After posting the review of webcam software applications, I thought I should put up some example of the output from these applications. Some days ago, I had a camera running from early morning until late in the evening, using the Yawcam software. The camera used is a Sipix Stylecam Blink - not the greatest camera around.

The images was captured using motion detection with Yawcam set to capture 5 images per motion event. The captured images illustrate the importance of placing the camera proplerly: In this case the camera was placed with a too limited "field of shot" resulting in a too short response time for captures. The images have primarily captured objects entering or leaving the frame.

I have put up the captured images in a gallery, powered by SPA photo album. SPA is great: it uses a single (and simple) PHP file, the album is automatically updated when new images are uploaded and images can be viewed in a slideshow.

Browse gallery of captured images

I have also used Yawcam to combine the captured images into a video.

The above Flash video was created by converting the Yawcam generated .mov file using eRightSoft's SUPER conversion tool (that is the actual name, it is not a superlative. But the tool is super). The images were not great quality to start with (640×480 pixels) and the video conversion further reduced quality. The video is also in 640×480 pixels, but shown here in 320×240 pixels.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Some months ago I decided to mess around with webcams and webcam software. I think my motivation for doing so went something along the lines of "it would be pretty nifty, if we could monitor the house when we go away on holiday and such". So, I looked around a bit for software, which would allow me to:

1. capture images and/or video streams.
2. somehow get the files onto a web server.

I came back empty handed from looking around and to cut back on time-spent-on-pretty-useless-stuff, I put the thing to rest.

Then, a few weeks ago, I decided to have another go and this time, I very quickly came across some very promising candidates (I must have looked in all the wrong places the first time…). In the following, I will do a very quick rundown of the pros and cons of six different webcam applications and do some sort of conclusion at the end. The six applications are (in no particular order): WebcamFirst, Fwink, Dorgem, DCAM Server, WebCapture and Yawcam.

Did I mention that these applications are all free and run on Windows? Here it goes…

WebcamFirst:

• Quickly abandoned due to the very confusing web site and instructions.

Fwink:

PRO:

• Very easy setup
• Uploads image by FTP, or saves it locally

CON:

• Only saves most recent image (image file name cannot be customized)
• very limited configurability
• No video - I could not access the video controls - camera not detected?
• No motion detection

Dorgem:

PRO:

• Supports using multiple cameras
• Can be set up to automatically combine captured images into an .avi video
• Supports upload using external program, such as SSH or SFTP.
• The builtin webserver can be set up to refresh image in browser.
• Motion detection, which cannot be configured

CON:

• Uses WinInet for FTP, which requires MS Internet Explorer to be installed
• Cannot stream video
• My machine crashes when I try to exit Dorgem
• Image capture stops at midnight (?)

The following two pieces of software have not been under development for the past couple of years.

DCAM Server:

PRO

• Supports using multiple cameras
• Builtin webserver
• Saves to FTP or locally

CON

• Captures images in 320×240 pixels - cannot be changed
• Captures image at fixed interval - cannot be changed
• No video

WebCapture:

PRO

• Easy configuration
• Builtin webserver
• FTP and local save

CON

• Comes across as somewhat "shaky"
• No video

Yawcam:

PRO:

• Stores images locally or uploads to FTP
• Publishes most recent image using builtin webserver
• Streams webcam video on web page using builtin webserver
• The latest beta version adds motion detection
• Can be configured to just store the most recent image, or it can store an array of images.
• Captured images can be combined into a .mov video.
• Despite its versatility, Yawcam is very easy to configure

CON:

• None really…maybe the ressource consumption on the host machine?

Essentially, it all boils down to a choice between Dorgem and Yawcam. Both applications fulfill any minimum requirements, so Dorgem is the way to go if you want something quick'n'dirty and Yawcam is the choice if you are looking for more options and functionality. I am very impressed by Yawcam, developed and maintained by Magnus Lundwall, a swedish computer science student from Göteborg. The application packs exactly the right features, while being very easy to setup and configure at the same time. This is especially true for the motion detection feature that is included in the latest beta version.

Finally, a small tip: If you configure any of the above applications to upload images to a server directory by FTP, you can use something like SPA photo album to create a simple and automagically updated, online album of images. SPA consists of a single PHP file and basically requires zero configuration.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Since November 2005, I have been using a Linksys WRT54G as a wireless bridge to connect two parts of my home network. The WRT54G runs on DD-WRT firmware (in 'Client-Bridged' wireless mode), which I find completely reliable - it simply just works. Last week however, as I decided to set up my trusted PrintMate+ print server, I discovered that a little fine tuning was needed with the DD-WRT setup.

The DD-WRT in 'Client-Bridge' mode is supposedly completely transparent. I.e. with DHCP turned off and assigned an IP address outside the range of the rest of the network, but within the same segment, the bridge will just connect to another router as a client. This other, "main" router must act as DHPC server and a device connected to one of the bridge ports will behave as if it was attached directly to the main router. What I discovered last week when I hooked up the print server to the bridge, is that the bridge actually blocks incoming traffic to devices located behind the bridge. In other words, from behind the bridge, I can ping any other device on the network, but I cannot ping devices behind the bridge from outside the bridge.

I started looking around to see, if I could come up with some fix to remedy this situation. First, I read something about disabling the firewall and loopback interface on the bridge.

This I did and it did not help.

Next, I came across this guide to setting up a DD-WRT bridge, which as its last step instructs you to telnet into the bridge and issue an proxy_arp command:

Apparently, this is nessecary because running the DD-WRT firmware basically turns your router into a Linux box, which uses multiple network interfaces. Altthough DD-WRT in bridge mode hides the difference between the LAN (network behind the bridge) and WAN (network in front of the bridge) interfaces, Linux still distinguishes between the two. The proxy_arp command makes the router forward (proxy) traffic from one interface to the other.

The above proxy_arp command did not work for me - it failed to execute. I then looked around some more and discovered that I just needed to issue the command for the network interface which is connected to my home network. I ran 'ifconfig' and found out that this is the 'br0′ interface and after a reboot of the bridge, the following command solved my problem:

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Not just funny, but funny ha ha…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

'You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth.' -Exodus 20:4

The Brick Testament: both impressive and informative.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The controversy about the cartoons of the islamic prophet Muhammed has left its mark on Danish society. Today, Denmark's Radio (DR) online news reports that a billboard poster, advertizing a new book about islam has been rejected by BaneDanmark (a government-owned company that maintains and services Danish railroads - including railroad stations). According to the DR news story, BaneDanmark decided - on the basis of company ethical guidelines concerning pornographic, religious and political issues - that the poster was not fit for display at a central Copenhagen railroad station.

It is difficult to view the rejection of the billboard poster as anything but a reflection on, or reation to, the cartoon controversy. Especially when taking into consideration that the book (not) advertised does not appear to be hostile, or especially critical, towards islam and muslims. Judging by reviews of the book in "Information" ("Devotion or Submission?") and "Weekendavisen" ("Cooling introduction to heated subject").

The author of the book, "What is Islam?", Jørgen Bæk Simonsen is an associate professor at the Carsten Niebuhr institute at Copenhagen University. Simonsen was director of the Danish institute in Damascus between October 2001 and September 2005 and is currently on the board of the Danish House in Palestine.
During the Muhammed cartoon controversy, Jørgen Bæk Simonsen has made several appearances on Danish television and is critized for being both an islam apologist and academic dhimmi (more critique).

Is anything Islam turning into tabu in Denmark?

Update:

I think the image below is the poster being rejected¹.

1. Image from Jyllands-Posten [back]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Being a person of both spirituality and science, I for one subscribe entirely to the notion of intelligent design. While being just as scientific and rational as theories about Darwinian evolution, I find intelligent design to be capable of embracing the spiritual dimensions of our human existence.

Specifically, I choose to practise my faith in accord with the teachings of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Like Adam in the image below, I too was graced by the touch of His Noodly Apendage as a little boy.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.¹

1. Source: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - http://www.venganza.org [back]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!