, has two powering methods. The +5V VBUS available
on the PC connector, can travel all the way to the camera on the end of
the cable. That would be "bus powered". Or the other way, is to place
a powered hub near the USB camera, which is a "self powered" solution.
The 500mA of current in that case, the "self powered" case, comes
from the adapter powering the powered hub up near the camera. Again,
a flag pole does not have an AC outlet at the top, so running
a local power adapter up there is not a good option.

I was able to run my Logitech 9000 USB camera using bus power, and 48
feet of (repeatering) cable. So that sort of thing can be done. My
Logitech, at 1280 resolution, only does 5FPS over USB cable. An
IP camera can sometimes do better than that, but IP cameras also usually
have slightly better compression options than my Logitech does.
And IP cameras also tend to be more expensive. Good IP cameras
also have "proper" sensors, such as a HAD sensor with better
responsiveness in dark situations.

So as the "security consultant", your job is to decide whether
your cabling solution, supports both data and power. And whether
the methods support mixing both on the same cable, or whether
the data provider took PoE into account when designing
their rig. If you insist on mixing technologies, it can still
work, but just requires the research to make sure you aren't
making any mistakes.

*******

This gadget, for example, allows a way to get 5V @ 2.5A up
to the device on the end of an Ethernet cable. But then you're
left wondering whether you can mix this with the data solution
or not. PoE really shouldn't have any "gotchas", as the
Ethernet pairs would normally be galvanically isolated,
but you should still think about it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833127048

This cheesy (due to price, and fabrication about frame rates)
camera expects PoE as a power source, so the router
at the source end would need to be a PoE capable device,
to make the installation a cinch. The way real cameras work, is
full frame rate is available at 640, but when the resolution is
maxed, not many of these cameras still run at full frame rate.
It's surprisingly difficult to get a camera that runs
flat out. Guessing at the price, I would not expect a good
scheme for $50. Whereas $1000 to $2000 or so will get you something
worth having (PTZ, decent sensor, optical variable zoom as digital
zoom sucks).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16881102063

But those solutions all leave me wondering whether they'll work
together or not.

This one is an injector. It puts PoE on Ethernet wires (on the
in-the-house end), when the computer or router doesn't have PoE.
This box is a power supply, and it puts a voltage on the CAT cable,
that the IP camera can extract on its end. It comes in 10/100BT version
and a GbE (gigabit Ethernet four pair) version. If your camera
really needs GbE rates, then that would force your hand as
to which type to get.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA29J0ZX7310

http://www.tyconpower.com/products/files/TPS_POE_Power_Source_Spec_Sheet.pdf

So there are a variety of techniques for getting some form
of power and data on cables.

All fun stuff I'm sure.

*******

A camera at "flag pole distance from the ground",
will not be able to see a lot of detail. A person's
head will be around 3 pixels high and 3 pixels wide.
Which is not sufficient for "proof" in a court case.
The only situation where a cheap camera provides
good proof, is a camera covering a hallway, where
everything is "close".

For distant situations, a PTZ camera with optical
zoom (and a human to operate it), provides some
means of better framing camera shots.

I've only experimented a bit with cameras, and
that's what I've noticed so far. It takes money.
The only situation you can cover cheaply, is
a hallway leading to your front door.

Paul

 

[Paul]

They give another link for the software and it's still running and
maintaining all three programs, so since it's a different company, not
with a similar name even, those programs most likely have nothing to do
with the driver for the hardware, I would think.

So now I'm out of ideas entirely.

FTR http://www.newsoftinc.com ,

Fun times.

The virus thing with webcam drivers is "normal".
I've run into virus problems, even with drivers
coming from the purported manufacturer's site.

You could use Uwe Sieber's USB tool to list the camera
first. I can't guarantee anything, but maybe it's possible
to determine whether it's a UVC camera or not.

http://www.uwe-sieber.de/files/usbtreeview.zip

A camera consists of a controller and a sensor. And
you can mix different sensors with the same controller.
Which is what makes drivers for non-UVC cameras such fun.

A UVC camera can use a Microsoft driver for basic operation.

Then you need a copy of AMCAP for testing.
This message got a little messed up while I was
preparing it.

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&A=0&MSGI=<[email protected]>

You want the ZIP file wdmmiscutils2.73.zip and if
you unzip that, there should be an AMCAP in there.
Which will allow viewing webcam output if the
webcam has a driver in place (either Microsoft
built-in or something proprietary that works).

http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/btwincap/wdmmiscutils2.73.zip?download

AMCAP started as Microsoft sample code. People made
their own versions, some of which will have malware
in them. So you don't go searching for an AMCAP
with your search engine, without a recommendation
from someone for a "safe" one. I use the above
AMCAP with my cameras, such as they are.

Paul

 

[Paul in Houston TX]

First I need to install the wired camera I have already.

Not being too vain or having anyone to video skype with, I had never
installed this camera. First I had to find it, and then I couldn't find
any drivers online -- although one or more that claimed to be the one
had a virus in it -- but today I finally found the CD that came with
the camera, and yet I'm having a lot of trouble getting the camera to
work. (even with a 6 foot cord, let alone 20 feet!)

The CD is good for win 98 SE, Me, 2000 and XP and I have XP SP3. It's
called Webcam Basic, IC50C Software. I already searched online for
IC50C and that's how I bumped into the virus, which AVG caught**.

The CD offered to install the driver and 3 software packages. I chose
only the driver. Do you think that could cause a problem later, maybe
becaues of an error on their part?

Anyhow, I installed and then repair installed the driver. The second
time at least I got a message that it completed. And I restarted the
computer.

It found the camera and brought up the new hardware wizard, but no
matter what choices I make, it can't find the driver.

I let it install Automatically, but it didnt' find the driver.

So I pointed it to a variety of specific locations:

I let it look in the Camera CD, and in the Camera CD Driver\XP
directory, but there is no .INF file there, only the EXE file that the
driver installation process started off with.

I pointed it to C:\Windows\INF and
" \drivers

I pointed it to its first choice, Removeable Media, but based on the
lights that went on, it looked only in the floppy drive and not the CD
drive with the Webcam CD in it.

I let it look onlline (even though I had done so by hand already).

I let it look by Hardware Type, and I noticed there was no entry for
Cameras. (How come?) There were Imaging Devices (what are they?) but
choosing that came up with no entries. "Unable to find drivers for this
device":

It always ends up at Cannot Install this Hardware

Have I forgotten how to do this?

The CD looks pristine.

Should I go back and install all 3 programs, Presto Mr. Photo,
VideoWorks, and ImageFolio? I only checked the box for Driver the
first two times. That's the only idea I have left.

Thanks



**I also found a lot of people looking for this driver, although I
didnt' keep a record of when they were looking. Once it actually works
for me, I'd be glad to upload it, but not to the download place that
offered me a virus and I've lost track of reliable driver download
places that want uploads. Suggestions?

Then there is the question of what to send them. Just the 8 Meg .exe
file, SETUP.exe? For XP.


The company, Micro Innovations, http://www.microinv.com , may have
turned into Digital Innovatoins but I don't think they know about the
old products and they're closed on the weekend. They list about 4
webcams but only one has a download offered. I guess for the others,
they expect the driver to come with windows?

My 2005 A-Tech usb cam did not have any inf's.
I had to install the photo capture software which installed
about 20 dll's in xp/sys32 and one twain driver in /twain to
get it to work.

 

[OldGuy]

Is this a Win 98 camera? Mine will not work with later Win versions.

What is the cam resolution? That determines data volume and possibly
cable compatibility. if you app allows, then change the update rate
too.
A powered USB extension should work. i.e. one with a built-in powered
transmittter and receiver chip. I have used these at work and they
usually work as a 20ft extension.

I have found that the drivers from e.g logitech allows a cam to work
with logitech sw but i have to install all from the DVD/CD to get the
cam to other apps. A real pain. I did install all from the logitch
website download page and still the cam would not work with other apps
until i used the DVD/CD. then had to reinstall the updated apps for
logitech sw. unfortunately in my case the logitech apps just do not
do what i need. other apps do.

I installed on another PC from the DVD/cD the first time and everything
worked. so logiteh is holding out on us unless we have the original
DVD/CD. poor consumer relations if you ask me.

My other video app with the cam set for 1080P is very slow at updating
since the cam and cable and PC port is only USB2. it maxes out the
USB2 speed. waiting for a cam with true USB3 speed capabity for use
with my new USB3 laptop.

 

[Hot-Text]

First I need to install the wired camera I have already.

For old USB camera,
Add a USB 4 Port Hub
9v DC-SW
Set to: self powered
After 6 foot

You can put at 10 foot
away from the 20 foot pole

It help with the bandwidth

So you can get
The same quality picture

 

[Paul]

Is this a Win 98 camera? Mine will not work with later Win versions.

What is the cam resolution? That determines data volume and possibly
cable compatibility. if you app allows, then change the update rate too.
A powered USB extension should work. i.e. one with a built-in powered
transmittter and receiver chip. I have used these at work and they
usually work as a 20ft extension.

I have found that the drivers from e.g logitech allows a cam to work
with logitech sw but i have to install all from the DVD/CD to get the
cam to other apps. A real pain. I did install all from the logitch
website download page and still the cam would not work with other apps
until i used the DVD/CD. then had to reinstall the updated apps for
logitech sw. unfortunately in my case the logitech apps just do not do
what i need. other apps do.

I installed on another PC from the DVD/cD the first time and everything
worked. so logiteh is holding out on us unless we have the original
DVD/CD. poor consumer relations if you ask me.

My other video app with the cam set for 1080P is very slow at updating
since the cam and cable and PC port is only USB2. it maxes out the
USB2 speed. waiting for a cam with true USB3 speed capabity for use
with my new USB3 laptop.

I tried to find a true USB3 camera, and they
seem to be hard to find.

For the amusement value, this USB3 camera uses
an FPGA (for custom silicon development of the
controller), and presumably a decent Sony sensor.
It does 3376 x 2704 @ 9FPS. Which would be 240MB/sec
if completely un-encoded and transmitted in a naive manner.
You can be sure it's more efficient than that. The data
rate won't be nearly that high. $3,850.00

http://www.edmundoptics.com/imaging...per-3-high-performance-usb-3-0-cameras/88-056

http://ww2.ptgrey.com/_PGR_Uploads/PGRNA/files/Grasshopper3-datasheet.pdf

At some point, it just makes more sense to get a
regular video camera.

There was another camera design there, that does
a little better than HD - 1920 x 1200 @ 162FPS.
The picture on the left demonstrates the
global shutter feature, so there are fewer
motion artifacts. They're shooting the blade
of a fan (presumably under relatively high intensity
lighting). You won't be shooting this quality, by
moonlight.

There was another company, which offered cameras with USB2,
Firewire400, and GbE (Ethernet) interfaces, and the speed
of the interface didn't seem to matter as much as the sensor
supplying the data (the GbE cameras at 125MB/sec max, weren't
amazingly good). Some of the sensors get relatively hot when
delivering 20MB/sec feeds. So the sensor end is as much of an issue,
as the I/O method. Some of the old sensors worked pretty hard
for their paltry data rates.

*******

Getting back to webcams, the reason the adverts read like this

1280x1024
30FPS

on two separate lines, is to hide the fact that the camera
actually does 640x480 @ 30FPS and 1280x1024 @ 5FPS. By
putting the FPS and the resolution on separate lines, they
seek to deceive you (the two lines have nothing to do with
one another). And... they're largely successful at this scam.
The only people who don't know this by now, are the ones
who've never bought a webcam and been screwed this way :-(
And the scam only really became apparent, when the camera
was used under Linux, and all the available options were
assembled into a list for viewing. The Windows interface
never made this info visible in tabular form. Looking at
it in Linux was an "eye opener".

Paul

 

[micky]

I've tested this. I run a Logitech Quickcam Pro 9000 on the end
of 3x16' active repeater cables. Each cable has a "one port hub"
in the blob at the end of the cable. That regenerates the
USB packets.

I figured I would need a powered hub, at the remote end of the
cable, to get enough power to run the camera. But for some
reason, it just works. I was shocked. I figured the voltage
drop on this long a cable, would be too great. But it
did not complain, that I could tell.

http://www.startech.com/Cables/USB-2.0/USB-2.0-Cables/Active-USB-Extension-Cable~USB2FAAEXT15

PC(USB2) ----- Rpt ----- Rpt ----- Rpt->Logitech_9000
16' 16' 16'

I finally had time to check this out. What a great idea. I wish I'd
though of it!

I've dealt with Monoprice before and they're quite a bit cheaper**, on
ethernet too, I think I haven't ordered yet. Is there any reason I
shouldn't buy from them? They say cables are guaranteed for life, and
the ratings the various active cables get, if you can believe them, are
darn good.

I found they, both Monoprice and Startech, have cables up to 80 feet and
114 feet respectively, but by buying several shorter ones like you did,
you have more versatility for about the same price

**There was another cheap cable vendor, but I can't remember its name or
if it was cheaper or more expensive than Monoprice.

The Startech page claims you can run five of these. You
can run five on an old motherboard, only four on a modern
motherboard. Intel switched the USB design to "hub" style
on the newer chipsets, which as far as I know, reduces
the repeater cables to four. Someone richer than me,
can test this... I only bought enough cables, to solve my
specific problem.

Makes sense.

 

[micky]

What is the distance from the computer to the pole?

It depends. If I use my desktop in the basement, it will vary from 20
to 40 feet, and the top of the pole where the camera will be is about 20
feet higher than the computer.

I've found wireless
camera really don't work very well. Usb also has a very low bandwidth,
so If the computer is close enough, I'd suggest using an ethernet
connected camera. While ethernet is supposed to be good up to 50 feet,
I found it better to put a powered router in between, at roughly 25
feet, to get good connections and video from the camera.

You mean in addition to the router that is between the DSL modem and the
computer, right?

I have a spare modem, that I bought at a hamfest thinking it was just
like the one I had, for when that broke. But I failed to notice it had
no wireless capability, which woudln't matter here.

Thanks.

 

[micky]

A few days ago I purchased one of these cameras and it seems to work
fine. I'm using it with an old Linksys (Cisco) WRT54G2 which is
wireless G only.

Thanks. I really want to buy this, or if not this one, the other one
someone here recommended, but I managed to get my 4 dollar** webcam
working (story to follow in this thread, when I have time to write it
up) , so in the interest of saving money, I feel obliged to try it first
and see if it has enough detail and I don't need anything more. I
think I'll still want to buy one of the two even if it works, but maybe
not.

**That's about what it's worth now. It was probably 20 or 30 when
first sold, I probably bought it at a hamfest and I can't remember what
I paid.