How good are webcam lenses?

[RayProudfoot]

I've been thinking about addding a webcam to my system for quite a while but have been put off by two major obstacles.

1) The quality of the image and
2) Image sizes once uploaded to my webserver.

If I'm going to have a webcam I'd like it to produce decent quality images even if they're quite small. WU limits you to 300*220 images which are pretty small but with a decent quality lens the still images would still be useable. But their video of a 24 hour period is too fast to watch and can't be adjusted.

So I decided to photograph the sky with my Nikon D90 and a Sony-Eriksson ancient mobile phone and compare the results. Would I be correct in thinking the quality of the SE lens is comparable to a budget webcam? Obviously I'd have to spend a lot more to get an image of the quality that the Nikon can produce but I needed it purely for comparison.

So here are two images optimised in Adobe PSE10. The first is from the Nikon and is 640*425. The second is from the SE and is 640*480.

Nikon_Optimised.jpg

SE_Optimised.jpg

I'm surprised so much sky detail was retained by the mobile phone camera but it's at the expense of the foreground.

I want an external IP network camera and was considering the Axis M1113-E. Has anyone installed an IP camera like this? Is it overkill or would the DC-iris lens give much better images over cheaper ones?

I would need to reduce the image size prior to uploading to a webhost. Is there any software that can do this automatically?

Appreciate any comments or advice.

[gemini06720]

Ray, I cannot help you with the webcam choice...

I have been using the same (old and discontinued) and very reliable [link removed] - the image might not be HD but the camera gives me (and my users) a good idea of the weather outside without even having to move away from the computer - I (and my users) can always go to a 'real' window to further check the outside weather...

But I can confirm (just checked) that the webcam images picked up by Weather Underground and posted on their web site are of the same size as the images produced by my webcam or 640px (width) by 480px (height) as seen on the [link removed] page on the Weather Underground site - although, for some unknown reasons, the images are scaled up to 670px × 503px...

[RayProudfoot]

Hi Ray,

Thanks for your thoughts. Having looked at your webcam images the camera is struggling to show any detail in the cloud. I would like to show more detail especially as we have such a lot of the damn stuff!

640*480 would be more than enough for me. But I would like more detail in the image and I think that needs a better lens. I suppose when you pay a lot more that's what you'll get - a better lens.

Do you do any pre-processing with the image before uploading it to WU and your webserver? Is there any software like Adobe PhotoShop Elements than can optimise an image automatically before uploading? Apart from the improved image quality the smaller file size would be helpful. I came across this site and the images are hugely impressive. http://www.sebectec.com/ipcam/index.htm

What's your monthly Gb allowance and do you come close to it with all these uploaded images? my site is being hosted by DAJ at present but my monthly allowance of 3Gb means I will have to move to another webhost before all this can happen.

[mcrossley]

Ray, take a look at ImageMagick for batch processing images. You can use it to overlay text on the image too - maybe useful for adding weather conditions, timestamps etc.

[RayProudfoot]

Thanks Mark. It looks quite daunting but that's probably because I'm unfamiliar with the whole process.

I haven't heard of that software. The one I've seen mentioned a few time is ImageSalsa. Are you familiar with that?

[mcrossley]

ImageMagick and ImageSalsa perform different functions. ImageSalsa is most like Yawcam, it basically controls capture and upload, ImageMagick is most like a command line version of Photoshop which allows you to manipulate images once they are on disk.

[RayProudfoot]

Thanks Mark. Do you have ImageMagick? If so what do you use it for as you don't have a webcam?

[gemini06720]

Ray, the images from the webcam are processed by ImageSalsa - the weather data superimpose on the image is provided by Weather Display. I have used ImageSalsa for more than 5 years without any problem whatsoever, it has been a very reliable software, quite unlike Yawcam, which I have tried and removed from my computer...

At one time, I placed a filter in front of the camera which gave somewhat more definition to the clouds but also darkened the images. At the request of my users, I eventually removed the filter and left the webcam on its own - as I wrote previously, the purpose of the webcam is to give me (and my users) an idea of the weather outside without leaving the comfort of the computer chair - if the weather changes for the worst, I (as well as my user) just move to a 'real' window.

At one time I had ImageMagick installed. It is usually used with PHP. As indicated by Mark, ImageMagick can be a very powerful image processor ... but I was never able to fully integrate ImageMagick within PHP and easily access all of its functions.

[RayProudfoot]

Thanks for your reply Ray. I meant no criticism of your webcam and I hope none was taken. I'm just looking at all my options to get as good a webcam image as I can.

I have seen discussion here of using a polarising filter to improve skies but those only work well when there is some blue sky and with the sun in a suitable position.

[gemini06720]

Ray, I did not take your message as a criticism...

But I am still trying to make a point...

What is really the purpose of having a (more likely) super expensive super high definition camera pointing at the ever changing sky when, for most of the time, no one looks at the generated images... Could that money and time (looking for THE camera) be better spent on something else...

[RayProudfoot]

Ray, I did not take your message as a criticism...

But I am still trying to make a point...

What is really the purpose of having a (more likely) super expensive super high definition camera pointing at the ever changing sky when, for most of the time, no one looks at the generated images... Could that money and time (looking for THE camera) be better spent on something else...

I'm still thinking about the camera and nothing is set in stone. I take your point. This is why I chew things over for a while. To consider whether I 1) need it and 2) it's worth spending that much.

I won't be coming to any decisions any time soon. BTW, it's not HD. The max definition is 800*600.

[Gina]

My main webcam is a Microsoft Lifecam HD Cinema and that has a good resolution and the lens is pretty good. There's a little falling off of definition in the corners but nothing significant and only shows at full HD resolution. I use Yawcam to upload the images to my website. It will manage 3 shots a minute with an old XP desktop. I provide both full size 1280x800 and a reduced size image scaled to 800x480 on the website.

I also have a second webcam which is just a cheapo one which runs at 640x480 max res. I use a second instance of Yawcam to run this and upload to the website.

Both webcams are currently out of action as I am sorting out computers but I'm hoping to have at least the main one working shortly. There are images on the webasite from when these cams were last working. See sig for link to weather website - webcam links are at the RHS of the top menu.

I now have a second hand HP tower PC with Intel Core i5 CPU running Windows 7 64bit Pro and will try that for the webcams. That is in addition to my Linux box which is getting a bit old now and only runs an AMD Athlon 64 X2 CPU.

[RayProudfoot]

Good to see you back Gina. I thought you'd disappeared for good.

I'm cooling on this idea... again. But out of interest do you host your own website or pay? The number of images you're creating would mount up over a month. One of my concerns was the size and number of files I would create each month. It could prove quite expensive if paying for webhosting.

[Gina]

Thank you for the welcome back Ray

I pay £20 a year for webhosting plus £10 every two years for domain name. The webcam image is replaced with the new one each time so the storage requirements don't increase. The storage limit and bandwidth is pretty generous anyway. For large quantities of single images I use Photobucket with their Premium (pay-for) account and for hosting very large files, DropBox, which is free. I found the bandwidth requirements for my astro images was too much for the Photobucket free account. My webhosting will not host unlinked data or image files - it's alright for images linked from my web pages of course.

[RayProudfoot]

Thank you Gina. I gues you're on an allowance with your webhost of perhaps 20Gb bandwidth per month?

My problem is that my monthly allowance is a modest 3Gb but it's free so I can't really complain. I keep blowing hot and cold about a webcam and how much I should pay to get decent quality images. I look at some sites and wonder why people bother but then I remind myself that they may not be as obsessed with image quality as I can be. They might not also want the hassle of IP cameras, outside disadvantages and the cost of the kit.

I get the bug and then reel myself back in when I start adding up the cost. It doesn't help either when the weather is so rubbish and you realise you would be paying a lot just to show visitors day after day of cloud! My view wouldn't be half as attractive as yours which is also holding me back.

It's back on hold for now. In any case I would have to move to a different webhost first and I'm in no hurry to do that.