OT: webcam advice

[Graham J]

Can any of you nice people here recommend from personal experience a
webcam as follows:

Essential requirements:

= Audio as well as video
= Pan & tilt
= Ethernet
= Works with any mainstream browser (Firefox, Chrome, Safari) on any
mainstream platform (MS Windows, Mac, iPad ...)
= Flexible network settings (DHCP, manageable from web browser; no
arbitrary hard-coded IP things)

Optional requirements:

= PoE
= Weatherproof
= Small (size of a 2kg bag of sugar or less)
= Integrated IR illumination for night-time use
= Focus control
= Optical Zoom control
= 1280 by 1024 pixels resolution or better

Not required:

# WiFi

Application:

Hobby. This is to mount on a garden shed (ideally on its outside, under
the shelter of its eaves) to monitor the garden and watch wildlife.

£££ low hundreds ....?


--
Graham J

[Liz Tuddenham]

Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

> = Integrated IR illumination for night-time use

Much better to add it separately. If the light comes from near the
camera it will reflect badly off fog and mist particles and, if the
light is inside the camera housing, it will reflect off the inside of
the window.

I fitted some rear-view cameras that had internal L.E.D.s to my van but
they were useless in poor light. I then disconnected the internal
L.E.D.s and found the cameras worked perfectly well by just the light
from a single reversing lamp.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[J. J. Lodder]

Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

> Can any of you nice people here recommend from personal experience a
> webcam as follows:
>
> Essential requirements:
>
> = Audio as well as video
> = Pan & tilt
> = Ethernet
> = Works with any mainstream browser (Firefox, Chrome, Safari) on any
> mainstream platform (MS Windows, Mac, iPad ...)
> = Flexible network settings (DHCP, manageable from web browser; no
> arbitrary hard-coded IP things)

Outdated. These days you scan a QR code, and the thing connects itself.
And no reason to use a browser when you have an iPad.

> Optional requirements:
>
> = PoE

Always POE, unless you plan to settle on only one camera.

> = Weatherproof
> = Small (size of a 2kg bag of sugar or less)
> = Integrated IR illumination for night-time use
> = Focus control

Don't. Get one with auto-focus.

> = Optical Zoom control
> = 1280 by 1024 pixels resolution or better

Do better.
No reason to settle for less than 5MP, or 4K, these days.
Add: take a cam with an SD card slot.

> Not required:
>
> # WiFi
>
> Application:
>
> Hobby. This is to mount on a garden shed (ideally on its outside, under
> the shelter of its eaves) to monitor the garden and watch wildlife.
>

> ŁŁŁ low hundreds ....?

Have good experience with the Reolink-s. Good cams, good free software.
Less so with Foscam, also good cams, but their software is crippled.
It is mostly an inducement to get you
to buy into their paying cloud service.
(which you don't need when you have an SDcard for yourself)

Jan

[Graham J]

J. J. Lodder wrote:

[snip]

> Have good experience with the Reolink-s. Good cams, good free software.
> Less so with Foscam, also good cams, but their software is crippled.
> It is mostly an inducement to get you
> to buy into their paying cloud service.
> (which you don't need when you have an SDcard for yourself)

Thanks.

What does their software achieve, if all I want is to view in a web browser?


--
Graham J

[J. J. Lodder]

View it on an iPad. (much better, far more convenient)
Their MacOS app does about te same for you as viewing in a browser.
FTPing to the SD card is inconvenient, to put it mildly,
while it is very easy on iOS.

You should update your wants too,
for they are out of date given the possibilities of todays cams.
The built in SD and the iOS interface are game changer,

Jan

[Graham J]

OK thanks.


--
Graham J

[J. J. Lodder]

Liz Tuddenham <l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > = Integrated IR illumination for night-time use
>
>
> Much better to add it separately. If the light comes from near the
> camera it will reflect badly off fog and mist particles and, if the
> light is inside the camera housing, it will reflect off the inside of
> the window.

Adding separately has become very difficult these days.
Almost all cams have built in IR LEDs, so you'll buy two sets.
Moreover, if you manage to find a cam without LEDs
it will almost certainly have a built in IR filter,
so the IR outside light will be useless.
(btw, the key word to search for is 'illuminator')

> I fitted some rear-view cameras that had internal L.E.D.s to my van but
> they were useless in poor light. I then disconnected the internal
> L.E.D.s and found the cameras worked perfectly well by just the light
> from a single reversing lamp.

Yes, IR LEDs are useless behind a window.
Even when the cam is far from the window
it must be at an angle to it to avoid the reflection.
The cam shouldn't see itself, if at all possible.

Outdoors there are pros and cons to having separate light sources.
On one hand it avoids alarms from insects and the like
when directly in front of the cam.
OTOH the concentric LEDs avoid casting dark shadows.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

If you want to watch the wildlife
it is nice to have not just email alarms,
but also the video clips that can be recorded on the SD card,

Jan

[Chris Ridd]

On 15/09/2021 18:38, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Have good experience with the Reolink-s. Good cams, good free software.
>>> Less so with Foscam, also good cams, but their software is crippled.
>>> It is mostly an inducement to get you
>>> to buy into their paying cloud service.
>>> (which you don't need when you have an SDcard for yourself)
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> What does their software achieve, if all I want is to view in a web browser?
>
> View it on an iPad. (much better, far more convenient)
> Their MacOS app does about te same for you as viewing in a browser.
> FTPing to the SD card is inconvenient, to put it mildly,

Hasn't macOS removed the old ftp client? So definitely a bit inconvenient...

--
Chris

[J. J. Lodder]

Think so, and the cam I have allows FTP access to the card only locally,
not over a network.
It will upload photos and video to a remote FTP server.

With iOS otoh there is no problem at all.
(using the free app supplied by the manufacturer)

One can export video from the SD card directly to the Photos app,
both locally and remote over the internet,

Jan

[Sn!pe]

Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:

> Hasn't macOS removed the old ftp client? So definitely a bit inconvenient...

FTP is available in the Finder: Finder -> Go -> Connect To Server

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

[Sn!pe]

Alan B <alanrich...@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:

> On 2021-09-16, Sn!pe <snip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hasn't macOS removed the old ftp client?
> >> So definitely a bit inconvenient...
> >
> > FTP is available in the Finder: Finder -> Go -> Connect To Server
> >
>

> Isn't it actually sftp?
>

Dunno, I only know that it worked for me when I picked up the
Newsgroups list from ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG

[Dustin who does stuff with miceless computers]

Carroll, 4/10/2015 4:04 PM:
-----
Cute trick... To the guy who hacked my Google account.
-----
No details. Seems to treat it as a joke.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:02 PM, <https://goo.gl/51rsmZ>:
-----
Email Hacking Is A Serious Crime
-----
No longer "cute"... now it is a serious crime. OK.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:07 PM:
By now he is posting more links to how serious this crime against him
is.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 7:25 PM:
-----
I didn't write that.
-----
Now he is denying the posts from his own account. OK, he was "hacked".
Someone else posted this. Hard to hack a gmail account given how they
use two-step authentication and someone would need access to his phone
or the like... but at least POSSIBLE.

Even then, though, if someone tries to guess your password Google alerts
you and lets you know what IP address and other info. I know because
someone in a Denver internet cafe has tried mine on several occasions.

Google even forces you to change your password when this happens. Very
hard to hack these days.

So already Carroll's story is unlikely.

But let us accept it... someone somehow hacked his account bypassing
the two step verification. This person did not, however, change his password
and Carroll posted within an hour of the "hacker". Before that, unless
he is an idiot, he changed his password and the "hacker" was locked out.
The "hacker" got one post in.

But Carroll could not leave his story there.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM, <https://goo.gl/NJ2bMH>:
-----
Someone hacked my frelwizzen gmail acct so, for the time being,
don't trust anything from it.
-----
Wait. What? Even after Carroll figured out this "hacker" who was too
stupid to change his password had broken into his account and Carroll
*surely* must have changed his own password, he is saying the "hacker"
might still have access. Might be able to break Google's two-step verification
process *again*.

This is *very* unlikely... to the point of being unbelievable.

Even worse for him: he notes which of his accounts he is claiming was
hacked - but in the past he has denied even using the other accounts!
LOL! He screwed up and made it very clear he has multiple accounts and
felt the need to note which one. He made the same mistake in the next
quote where he speaks of WHICH of his gmail accounts he is claiming was
hacked. Oops! If he only posts with one there would be no need to specify
which one!

He has completely screwed up in his game to pretend he posts with only
one gmail account. Completely idiotic of him, too!

Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM, <https://goo.gl/YA7gMO>:
-----
Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'frelwizzen' gmail account
so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume
anything that's coming from it was written by me.
-----
He is still saying that he may have to kill the account instead of just
changing the password which anyone with half a brain would have already
done (and Google *forces* you to do when someone even tries to hack your
account... I know because someone in the Denver area has tried to hack
mine multiple times... likely Carroll but I have no proof of this). And
he specifies WHICH of his accounts! He is directly admitting he uses
more than one account! His claim of being "forged" with his second account
is a lie. Proved.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:40 PM, <https://goo.gl/j6yCuV>:
-----
Looks like it's still being hacked despite me taking precautions,
I may have to kill the account.
-----
What makes it look like its still being hacked? And what precautions
other than changing the two-step verification options does he need? And
how would someone bypass this... is he really on the NSA watch list?
Seems you would need someone at that level to be doing this. He watches
too much TV where they computer hackers spend thirty seconds and bypass
all security.

Just nonsense.

Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:05 PM: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/5QXJHXq8d1k/ujK_-
8ZYUnwJ
-----
Apparently Google is having issues with their accounts to the
point where they're ready to undertake some additional measures.
-----
But, of course, no evidence of this... and what measures? They already
alert users if someone else tries to guess your password and use two-
step authentication and even force you to make a new password if it seems
someone is trying to hack you.
-----
They're now involving several federal agencies in things they
didn't bother with previously in an effort to deal with people who
hack into accounts. They've asked me to leave the account open.
-----
So now Google is letting Carroll know how they are handling these things
- and asking him to leave a *hacked* account open... one someone can
be using to steal his identity. No. This does not pass the sniff test
in any way. Even if they were doing this for some bizarre sting operation,
which is in itself far fetched, they would have told Carroll to not make
it public information so the hacker would not know.

Just insanity. His own story is so idiotic and full of idiotic claims
it simply cannot be true. Carroll uses his secondary Google account -
the one he accesses via Tor and is referred to as his Tor account -
to have plausible deniability for things he says there. Now he is working
to do the same thing with his main account. Maybe Carroll read a report
like this: <http://cnnmon.ie/111QeT8> [money.com]. If so he missed the
part where they note if you are *really* hacked, which is rare, the hackers
change your password and lock you out. Why would they not?
-----
There's some new legislation that will help them deal with this
issue... which probably means more BS for us ;)
-----
Yes, new legislation to make sure Carroll does not have to deal with
"hackers" and "forgers" which do not even exist.

The funny part is, this happened shortly after someone in the Denver
area, likely Carroll, tried to guess *my* passwords and they did it from
an Internet café (Google tells you the IP and that can be used to trace
back).

My guess: Carroll is the one who was working to guess my password and
figured this new lie of his was a good way to deny his own words even
more than he does with his Tor account *and* a way to make it so if I
had talked about him trying to hack my account he could say I was just
copying his comments. "Proving" I read his posts... which for now I am
to see how absurd his lies are. :)

Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:25 PM:
-----
The person who hacked into my Gmail acct. changed the wording on
this post. I've removed the others but Google asked me to leave
one standing for some odd reason.
-----
Here Carroll claims the hacker changed the wording on a post of his
from *before* he had even claimed he was hacked. So this hacker not only
can *post* for him but edit his old Usenet posts.

I call utter bullshit on this. Out and out lie from Carroll. And then
Carroll says Google asked him to not delete these "hacked" posts... this
is nonsense. Why would Google want him to leave forged posts in the public
and why would Google not just keep their own copy? Even Carroll notes
it is for "some odd reason" - yeah, because Carroll is telling stories
that make *no* sense at all.

Carroll is lying. Maybe there is some kernel of truth to his stories?
Even if so - and frankly it is unlikely he will ever show any evidence
to back his claims - the details he is posting are absurd.

Carroll, 4/11/2015 2:10 PM:
-----
And he's so high he thinks people still have to manually enter all
their passwords in whenever they want to use anything that's been
password protected ;)
-----
Nobody had suggested, hinted, implied, or said anything like what Carroll
says they did.

Maybe his story will be someone stole his laptop (or mobile device)
and he had his passwords saved? If so why not have the device deactivated
remotely? Why has he not said anything about this?

My guess: he realizes he screwed up when trying to guess my passwords
and is now building a story so he can say his computer was stolen and
it was not him. Or, LOL, maybe someone broke into his house and did it.

This unknown hacker knew he was obsessed with me and carried on acting
like him. Makes complete sense, eh?

Carroll, 4/12/2015 8:45 AM, <https://goo.gl/KMf4pa>:
-----
The first one, that has since been deleted. My bad for having such
a feeble password on this account.
-----
Now he suggests it was merely from someone guessing his password - which
contradicts his above insinuations that it could have been from a saved
password on a device he had.

His story changes with the telling.

But as noted, when someone tries to guess your password Google has ways
to deal with it. I know - Carroll or someone in his neck of the woods
recently tried it with me.

Carroll, 4/12/2015 9:29 AM:
-----
The account in question here is a gmail account. Contrary to
Snit's delusions, I have no idea what a TOR account looks like but
it's a good bet it doesn't bear much of a resemblance to a gmail
account.
-----
Here Carroll plays stupid and pretends that if when he or anyone uses
the Tor browser *Carroll* pointed to this somehow changes the way the
gmail interface looks. Um, no. Worse it might do is make Google think
you are in another country and you would have to set it back to English.
But the basic look stays the same.

He is playing stupid and pretending to not know how the Tor browser
he pointed to works. Just idiotic of him.
-----
That idiocy aside, I love how Snit has repeatedly, for years,
feigned ignorance about gmail accounts, yet, he keeps disclosing
info that proves he knows about them. Some fools do stuff like
this when they believe people are as stupid as the fool needs them
to be ;)
-----
I do not think Google would allow you to edit your Usenet / groups posts
but I do not use it much and do not know for sure. Seems absurd that
they would... and others have now said they do not. But given how I do
not use Google Groups for posting why would I know the details of their
system for certain?

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:47 PM:
-----
Your obsession with me is insane. Working with Google I now have
proof you and ebot worked together to hack me. Clever. If I press
charges against you I have to also include her so you remain safe
for now.

Do not think this is over.
-----

No evidence of working with Google on this (and all out and out lies).
Carroll is making public threats based on lies.

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:50 PM:
-----
I promised COLA your trolling days were over so you contacted ebot
and worked with her to hack my account. I might not be able to get
your ass handed to you in court over this but wait until your boss
at Yavapai College contacts you.

Maybe you should make that call first. Ask about your comments on
incest.

See if those can not be quoted.
-----

Direct lies and threats by Carroll.

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:51 PM:
-----
You went too far this time Snit. We have trolled each other for
years but to contact ebot and get her to help you hack my account
was over a line.
-----

A complete and utter lie from Carroll.

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:52 PM:
-----
The above post is Snit hacking my account.
-----
A complete and utter lie... more false accusations from him.

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:53 PM:
-----
You edited those posts when you hacked my account. Do not trust
anything from my frelwizzen account now that Snit and ebot have
access to it.
-----
More unsupported claims and attacks by Carroll.

Carroll, 4/16/2015 8:56 PM:
-----
Working with Google I now have proof Snit and ebot hacked the
account. Many of the older posts were edited. You can see evidence
of this by Snit pointing to "old" posts which have been modified
to
say I claimed I was his "personal newsgroup rapist", a phrase I
have never used.
-----

No evidence of Carroll working with Google. No evidence of any older
posts being edited.

--
Curious how these posts are made? Email: fretw...@gmail.com

[STALKING_TARGET_42]

Just give it up already. Sigmond is again trying to push his ego when he
has no skill. He's the court jester and his many brainless programs show
this.

Who knows AppleScript, is an avid scripter, has hacked David's account,
has motive and is a huge immature toddler who, when he is quoted lying,
posts lie after lie after lie even when he's not flooding... AND... who
endeavors to attributes everything _he_ is doing on "others" and has for
years?

David's computer has more scripts than Sigmond's. David wins. Sigmond loses.
Any questions?

It's the same thing that happens in every group Sigmond infects. For the
record, spending time educating yourself is never wasted time. Thinking
you know everything and working to 'prove' people that it's true? THAT is
a waste. Lots of advocates continue responding to Sigmond. Frankly I can't
chide David for his conniption but I do not grasp why he comes here now
that he gets what this place is. David is more interested in discussions
as found in an IRC group and advocacy forums will never work for him.

-
What Every Entrepreneur Must Know
<http://web.archive.org/web/20200909135108/https://www.truepeoplesearch.com/details?name=dustin+james+cook&citystatezip=Kingston%2C+TN&rid=0xl&Diesel=&Gremlin=&Raid=>
Dustin Cook the Fraud

[Stefen Carroll]

Why would you want to restrict any applications on Linux to what can be
done on the competition? Anyway, it will never matter because the apparent
origin on a post is irrelevant, we know it is from the script-troller anyway.
The content clearly is a bunch of randomized Kelly Phillips-like crap.
We know what that means. Really, what lie? My view is beyond your understanding.

--
Puppy Videos!!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/doonesbury/media/mudline/archive?page=10
<http://web.archive.org/web/20200909135108/https://www.truepeoplesearch.com/details?name=dustin+james+cook&citystatezip=Kingston%2C+TN&rid=0xl&Diesel=&Gremlin=&Raid=>
Dustin Cook: Functionally Illiterate Fraud

[Martin S Taylor]

On Sep 15, 2021, Graham J wrote
(in article <shsl5d$ik2$1...@dont-email.me>):

> Can any of you nice people here recommend from personal experience a
> webcam

Allied request: can anyone recommend time-lapse software which records faster
than about 2 frames per second? There used to be a neat program which ran at
any speed from about 30fps to one frame every ten minutes, but it died with
older versions of the OS.

MST

[Chris Ridd]

On 16/09/2021 15:33, Sn!pe wrote:
> Alan B <alanrich...@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-09-16, Sn!pe <snip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hasn't macOS removed the old ftp client?
>>>> So definitely a bit inconvenient...
>>>
>>> FTP is available in the Finder: Finder -> Go -> Connect To Server
>>>
>>
>> Isn't it actually sftp?
>>
>
> Dunno, I only know that it worked for me when I picked up the
> Newsgroups list from ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG

Under the hood there's mount_ftp(1) which is pure ftp. No sftp.

--
Chris

[J. J. Lodder]

Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

> Can any of you nice people here recommend from personal experience a
> webcam as follows:

BTW, in my brand of English what you want is called an IP camera.
A webcam is the thing with a USB connection that you use for chatting.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Alan B <alanrich...@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:

> A surveillance camera?

That's a good neutral term.
It avoids the misnomer 'CCTV camera'
that British police procedurals on TV are fond of.
OTOH, almost all cameras that communicate over more than a room
are IP cameras these days, either wired or by some RF method,

Jan

[Graham J]

J. J. Lodder wrote:

[snip]

> Have good experience with the Reolink-s. Good cams, good free software.
> Less so with Foscam, also good cams, but their software is crippled.
> It is mostly an inducement to get you
> to buy into their paying cloud service.
> (which you don't need when you have an SDcard for yourself)

Just started looking at this again ....

Reolink: the only two interesting producs are:

RLC-823A which is a new product, not yet available!

RLC-423 which is out of stock, with no indication that it will ever be
stocked in the future. Somewhere on ther website I found that one has
to connect an external microphone, which seems a strange limitation for
such a product.

Their website is't very friendly, and there's nowhere to download a
proper technical manual for any of their products ...


Foscam is similarly short on technical manuals.

So anybody else with useful experience who can make a recommendation?




--
Graham J

[J. J. Lodder]

Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Have good experience with the Reolink-s. Good cams, good free software.
> > Less so with Foscam, also good cams, but their software is crippled.
> > It is mostly an inducement to get you
> > to buy into their paying cloud service.
> > (which you don't need when you have an SDcard for yourself)
>
> Just started looking at this again ....
>
> Reolink: the only two interesting producs are:
>
> RLC-823A which is a new product, not yet available!

I see sites that say I can now order one.
Apparently Reolink is switching from 5MP products to 4K (=8MP) ones.
(while this thread is in progress)

> RLC-423 which is out of stock, with no indication that it will ever be
> stocked in the future. Somewhere on ther website I found that one has
> to connect an external microphone, which seems a strange limitation for
> such a product.

AliExpres say that they have the last one in the UK.
Just a question: is PTZ really necessary,
given that you can buy two to four fixed cams
for the same amount of money?
You are not going to track and zoom a live animal in real time.

> Their website is't very friendly, and there's nowhere to download a
> proper technical manual for any of their products ...
>
> Foscam is similarly short on technical manuals.

Yes, that's quite general nowadays.
It is very hard to find out what those things can really do.
Finding out about the quality of bundled software is even worse.
Very little info on the App store.

> So anybody else with useful experience who can make a recommendation?

It is rather hopeless. There are dozens of fantasy brands,
which seem to be variations on a few basic models from a few factories.

Guess you are supposed to just order one, try it,
and hope for the best on their refund policy,

Jan

[Graham J]

J. J. Lodder wrote:

[snip]

>

>> RLC-423 which is out of stock, with no indication that it will ever be
>> stocked in the future. Somewhere on ther website I found that one has
>> to connect an external microphone, which seems a strange limitation for
>> such a product.
>
> AliExpres say that they have the last one in the UK.
> Just a question: is PTZ really necessary,
> given that you can buy two to four fixed cams
> for the same amount of money?
> You are not going to track and zoom a live animal in real time.

Well, yes, probably that's exactly what I would do, all from one screen,
rather than several screen os multiple windows.

[snip]

> Guess you are supposed to just order one, try it,
> and hope for the best on their refund policy,

I understand about rejecting a product that doesn't meet its spec, but
rejecting something that doesn't do what I want seems less reasonable.
I suppose the solution is not to buy it if I can't get a proper
technical manual in advance.

Years ago I bought one of these:

<https://www.edimax.com/edimax/merchandise/merchandise_detail/data/edimax/in/home_legacy_ip_cameras_network_cameras/ic-7000>

... for about £115 which has now failed. Horrible camera, poor
resolution, but the pan & tilt worked fine. So I don't understand why
PTZ is so expensive. Surely the difficult bit is the lens and camera?




--
Graham J

[J. J. Lodder]

Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> >> RLC-423 which is out of stock, with no indication that it will ever be
> >> stocked in the future. Somewhere on ther website I found that one has
> >> to connect an external microphone, which seems a strange limitation for
> >> such a product.
> >
> > AliExpres say that they have the last one in the UK.
> > Just a question: is PTZ really necessary,
> > given that you can buy two to four fixed cams
> > for the same amount of money?
> > You are not going to track and zoom a live animal in real time.
>
> Well, yes, probably that's exactly what I would do, all from one screen,
> rather than several screen os multiple windows.

I think you overestimate the zoom.
On the one I have experience with it take several seconds
before the auto focus has done its thing,
and you have a usable image once again.
Perhaps you could track a hedgehog.

It is a better idea to have a cam with an SD card,
use the email alert, and look at the registered video afterwards.

> > Guess you are supposed to just order one, try it,
> > and hope for the best on their refund policy,
>
> I understand about rejecting a product that doesn't meet its spec, but
> rejecting something that doesn't do what I want seems less reasonable.

Same with me, but it seems to be standard practice nowadays.
There have been complaints against amazon
for wasting perfectly good returned new iPads and the like. [1]

> I suppose the solution is not to buy it if I can't get a proper
> technical manual in advance.

Manual is asking too much I guess,
but you can get fairly detailed specs.
(at least on the Reolink site,
don't know about the others)

> Years ago I bought one of these:
>
> <https://www.edimax.com/edimax/merchandise/merchandise_detail/data/edimax/in/h
ome_legacy_ip_cameras_network_cameras/ic-7000>
>
> ... for about £115 which has now failed. Horrible camera, poor
> resolution, but the pan & tilt worked fine.

Nothing wrong with it, it is just that you are expecting to much.
It was state of the art, long ago

> So I don't understand why
> PTZ is so expensive. Surely the difficult bit is the lens and camera?

Cameras have become heavier, and it is the optical zoom and autofocus
that are expensive, I guess.
Beware: many so-called PTZ cameras have digital zoom only,
so really no zoom.
(but at 8 or 12 MP you can afford to lose some
and still have a usable picture, esp. at night)

Jan

[1] You can find some of those by looking for 'Amazon Warehouse'
as the supplier. (so not 'Amazon')
In the complete list these appear as items without a price.
You need to click on them to see the reduced price.

[Diesel]

Peeler is a false advocate's only reason for living.

I just don't get the point in Carroll continuing to tell that story, when
they know it's easily proved false. I will no longer bring up the whackiest,
so far, series of tales they've written about me to date; because two respected
posters did as I asked and told Carroll directly that they did, infact, lie
about me in regards to that idea. By getting an education from 'social warriors'
like that you get concepts like 'affirmative action'. Carried to its (un)reasonable
intent, the push that it's 'insensitive' for a hetero male to not wish to
marry a gay man is created. Peeler has a ton of know-how to show and he seems
to want to write tutorials. Unfortunately, this is maybe the most frustrating
medium for doing that because too much of what he will get back is insulting,
double-crossing, and other crap. Peeler just wiped his ass with Carroll.
Bitdefender was initially designed and compiled using a pirated copy of Eclipse,
in Ada.


--
Puppy Videos!
<http://web.archive.org/web/20200911090855/https://www.usphonebook.com/423-
491-1448?Dustin-Cook=&Diesel=&Gremlin=>
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-GP3-53521b56d37f77e8febfe0902a635dd5/pdf/GOVPUB-
GP3-53521b56d37f77e8febfe0902a635dd5.pdf

[Diesel]

Your system will crawl while this takes place. And it takes a long time.

Usenet is a free institution based on mutual trust with strangers that
Prescott Computer Guy lacks. Theo created at least 20 KVMS in the last
year or so. I am sure he and the herd are proud.

No no hell no. He never agreed to stop trolling. He lied about his trolling
and that was that. Prescott Computer Guy's posts are quite entirely false.
There's zero doubt that as soon as any exonerated 'plonked person' does
one thing to annoy the little milksop's feelings that they'll be replonked.
Just look at your scripts and look at Theo's, there is nothing for me
to learn from a mindless moron like Prescott Computer Guy. But so be
it, let him keep making an imbecile of himself. I am sure one of his
stooges will come to the rescue.

--
Curious how these posts are made? Prescott Computer Guy automates them:
https://youtu.be/hYQ4Tg0r0g0

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On 5 Oct 2021 at 20:44:51 BST, "Graham J" <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

> I understand about rejecting a product that doesn't meet its spec, but
> rejecting something that doesn't do what I want seems less reasonable.
> I suppose the solution is not to buy it if I can't get a proper
> technical manual in advance.

The major purpose of the Consumer Contracts Regulations (was Distance
Selling Regulations) is to allow a purchaser to try something as if they
were in the store and had access to a physical one. That covers many of
the cases where you can't *tell* what something does without trying it,
or whether it's compatible with your existing setup.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I
have been searching for evidence which could support this" -- Bertrand Russell

[Graham J]

Graham J wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Have good experience with the Reolink-s. Good cams, good free software.
>> Less so with Foscam, also good cams, but their software is crippled.
>> It is mostly an inducement to get you
>> to buy into their paying cloud service.
>> (which you don't need when you have an SDcard for yourself)
>
> Just started looking at this again ....
>

> Reolink: the only two interesting products are:

>
> RLC-823A which is a new product, not yet available!
>
> RLC-423 which is out of stock, with no indication that it will ever be

> stocked in the future.  Somewhere on their website I found that one has

> to connect an external microphone, which seems a strange limitation for
> such a product.
>
> Their website is't very friendly, and there's nowhere to download a
> proper technical manual for any of their products  ...

OK, so I decided that PoE wasn't such a high priority so I bought a
Reolink E1 Outdoor. Has the benefit of integrated microphone (and
speaker). Discounted to £81.17

Setup was very straightforward, just using a web browser on a PC.

I have an iPad so thought to try their App.

Start the App - stupid, does not rotate to landsape format!

Allow App to find the camera, provide password - and image is there
immediately.

But the portrait-only format is stupid. Surely Apple produces
guidelines for their apps and should not have allowed something with
such a basic omission to be available from their app store!?! Would you
buy a car without a reverse gear? Or lacking a steering wheel?

I see many comments on the web about this - does anybody at Reolink take
any notice?


--
Graham J

[Graham J]

Graham J wrote:

[snip]

>
> I have an iPad so thought to try their App.
>
> Start the App - stupid, does not rotate to landsape format!
>
> Allow App to find the camera, provide password - and image is there
> immediately.
>
> But the portrait-only format is stupid.  Surely Apple produces
> guidelines for their apps and should not have allowed something with
> such a basic omission to be available from their app store!?!  Would you
> buy a car without a reverse gear?  Or lacking a steering wheel?
>
> I see many comments on the web about this - does anybody at Reolink take
> any notice?

More on the App:

Changing the channel setting breaks communication and the only
resolution is to delete the camera and re-add it.

Once the view is established only then is it possible to switch from
portrait to landscape and back.

When using a web browser I can set up to 64 position parameters
(pan/tilt/zoom etc) and can call them by name so can switch between
views quickly. I can't find this facility on the iPad app - which does
not necessarily mean it's not there, rather that the app is not very
intuitive.

The iPad app shows changes more quickly than the web browser. Probably
not surprising for a dedicated app rather than a general viewing tool
such as a browser.


--
Graham J

[Dustic Cook the Fucntionally Illiterate Fraud]

And in retaliation you have nothing but a crack to start more flooding.

Shadow continues to reference the doxing accusation he wrote about me,
even after Snit in no uncertain terms admitted that he lied about it. Shadow
is repeatedly seen declaring "I KNOW BETTER" when it comes to text on Snit's
post where information does exist... but Shadow is just too unintelligent
or too in over your head to interpret any advice.

Asking Shadow to atone, which I have done, is different than pointing
out his lies. My idea was that people arrive here *to* engage bullies.
It isn't like honest people do not know what this group is, Snit included.

Seriously, those of you who troll are not able to check Snit anymore.
The guy is as loved as a fart in a spacesuit -- and with good cause.


--
This broke the Internet
https://www.walmart.com/browse/books/family-kids-books/cary-fagan/3920_582053_585918/YnJhbmQ6Q2FyeSBGYWdhbgieie