On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:00:57PM +0100, michael hamerski wrote: > I guess for security monitoring stuff, having a decent driver for a > decent webcam would be nice. However, with the current trend to > offload all peripheral processing onto the host CPU this can be a > mixed blessing. For example, in '96 with a BW Quickcam my PC hardly > broke sweat for videoconfrencing, fast forward 12 years and I can > easily crash my dual-core AMD laptop by using its integrated webcam > (CPU temp exceeds BIOS limits) under both linux and windows. Go > figure. > > For that matter, if you read a bit about v4l supported devices, it > does seem to be the habitual jungle, different chipsets in same models > etc. > > For any serious application, I'd go with dedicated ip cams, at least > it doesn't put additional load on your server.
otoh ... I can watch bktrplay at full screen and it uses hardly any cpu. mostly because it just feeds the raw frames from bktr(4) to Xv(3). bsdav just uses raw frames as well, partly why it's crappy ;0 I bet, to get the same resolution from an IP cam, I would be using more resources. either a much higher network load (always some network load ...), or cpu load to decompress the video. of course, raw frames suck as far as storage/transmission is concerned. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
