Advice on doing the christmas lights webcam - for real! ;-)

[hulkster]

I found/read through the forum thread about All-Weather/Outdoor Webcams (http://www.aota.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19225) which is real interesting and perhaps applicable to what I'm looking for.

Last year, a LOT of people have got a pretty good chuckle out of my fun little christmas hoax (http://www.komar.org/xmas/hoax/) where bazillions of folks around the world thought (!) they were using my christmas webcam (http://www.komar.org/cgi-bin/xmas_webcam) to turn my thousands of christmas lights (http://www.komar.org/xmas/) on and off. I continue to get Email about this and the #1 request (by far) is "you gotta do it for real next year." So I'd like to give that a shot for christmas 2005 (http://www.komar.org/xmas/2005/) and would appreciate some suggestions on how to pull it off ... for real!

Here's my page on the various issues/challenges in a top-10 list format (http://www.komar.org/xmas/real/) - #1 is approval from the wife! ;-)

I'd appreciate your help on the webcam itself - what image format, size, and frame rate would be good, PTZ control, uplinking data to the web server, etc. The Axis guys (http://www.axis.com/) have some nice products - and Deb says the Canon VB-C50iR rocks - who else should I be looking at?

Yes, I'm serious about this - I have already talked to my neighbors and they are OK with the lights really blinking this time, plus have given me permission to mount a webcam on their roofs - doing more than one webcam would be nice, 'eh? So thank you in advance for your suggestions on my top-10 list and also anything else I may have missed

[cindik]

I think it's a fun idea. X-10 is a little slow if you're going to allows people to change the scheme in real time, but you might speed it up little by using dimmers/switches that use scenes. Then let the visitors choose one of the scenes and send a single X-10 command.

On the other hand, the Black & Decker Freewire system doesn't have scenes but has really nifty grounded outdoor switches (you'd still need GFCIs).

If you can get a nice wireless IP cam, you could get your neighbor to allow you to run it at his place and keep the WAP at your place.



Our lights are primarily LED lights and are all X-10 controlled. We're not going live with a camera, though.

[hobbes]

Alek -

This was a most enjoyable hoax; recall reading about it a while back.

I would probably suggest you keep the camera config as simple as possible; perhaps mounting a fixed position/lens at the end of your driveway providing the best shot possible of all the lights in front of the house. The reason for this is that by having and allowing access to a PTZ mechanism, you will be slowing down the capture of images considerably. With the # of hits I imagine you'll get, this is probably an overhead you don't really need. If you could move the camera itself on 1+ axis, then it would be more interesting, but a PTZ will just allow Netizens to spy on your neighbors :) Also, for the cost of a PTZ, you can buy multiple fixed cameras and provide different angle shots of the house/lights.

If you're truly sold on a PTZ camera, Axis does have some good products as does Canon and Panasonic. I think Deb ended up purchasing the Canon and enclosure from Nuspectra. The prior version of the camera Deb got was used in this project (http://www.zakongroup.com/technology/highest_wireless_network/) very succesfully, and you may be able to find it cheaper than the current model. As you're primarily interested in night time images, be sure to compare the cameras lux.

As for image format, if it's ending up on the Web, your best bet will likely be JPEG (or PNG). Unless you're doing video, a frame rate that matches the ability to change the lights would be good; as most cameras are doing 20-30 frames/sec, this shouldn't be a factor. Size is a personal preference; though you may want to consider taking a shot, then saving a smaller version that can be clicked for the full version; this will save you plenty of bandwidth. You will need a network-enabled camera to easily retrieve the images if the cameras are remote; if a camera you're looking at isn't network enabled, you can buy a network camera server (e.g., Canon vb101). Most of the network camera/servers allow retrieving the image from them and/or auto ftp'ing the images out.

[DogAndPony]

Welcome, Hulkster!

:ythulk:

Love your work. Saw the Slashdot article and the first CNN story, and went to the site. I bought it. Saw the follow-up stories and laughed out loud.

:bow:

[hulkster]

cindik: Roger on X10 being slow/doggy - I talk more about this in my top 10 list (http://www.komar.org/xmas/real/) and I really do use X10 to control my lights, there is just (so far) no Internet interface. For my outdoor outlets, I have a GFCI upstream - here's how I added 60 Amps direct to the breaker box in 2002. (http://www.komar.org/xmas/2002/power.html) The neighbors ARE OK with me putting a webcam on their roofs (note plural!) - this would be a show-stopper if not. LED lights are the future in holiday lighting, but replacing 17,000 of 'em at today's prices would be a lot more than the savings from my electric bill! ;-)

hobbes: Glad you enjoyed it - was fun (although hectic - press went nuts over it) for me too. End of the driveway doesn't work too well unless a really wide-angle lens (see the image at the bottom of the top-10 list), and even with that, I'd need to put it up on a pole, so work involved in that plus theft concern. Yea, simple (KISS principle) is a good thing - I'm actually thinking having some fixed position/lens webcams, but at least one with PTZ control ... and YES, privacy is an issue that is listed on that top-10 list, so I should limit the range of motion to my property. I would definately do a "reflector" (no direct access to the webcam, but FTP images up to the web server) and while it would be neat to have 5-10 frames/second, that may be overkill, plus probably crush me bandwidth wise ... although if streaming video, there should be decent inter-frame compression which would help. So maybe one/second JPEG's would be adaquate - Internet Exploder is still deficient with PNG's. Yes, low-light lux capability is important, although I can do slow exposures to help.

DogAndPony: Thanx for the welcome and glad I provided you (and a bazillion other folks) a good laugh! ;-) I suspect the Slashdot Editors aren't too happy about being hoaxed, since the "controllable lights" ran in 2002, 2003, 2004 (halloween and xmas), but it was good clean fun. They rejected an "Ask Slashdot" submission, but maybe if someone else submitted it, they'd accept since this is argeuably News for Nerds material.

Thanx for the input and I hope I responded to all of the comments above - keep 'em coming.

P.S. Love the "HULK GIF" DogAndPony - very cute!

[hobbes]

FYI - an inexpensive way to control x10 from a computer is with X10's firecracker which plugs into the serial port and sends an rf signal to an rf-capable base unit plugged into the wall. This, along with dalsemi's 1-wire interface, is what I've been using to control various devices at home. As Zigbee matures and price drops however, I'll likely switch over from x10.

[DogAndPony]

P.S. Love the "HULK GIF" DogAndPony - very cute!Thanks! I made that one, and it's available via the [More] link in the smilies palette.

Now it seems like it was just waiting for you to come along. :yeah:

[Deb]

And here I thought I was being ambitious with the agreement to redig the pond...... now I don't feel so bad about it LOL. Sounds like a lot of work but some great fun if you get it going. The cannons are superb cameras but I'd think a bit of overkill for a project such as this... I wouldn't think controllable PTZ would be completely necessary since the subject matter wont be moving around and placement for best viewing will likely be best done by positioning a few less expensive cams around. X10 has some indoor/outdoor cams for around the $50 range than can be mounted up and most come with some pretty long wires ... just read very carefully and call them with additional questions. A lot of their cams are wired (or wireless) to be played on the tv...not the web so be sure you've checked the requirement list a few times to ensure you can get it all working before you buy from them.

There are also some tutorials online about how to build outdoor enclosures for cameras... purchasing them comes at a steep price so this may be the best route... humidity, heat, and cold can all be serious issues... check out this link for some ideas... http://www.rlandon.com/FlashlightcamPro.html

Whose turn is it to turn the lights on and off? If you have ten people all flipping the switch at the same time.... yikes.... possibly you could build even more press and accomplish something in the Chrsitmas Spirit by giving away "Switch Flipping Tokens" to those who donate to a good cause of your choice etc....

In short... I have no idea how to pull off the task... but I sure wish you the best of luck doing it! :)

Deb
- Hmmmm, I could add Christmas lights to the pond.. :rasberry:

[Wassercrats]

I don't know anything about PTZ control, but I like the idea if the camera auto-focuses. A move one way could let you control a pumpkin, and Rudolf with his lit nose could be on the other side. I forgot if you charged for it, but maybe moving the camera should cost more. It will attract more visitors anyway, but it will slow things down.

[Wassercrats]

A move one way could let you control a pumpkinI was thinking of Halloween. Better make that a light-up santa or something.

[hulkster]

hobbes: Yea, I could certainly use X10 controls ... in fact, since I allready have SuperSockets installed and appliance modules, this would be the easiest approach, but X10 is just doggy for a number of reasons. I have played around with the FireCracker stuff - this is my fallback option for powerline control.

DogAndPony: Would it be OK for me to add that Hulk GIF to my Hulk page? (http://www.komar.org/hulk/)

Deb: Yea, PTZ is arugeably overkill, but people seemed to have a lot of fun moving/zoom the webcam around the last few years, so I wanted to provide that feature (for real!) if doable. Roger on making sure the output is not NTSC - want IP/JPEG/etc. all the way. In terms of queueing, what I did in the past is one/second ... but if someone else beat you do it, then it just said "sorry, try again", which is what I could do again - otherwise, the queue would build up to infinity - the peak requested change rate in 2004 was 18/second. Yea, I've thought about the charity angle and haven't figured out how I want to work this - if so, probably would go to celiac disease. (http://www.komar.org/faq/celiac_disease/) And yea, fish like christmas lights too! ;-)

Wassercrats: Actually, I've been running the webcam at Halloween also (http://www.komar.org/halloween/) - the HULK is a big hit - check out the pictures. I got one of those inflateable Frankenstein's this year, so I was thinking of wiring that into a controllable circuit - web surfers blow him up ... and then turn it off and watch him deflate - what 'ya think?

[Wassercrats]

Sounds good. How about controlling an air compressor to sound a horn on New Year's Eve, and some of the other blow-things.

[hulkster]

Sounds good. How about controlling an air compressor to sound a horn on New Year's Eve, and some of the other blow-things. I have pretty darn good neighbors, but this would be pushing it a bit! ;-)

[Randall]

I was thinking of Halloween. Better make that a light-up santa or something. OK, somebody find Wasser a new calendar. :wink: Actually, I've been running the webcam at Halloween also (http://www.komar.org/halloween/) - the HULK is a big hit - check out the pictures. I wouldn't want your electric bills, Alek.

Only one thing missing from your list: How to convince people that it's for real this time. :rasberry:

The whole world knows that you fooled everyone with some JPEGs and an elaborate web interface. After you add actual live cameras it's still going to boil down to a few JPEGs and an elaborate web interface, so how do you get past the initial disbelief...?

Sort of like my thoughts when I saw this thread: Oh sure, like the Christmas Lights Guy would post in our forums.

But I think you'll fit in pretty well around here. :rasberry:

Randall

[cindik]

Easiest way to handle multiple light-change requests is the way many jukeboxes were run. They didn't queue requests - they just tagged items that were requested. Id didn't matter how many times a selection was requested - it was just tagged once. The system would clear the flag when it played the selection.

Similarly, you could queue requests but not queue duplicates. Then show the result to all browsers that requested that selection.

[hulkster]

Randall: While the electric meter spins like mad, the electric bill is not as bad as you would think since the X10 controller turns 'em on at 4:30 and off at 10:00 ... so they are only on for 5.5 hours for the (whole) month. With 17,000 lights, the current draw was on the order of 70 Amps (I measure it since I have to load balance the circuits) so bottom line is it's "just" (my wife doesn't use that adjective) an extra couple hundred dollars - but yea, the story would be "better" if it was bazillions of dollars I guess.

Good point on the how do you prove it is real - this was actually an issues when I disclosed it to the Wall Street Journal (http://www.komar.org/xmas/hoax/#epilogue) - they were worried I was double-duping them! ;-)

My stuff was ONLY on at night - darkness is your friend when it comes to trickery - if I turn the webcam on an hour or so before dark (and walk outside occasionally to wave at the webcam), that argueably is fairly convincing, since really hard to fake ... unless I'm re-playing a pre-recorded video stream!

Yea, how DOES one know something is real versus fake - heck, how can I prove I really am the "Alek" (aka Mr. Christmas Lights) at www.komar.org? ;-) (http://www.komar.org/)


cindik: Ummmmm ... now that's an interesting idea I hadn't thought of - keep a queue of the requested actions, sort out the duplicates, and then play 'em as time permits - I'll have to think about that one - thanx!

[Randall]

if I turn the webcam on an hour or so before dark (and walk outside occasionally to wave at the webcam), that argueably is fairly convincing, since really hard to fake ... unless I'm re-playing a pre-recorded video stream!

Yea, how DOES one know something is real versus fake - heck, how can I prove I really am the "Alek" (aka Mr. Christmas Lights) at www.komar.org? (http://www.komar.org/) Not an uncommon problem in the internet age, but you've got a bigger case of the Memorex Blues than most people. :wink:

Unless there's a history of people impersonating Alek Komarnitsky in forums like this one, I think we can rule out any subterfuge. After all, what you've said here doesn't diverge from what's posted on komar.org -- and troll-impersonators are generally motivated to distort the reputation of the victim (unless you're Andy Kauffman (http://andykaufmanreturns.blogspot.com)).

The real test will be when you call up the Wall Street Journal in December. ("Hey, remember me?") :wink:

A internet-powered inflatible Santa sounds good to me...

Randall

[hulkster]

P.S. Love the "HULK GIF" DogAndPony - very cute!I chatted with DogAndPony who said he created the "HULK GIF" and said it would be OK to put on my site. I like to give credit for stuff (radical idea since most people just scrape/copy stuff) so I added it to this page (http://www.komar.org/hulk/images/) and also added a FutureQuest link since it is the shape of their logo. If anyone has any problem with that, pls let me know and I'll take it off.

Thanx,
alek

[hulkster]

For those do-it-yourselfers out there, for $27.34 I put together an outdoor webcam enclosure (http://www.komar.org/how-to/outdoor-webcams/) that is a heck of a lot cheaper than the $500+ ones. Yea, it's not as spiffy and requires mounting from a can light ... but if that's your situation, this might be something for you to consider. It gets cold and rainy/snowy here in Colorado, but I think it will do the job. Was really easy - will have some public imagery up for halloween.

[Wassercrats]

I think those AOL CD covers are made of styrene, not plexiglass, and probably aren't UV resistant. Expect them to become yellow or cloudy and break down. Better save some backups.

[hulkster]

Yea, I may end up putting a piece of glass in there - but figured since the AOL CD cover was free, I'd start with that and see how much discoloring occurs. Maybe I'll call up AOL and see if they'll send me another CD .... ;-)

[Wassercrats]

Here are some possibilities for glass:

http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=100666
http://www.acehardware.com/sm-pyrex-glass-custard-cups-pack--pi-1279969.html

But you better look at the bottom to make sure it's flat. Or buy a little hand held mirror and maybe you can scratch the silver off of the back of the glass. Or a peep hole.

[hulkster]

Thanx for the suggestions ... but the viewing port is out the side of the 6" black PVC sewer pipe ... so an ideal piece of glass would be a wrap-around ... but I think a piece of glass from a picture frame that is duct-taped on would work ... and stay within the budget! ;-)

[Wassercrats]

an ideal piece of glass would be a wrap-aroundThe frame glass is a good idea, but if you want something that wraps around, try a face shield (http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=1290520&cp=1254873.1254947.1304562&parentPage=family). Any old cheap protective eye wear would probably work too, and you'd be able to cut through it without glass cutting tools.

[hulkster]

Dang ... that "face shield" idea is an excellent one - not sure why I didn't think of that - I'll look into it when the AOL CD starts to discolor - thanx a bunch!

[kitchin]

Glass is cheap to buy at a glass shop (window glass), cut to order.

[Wassercrats]

I wonder if a curved window is really a good idea for a camera. There would be more surface area in front of the lens and maybe more glare and distortion. I'd probably calk on a flat lens from protective glasses.

[Mandi]

How about something like a 500 mL Pyrex cylindrical beaker, duct taped in place? Assuming it had the diameter to encompass the pipe, it may do the trick. I dunno if the distortion where the edge curves would be too jarring, though. You may be able to dig up one you can borrow for the duration, from your friendly neighborhood chemistry teacher, or secret basement bomb builder . . . whichever.

And completely OT, but our family is gluten free, too. My youngest daughter and I have celiac disease. (Or "silly yak," as her pro-GF t-shirt proclaims.) We also have assorted family members allergic/sensitive to chocolate, dairy, corn, and mushrooms, so menu planning is always fun. The GF is no big deal, really, since we cook from scratch anyway and nobody *needs* gluten (and I'm really good at making "real" food from GF sources - people never even know the difference, unless I have to brag :wink: ) . . . but the chocolate is just unfair :grr: .

[hulkster]

Outside diameter of that sewer pipe is almost 6 1/2" ... so it would have to be a HUGE beaker ... although as a former "mad scientist" in high school and college, I might have to consider this idea.

Roger on the GF/celiac - while I don't have it, we keep the house (almost) gluten free ... and one thing I miss a LOT is a hamburger with a BUN!!! You just do what you need to do ... but no chocolate IS unfair for you! :-(

[Randall]

Outside diameter of that sewer pipe is almost 6 1/2" ... so it would have to be a HUGE beaker ... http://www.blamethepixel.com/sigs/beaker.jpg

Randall

[johnfl68]

Depending on the camera you are using - another common item to use as a clear glass globe for a ceiling light, they come in a couple of sizes around 12" diameter with about a 6" diameter opening - duct tape the opening to the 6" pvc pipe. Smaller webcams can be moved out into the globe.

I have a pan and tilt rig from Surveyor that this is what they recomend to use for low budget applications.

John

[Wassercrats]

Cup or candle coaster. Or if you have a source for a beaker, how about a petree dish? And I think I've seen flat glass beaker covers.