Added a PondCam

[ironeagleuk]

I have now implemented some new code on my Live Streams for cam 1 & 2, which is provided by a chap on the Foscam forum, details here: http://foscam.us/forum/free-generic-bro ... tml#p10970

Still not as good as videostream.cgi as it's not as smooth, and choppy because it uses snaphot.cgi I think....but that means it works on all browsers apparently.

It's a lot of code to look at when you find it, but it's very customisable

The Pondcam is still using the Javascript method of snaphot.cgi, as this seems to still be working for me....but will not work in Internet Explorer. When I get time I'll probs change it over to the method mentioned above

[gluepack]

Well, it finally arrived on Monday, out of the blue, delivered by DHL. DHL (in Germany) is part of German Post so, although it wasn't sent by DHL courier, it still went with DHL. It then gets transferred to DHL Bulgaria but because it had come from DHL (i.e. German Post), DHL Bulgaria know nothing about it (i.e. tracking codes) and they don't talk to German Post (i.e. DHL). The only tracking number I had was for DHL (German Post) which basically terminates when the package leaves the country. Duh!

After three days, I eventually got the camera working wirelessly (despite a broken antenna, that I was able to get a local replacement for, and the lack of transmission lights), although it isn't actually a pond cam yet as I haven't set it up at the pond and I have three large wooden gates to make and I have only finished one (and a half) so far. When I have finished the second, which will probably be tomorrow, I'll set up my pond cam at an actual pond, which will also probably be tomorrow, and then I'll get round to finishing off the heavens above program.

As I said, it has taken me three days to sort out the wireless pond cam (well, I was building the gates) and it is a sure sign of senility setting in. I (thought I) have used the same WEP for my wifi box since I bought it (for three different laptops, a Nexus 7, another IP camera and countless visitor devices) and I have it written down but, obviously, at some time or other I changed it, lol. However, it was only after going through the router settings with a fine tooth comb, trying to match it to the camera manufacturer's FAQ, that I discovered, whoops!, the WEP had changed. It was the first time I had looked, being so certain of what it was. Embarrassing!

The new camera is a pain because virtually every time you change something it reboots and, if there is a problem, it vanishes into the ether and you have to reset it, re-run the search program, and start again.

Well, that is another problem. For some reason you don't always have to start again after a reset. Sometimes it maintains settings and other times it doesn't, weird. So, for example, although I have changed the admin password and added another user, invariably, if I try the old (non-existent) password it will fail and if I try the new password, it will fail. Murphy's law.

Anyway, that is just to explain why, although the wireless parameters were maintained most of the time, when I first corrected the WEP code I still had a problem. I was about to pull my hair out when I realised that, at some time or other, ASCII, which had been sitting there all along, I swear, had changed to Hex. So, anyway, now it works.

The setup is the same regardless of browser but the display is different. In (my) Chrome everything looks ok but in (my) IE the image is shifted right and overlays (if 640x480) the (more extensive than Chrome) options on the right hand side. Apart from that, the color looks appalling but I guess there is somewhere that I can correct it, I hope.

Now I just have to clean the pond, set up the camera, figure out what Richard is talking about above, build a web page to display it and then it will be time to dismantle it for winter. I hope it will be worth it.

[ironeagleuk]

I'm glad you finally got the wireless working....shame you've had so much trouble.
Fortunately I've not had any major setup troubles, just occasional connection issues, but this is more down to my router/extender setup, I think.

This weekend I hope to setup a better mounting for my camera....as at the moment it's sitting on the crappy little bracket that comes with it, which in turn just sits on a few stones in a flower pot. I managed to get a reduced price CCTV camera bracket from Maplins a few months ago.

Nice pics of the pond. Why not try fitting a polarizing filter to the lens the it will stop reflections and you will be able to see under ther surface.

I have put some polarizing film over the lens now, but am not sure it's made much difference

Before Filter


After Filter

[gluepack]

Well, I have got it set up at my pond now but, I guess like you, I haven't got it set permanently yet. It is sitting on a chair, lol.

The first couple of places that I tried it, I got an image straight away and then within five seconds it had gone and I was left with a black screen. I now have it about a metre closer to the wifi router and it has remained steady since, even with the curtains closed, lol. Unfortunately, it isn't the best angle to view the pond.

I will try and mock up a webpage as soon as I have found a reasonable, more permanent, location for it and provided a more permanent power supply too.

I don't think the color is all that great and I haven't found any way to adjust it and it would be nice if I could zoom in too.

The other thing is that I notice it appears to be strictly FTP which is annoying as I need SFTP for my host and it kind of defeats the object of IP if I route it through my system and WinSCP.

[ironeagleuk]

What software are you using to view the cam? If you use something like Yawcam, or WinXP you can get that to FTP the picture, with text overlays

Having drama in the pond....we have 1 goldfish that seems to like bullying the what we think is a female shubunkin...so have removed the shubunkin temporarily to give it a rest, and put the goldfish into a temporary detention.
The shubunkin doesn't seem to happy, as it's in a smaller environment, but this will only be for a few hours.

[ironeagleuk]

The setup is the same regardless of browser but the display is different. In (my) Chrome everything looks ok but in (my) IE the image is shifted right and overlays (if 640x480) the (more extensive than Chrome) options on the right hand side. Apart from that, the color looks appalling but I guess there is somewhere that I can correct it, I hope.

Have you tried adjusting the brightness and contrast levels?...I have both set to 4
and changing the setting to outdoor

The pic below shows the brightness set to max

[gluepack]

The whole point of it being IP is that you don't need a system to run it, as long it is on a network that connects to the internet.

The problem is that, if it can only FTP (as opposed to SFTP), I cannot get it to send images to my website host.

Having said that, someone pointed out to me that my particular host does support FTP but I have that option set and still haven't been able to do it successfully with three or four pieces of FTP software, including Cumulus (I use WinSCP to send all associated files).

As far as brightness and contrast is concerned, I adjusted the former and it did improve the image but the color is still not great. When I changed the latter, it suddenly switched to the black screen of death and I haven't been able to see an image since. I'm sure that it is coincidence, it was probably a gust of wind that knocked out the wifi or a bird went and sat on the camera or, as I discovered earlier, someone walked past it, lol. I may relegate it to some other cabled security purpose sometime and buy another one (well, better one) for the pond next Spring.

btw, how far is your camera from the router? Mine is no more than 11m (and 3m below it).


Update - well, now it is back with no other action apart from retrying through the browser. However, it only showed a still image. My router stats showed very low throughput, like 30-40 packets and suddenly that has shot up to 6000+ . It was pinging fine from the router too. Oh, it has just dropped down to 60-70 and I have lost the image. Now, does that mean it has rebooted or is it marginally on max. range and has effectively disconnected and reconnected? I assume the latter.

Another update - oh well, back to building gates. I moved the bench, that it is attached to, progressively closer to the house, 2m at a time, and if anything, it got worse. Interestingly, there is no nominal distance listed in the advertising. Perhaps I'll have a look and see if there is anything else on the market that is better. The vendors won't talk to me. They were happy enough to talk in English while I was waiting for it to arrive but have reverted to German now that I have a problem. It's ok, I'll do my scathing review.

[AllyCat]

Hi,

I have put some polarizing film over the lens now, but am not sure it's made much difference

Did you rotate the polariser for minimum reflections? If not, there's a 50% chance that you'll have made them worse.

@gluepack: Bear in mind that Infra Red sensitivity (i.e. for night viewing) can seriously affect the daytime colour fidelity. Good colour accuracy (with silicon sensors) normally requires the use of an IR blocking filter (now often omitted for economy or to claim night viewing capability).

Cheers, Alan.

[gluepack]

Well, been too busy making another gate to bother but I just noticed in TP Link that the package count was quite high so I tried it, got video for about three seconds then it cut out. It has done this now four or five times. On one occasion I just managed to get Snipping Tool to make a copy of the image....



I only have a cheap TP Link router, model WR340G, I'm wondering if it is worth investing in a better router before getting another camera. I've only ever used it with a laptop outside (everything else has been inside, although with 60 cm stone walls between plus a different floor) and I know that if I am 20 m away I can't use it but then I have a small building between the laptop and the router. Surely, with the camera only 5m away with just a window in between, as per my last test, it should work shouldn't it?

Hmmm... I just switched to IE (from Chrome) so that I can get a time stamp on the image (there are more options in IE) and it has been running without stopping since I snipped the image, SFTP'd it and wrote this paragraph. Coincidence? Still running, lol.

Here is a night time shot...



It seems to be running in IE and Chrome under Win 7 and 8 fine now. It is interesting that it seems to be fine since the sun started to set. A rather naive question but can the sun and/or the temperature have any effect on the wifi communication or the camera itself?

Well it was still running at 3 am but by 9 am it was back to the black screen. It has now recovered but the image is very poor. Adjusting brightness and contrast, this is the best I can get....



One interesting problem that I was having this morning... with my WiFi router management on one tab and the camera on another tab in IE, whenever I switched to the camera to try logging in again, the router required logging in too. I would switch to it, log in, switch back to the camera tag, sign in, and the router would ask for userid/password again. I would suspect my router, except I run my laptop and other IP camera through it with never a problem. Also, I've noticed that IE on my desktop system crashes regularly (v. 10.0.9200.16688 under Win 8) when I am viewing the camera through it but I never have that problem with Chrome.

And now, having just got back from town, I check again and Chrome on the laptop showed the image for 1/2 a second and then went to black screen and IE is displaying it just fine....



Now, if only I could get it to FTP. My host support say that I am set up as FTP (as opposed to SFTP) which is rubbish because I only use SFTP with WinSCP and a couple of other apps and they work, whereas I cannot use FTP with any product (despite having the "legacy FTP" set). They want my password to check it out, fat chance.

[ironeagleuk]

The whole point of it being IP is that you don't need a system to run it, as long it is on a network that connects to the internet.

I thought the point of it being an IP camera was that it could be used over a network, without connecting via USB etc....I see your point, but if you want more and better features than the camera provides, then software like Yawcam can help....for example overlaying weather station data and motion detection.

btw, how far is your camera from the router? Mine is no more than 11m (and 3m below it).

My camera is about 15m from Belkin N600 router which goes though about 3 20cm thick walls. But I do have an TPLink WA830RE range extender which is about 8m from the camera. Strangely the camera seems to pick up the router signal just as good as the extender. I thought having an extender would solve some of the occasional connection problems I have on my network, but doesn't seem to have made much difference. I also bought a directional antenna for my extender, but that hasn't made much difference either. http://www.maplin.co.uk/compact-high-ga ... orks-38205

It may be worth you upgrading the antenna to a 9dbi one.....not sure where your local supplier would be, but Foscam sell them http://foscam.co.uk/products/9dbi-anten ... addon.html

Update - well, now it is back with no other action apart from retrying through the browser. However, it only showed a still image. My router stats showed very low throughput, like 30-40 packets and suddenly that has shot up to 6000+ . It was pinging fine from the router too. Oh, it has just dropped down to 60-70 and I have lost the image. Now, does that mean it has rebooted or is it marginally on max. range and has effectively disconnected and reconnected? I assume the latter.

That does seem rather erratic. Is there any chance that your wifi network is close to someone elses? Could perhaps changing the wifi channel help?

Well, been too busy making another gate to bother but I just noticed in TP Link that the package count was quite high so I tried it, got video for about three seconds then it cut out. It has done this now four or five times. On one occasion I just managed to get Snipping Tool to make a copy of the image....

That looks like the camera doesn't have an IR cut filter...not noticed it on mine, as I don't have much in the way of greens in my camera shot, but the lilly leaves look ok when they aren't over exposed from sun reflections

It seems to be running in IE and Chrome under Win 7 and 8 fine now. It is interesting that it seems to be fine since the sun started to set. A rather naive question but can the sun and/or the temperature have any effect on the wifi communication or the camera itself?

Humidity may have an affect, but I think it would have to be either very misty or chucking it down with rain to have an affect on the signal

One interesting problem that I was having this morning... with my WiFi router management on one tab and the camera on another tab in IE, whenever I switched to the camera to try logging in again, the router required logging in too. I would switch to it, log in, switch back to the camera tag, sign in, and the router would ask for userid/password again. I would suspect my router, except I run my laptop and other IP camera through it with never a problem. Also, I've noticed that IE on my desktop system crashes regularly (v. 10.0.9200.16688 under Win 8) when I am viewing the camera through it but I never have that problem with Chrome.

I honestly think it might be worth changing from WEP to WPA/WPA2 on your authentication....it may make a difference

[ironeagleuk]

Hi,

I have put some polarizing film over the lens now, but am not sure it's made much difference

Did you rotate the polariser for minimum reflections? If not, there's a 50% chance that you'll have made them worse.

I didn't think of that, or realise it may make a difference. It's just abit of film taped over the lense
I shall give it a go and let you know

[gluepack]

Another night shot, this time with a toad that has come up to have a look at the camera.



Again, it seems to run with no problem at all at night.

I have also started to set up a web page at http://www.jerbils.info/saratoga/wxpondcam.php but haven't made it generally available yet. I really want to get a changing image at least, without having to do it manually, if not a stream.

[gluepack]

Well, I have at last got a moving image, albeit only every 10 seconds, at present. Well, the code says every 10 seconds but the time on the image shows a 13-14 second interval. Just one of the many unusual things that I have come across trying to get something out of the camera, let alone onto the website.

http://www.jerbils.info/saratoga/wxpondcam.php ...until I can embed it into my menu.

The 13-14 second interval is by virtue of Yawcam. I assume that is the 10 second interval that it is set, plus the upload time. That translates to about 400mb data per day so I hope my new host's assertion of "unlimited data transfer" is valid.

The problems have been many and various since installation but, at least, I seem to be getting a continuous signal now. Perhaps the problem was with the browser access all along and that the camera has been transmitting successfully, it is just the data wasn't being received. That isn't true, though, as the router packet count demonstrates, but any alternative reason is just as much speculation.

I detest the idea of using 3rd party software and a secondary system to transmit the images when the device should be capable of doing the work itself but I will have to do more research to resolve that problem.

If anyone is interested...
...the pond is approx. 4.5m x 1.5m and from 60 - 85cm deep with shallow ledges around approx 2/3rds of it.
There is a waterfall from center left.
I have four waterlily plants in the front half of the pond, three of them from splitting a single one that I got from amazon.de and the fourth, one I bought locally, that hasn't progressed nearly as much. That is overkill and I will probably get rid of two of them next year. Unfortunately, it is bit late in the season to see any flowers now but it has been warm enough that the last one appeared only two days ago.
There is an abundance of reeds and bulrushes, as well as other plants, at the other end where I have the pump for the waterfall and a filter/aerator.
No fish but plenty of toads and other water creatures.
I have a bog garden at the far end with several plants and, currently, a freestanding potted aubergine plant that is doing well.


Lol, well I thought it was working and it was in Chrome but the refresh isn't happening in IE or FF. The wonders of the internet. That means my regular webcam hasn't been refreshing either, I assume, as it uses the same code.

[gluepack]

Well, it gets more confusing....

The code is...

Code: Select all

<script type="text/javascript">
			var refreshrate=10;             //SECONDS BETWEEN REFRESH
			var image="../current.jpg";       //IMAGE NAME
			var imgheight=480;             //IMAGE HEIGHT
			var imgwidth=600;             //IMAGE WIDTH
			function refresh(){
				document.images["pic"].src=image;
				setTimeout('refresh()', refreshrate*1000);
				}
			document.write('<img src="'+image+'" height="'+imgheight+'" width="'+imgwidth+'" name="pic" />');
			if(document.images)window.onload=refresh;
			</script>

...and that works fine in Chrome but it doesn't refresh in IE, FF, Opera and Safari. I have tried making the image "unique" by adding a spurious ?ts=.... as per references that I saw when Googling but it makes no difference.

The other thing that I don't understand is why, in Chrome, the generated html is (displayed) as per the document.write whereas in IE the parameters are reversed (i.e. name width height src). Not that it should make any difference but... weird.

Any help would be appreciated.

Oh well, I have found a jQuery script that works across all browsers. However, lol, nothing is ever perfect, it doesn't display the image initially, only from the first refresh. Perhaps I have coded something in the wrong order?

Lol, is there some cache that I don't know about? Chrome is working fine. Well, IE is too but it is showing images from approx. an hour earlier (timestamped by Yawcam) and updating them correctly every 10 seconds or so. But, surely, there is only one current.jpg that Yawcam is overwriting on a regular basis and the fact that the script is specifying current.jpg?refresh=x shouldn't make any difference, should it? There is only one file, isn't there?

[mcrossley]

I'm on my phone at the mo, but I'd change that code to

Code: Select all

<script type="text/javascript">
         var refreshrate=10;             //SECONDS BETWEEN REFRESH
         var image="../current.jpg";       //IMAGE NAME
         var imgheight=480;             //IMAGE HEIGHT
         var imgwidth=600;             //IMAGE WIDTH
         function refresh(){
            document.images["pic"].src=image;
            setTimeout(refresh, refreshrate*1000);
            }
         document.write('<img src="'+image+'" height="'+imgheight+'" width="'+imgwidth+'" name="pic" />');
         window.onload=function(){refresh();};
         </script>

Though I would normally use getElementById than referencing directly into the img array.