Topic: $8 Weather Cam <<<<CAMERA IS NOW OFFLINE>>>>

[Intheswamp]

I've been seeing these cheap Vivitar cameras at Walmart for a while.  They've had them on "clearance" for $8 for a while...this last time I spotted "webcam" on the packaging so I decided to get one and see what it would do. 

It is identified as "Dual Mode Camera" in WebcamXP5.  It is pretty much a barebones camera...no slot for a memory card, no tripod mount, transfers images via usb cable, 640x480 max rez.  Nothing great about it's image quality nor low-light capabilities.  Anyhow, I've got it running and propped up in a window.  I may try putting some eyeglasses on it and see if it helps things, but I don't really see a lot of future for it.    

Anyhow, here's its image in case anyone is interested...  Ed
CAMERA IS NOW OFFLINE, ONLY A STATIC, NON-REFRESHING IMAGE SHOWING...


ETA: The instructions list this camera as the "Vivitar Freelance V15 Digital Camera".  Amazon states it as being a 1.3mp camera and users have given it a whopping 1.5 stars. 

[Cutty Sark Sailor]

Well... eight bucks... I doubt there's enough processing quality for a Hubble to help much... looks like there's not much focal length at all. 5 year old production. Max res 640x480. Might try and find most recent driver package for it...

[Intheswamp]

Well, it was more of a "I wonder..." purchase.   For $8 in new retail packaging I wasn't expecting very much.  I'd think that if a fellow did a little homework he could pick up a fairly decent camera at Goodwill, Mission Thrift Stores, etc.,.  Of course, eBay has probably thousands to pick from for a low-end option.  The C920 I'm currently seeing for less than $60 with free shipping on eBay (OE packaging, not retail).  My C920 was in OE packaging and has seemed to work fine, though I paid about $10 more for it back last summer.  But, regardless of which webcam you pick you still will mostly likely need a diopter to give it "legs" being as most webcams built for close focusing...the "hubble fix" takes care of that.

Ed

[Cutty Sark Sailor]

Yeah, be interesting to see if the Hubble would help that little jewel...

[Intheswamp]

Yeah, be interesting to see if the Hubble would help that little jewel...

"jewel"...as in "bubble gum machine jewel". 

[Cutty Sark Sailor]

Yeah, be interesting to see if the Hubble would help that little jewel...

"jewel"...as in "bubble gum machine jewel". 

Origin of JEWEL

Middle English juel, from Anglo-French, diminutive of ju, jeu game, play, from Latin jocus game, joke 

[Intheswamp]

Ok, I used an old round -2 Nikon F3 diopter on "the jewel" and here are the results (or lack of).  Ed

"The Jewel" before the Hubble Fix:


"The Jewel" after the Hubble Fix:

[Cutty Sark Sailor]

  yeah, not enough there to start with... was the little cam set for infinity focus?

[Intheswamp]

That's a $100 question there, Mike.  I'll have to look and see if there's a setting for infinity focus, I'm thinking this is a basically a pinhole camera.  But, it has a mode for "webcam" and I figured it would be close-focusing in that mode (along with the expected uploading of the video via usb).  I took a couple of regular photos and they weren't anything to brag about.  I think it's just a seriously cheap, low-end sensor inside.  I've seen low-megapixel cameras that performed *much* better than this little "jewel".   But, hey, it's $8 and puts an image online for *cheap*.   

Ed

[Cutty Sark Sailor]

Just for discussion:
Of course there are dollarwise differences, but it's usually related to sensor resolution, I'd suggest that little Vivitar is somewhere between  0.3 and 1.3 Mp
Here two examples ::::
Both scenes used for the extreme small detail and low ambient lighting
Distance approx. 7ft, 50% digital software zoom for both images, 1080i:

Amazon.com $75 :approx 2mp chip - these C920s are the cameras currently online on my website

If you compare the 920 image above to the 920 hubble-ized images on my site, you can absolutely see how the image is improved.

Now... another step upward:

Amazon.com $120  5mp chip --- if they're still available --

Both Cams would need need the Hubble-ization past about 10-15 ft.

It's the difference between about 1Mpx, 2 Mpx  and 5 Mpx...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B003M2YT96/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new
DO NOT be fooled into ordering a B910 for $65-$75... it's a lower grade imager.

[ws vreewijk]

Interresting, what would be the best choice for our purpose the c910  or the c920 ?
not only according to the picture but also the upload you need to get full benefit of it.
I supose the 5 mp will take a lot of the cpu usage?
And with a diopter maybe the sharpness of both is the same who knows maybe you compared Mike?.

I found out that processing for the c920 is done within the cam istelf and for the c910 it is done on the pc so is using cpu from that according a review.

Cheers Chris

[Cutty Sark Sailor]

Chris, You're correct about some raw imaging processing mostly internal in the C920, under some circumstances.
Now, as far as CPU and Memory usage, we're probably talking a lot of Apples and Oranges, (or Apples and PCs) here. And it's obvious that 5MP take more resources than 2MP regardless of any on-camera processing...once the image is in the machine, then what?

Machine is HP Pavilion p6531p
64bit Win 7 Pro - 8GB RAM
ATI Radeon 4200 Video 256MB
AMD Athlon II X4 635 at 2.9GHz

Cameras raw 1080i on Logitech Software: everything in idle with single live camera
C920: Total CPU all processes: 10% +/-  Cam about 5%    Total Sys Memory usage 33%
C910: Total CPU all processes: 15% +/-  Cam about 10%  Total Sys Memory usage 34%
Max CPU (all processes) on camera load, either cam, was approx. 25-35% with the Logitech software.
---
Using 2 different capture programs, (Cybermedia YouCam & Avid Studio) No Logitech Software.
Import set for 1024x576 for each cam,
There was no difference in resource usage compared
to the Logitech Raw. (Yes, the two other applications wanted varying resources,
but the 'camera cost' remained at approx. 5 & 10 CPU average as above.)
Max CPU (all processes) on camera load, either cam, was about the same, approx. 25-35%.
Again, the C910 wanted about 1% more system memory than the C920.

So it's all about the system (design & limits) we're attaching them to, and what our personal wishes and goals are, it seems... . 

Oh, a 1024x576 image would still be similar sizes, depending on content, regardless of it's source, (depending on compression algorithm and percentage)

Mike

[Intheswamp]

Mike, what about the less expensive B910?  I've read where it will work with the C920 software...I've read where it will not.  Had any experience with it?

Also, in case someone is reading through here the $8 weather cam is now officially *offline* so no current image.

Ed

[Cutty Sark Sailor]

The B910 is a (VGA type) 720p  (78°) camera for business conferencing, etc.  Claims 5mp sensor.  The one I ran into that a friend had behaved more like a 2mp sensor. I have not tried a B910 other than that... but a couple of friends who have both say the C910 overall is somewhat better. It also appears that the newer version of the B910 spec sheet "plays" better than the one I remember when I was camera shopping a couple of years ago. I'm wondering if they didn't upgrade it later... so right now I'm a bit confused.
The C910 is a 5mp 1080i HD 78° viewing angle. (The C920 is about 70-72° if I remember correctly)...

[ws vreewijk]

Nice mike thanks for the explanation.
And also the cheap cams are good for the learing proces.

See forward to more experiments.

Have a good weekend all.

Chris