X10 Community Forum
🖥️ActiveHome Pro => Plug-ins => iWatchOut/iWitness => Topic started by: RebHawk on February 27, 2008, 10:36:51 PM
-
Hi all:
Based on what I've read here, the Astak IR cameras are much preferred over the X10 IR cams. I've also heard mention of people mounting an Astak camera on an X10 Ninja Pan/Tilt mount. So some questions:
1) I gather iWatchout/iWitness can handle up to 16 cams, requiring only one video receiver, and that iWitness can autoscan between all the cameras if they are all in the same HC. Correct?
2) I also gather that the Ninja has a built-in 2.4 gHz RF module that allows it to send video from a wired camera to the video receiver I've got hooked up to my computer via the USB interface.
3) Furthermore, some flavor of Astak camera can be mounted to the Ninja, which effectively makes iWitness think the Astak camera is an X10 camera.
I can think of at least 4 places around the house I'd like to put IR cameras, as much for capturing images of deer and other critters as anything else.
What models of Astak camera are known to work well? It looks like they only specify an IR range for most of their cameras as 20 feet, which doesn't seem terribly impressive to me. One application would be looking at the barn from the house, which is about 100 feet away.
Any thoughts and clarifications to the scenario I describe above would be appreciated.
Cheers,
--Lee
-
2) No the Ninja does not have a 2.4 Ghz transmitter in it. It mounts an X10 Wireless camera that has its own transmitter. The Ninja has a X10 Addressable power supply that is turned on and off by X10 powerline signals. The pan and tilt functions are through a 310 Mhz signal from a camera remote or transmitter in the CM15A Interface.
-
Ok, so how are the Astak cameras integrated into AHP? Is a wireless Astak's transmitter compatible with an X10 video receiver? Or is some other scheme being used?
Cheers,
--Lee
-
I don't know. Hopefully someone who has will provide the data you need.
-
Ok, so how are the Astak cameras integrated into AHP? Is a wireless Astak's transmitter compatible with an X10 video receiver? Or is some other scheme being used?
I am one of the Astak camera users. I use the wired Astak camera. IR cameras have a value! But they aren't superior to X10 cameras. Although Astak does make a wireless.. I don't know of anyone to have tried it with a X10 receiver. I have tried other wireless cameras with my X10 setup... and have been able to find at least ONE compatible VIDEO channel. You could be the 1st to try the wireless Astak.
I don't know of any manual available on how to intergrate other cameras into an X10 set-up.. but it can be done. I use an appliance module to turn my Astak ON/OFF.
The value of IR cameras is they don't require exterior lighting. The slip-side is... exterior lighting is proably as good as a deterrent as the cameras.
-
How would you say the Astaks compare to, say, a FloodCam?
Cheers,
--Lee
-
How would you say the Astaks compare to, say, a FloodCam?
Never used a FloodCam.. and haven't read enough good reports on them to consider one. But I do use the X10 FloodLIGHTS... and REALLY like them. They turn on my cameras!
The X10 cams are tough, durable, easy to hide, little work horses that are very easy to integrate into an X10 system. I use the big hunky silver IR Astak in a place where it is easy to spot. It (IMHO) makes a good deterrent as anyone can spot I have cameras because of it. It's picture is as good as X10's cameras... and it allows me to view my yard in total darkness also.
-
I am one of the Astak camera users. I use the wired Astak camera. IR cameras have a value! But they aren't superior to X10 cameras.
Which Astaks do you use? I ask because, while you're probably correct that the Astaks that use CMOS sensors aren't superior to the X10 cams, the Astak CM-906D (and its wired brother, the CM-906W) use a CCD sensor. CCD sensors are much superior to CMOS sensors in low light conditions (read: much less noise, much greater sensitivity). We use LogiTech webcams at our observatory for looking at the daytime and early evening sky (for cloud monitoring). The Pro version is the only LogiTech we can use for this application, since the cheaper webcams use CMOS instead of CCD, and thus have an unacceptable level of noise.
I have a two-pack of CM-906D's on the way from Wal-Mart. I'll try to get them to talk to IWatchOut and will report back.
Cheers,
--Lee
-
............. We use LogiTech webcams at our observatory for looking at the daytime and early evening sky (for cloud monitoring). ............
My point exactly. Every home... and every camera placement has it's own requirements. If someone is new to surveillance cameras (and we all are in the beginning)... it may be impossible to know what is needed or what to expect. I use several completely different cameras in my set-up. Each has both benefits and.. problems. IMHO the best camera is the one that meets it's requirements... but doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
IR cameras do have a great cool factor... mainly because they can see in the dark. However, dark areas around a home aren't exactly a plus for security. Adding motion sensor floodlights will increase security by being a deterrent... but may actually reflect off the glass lens cover of an IR camera... and interfear with getting a clear image. Whereas good outdoor lighting (floodlights) are a known deterrent to crime... cameras that are not seen provide NO deterrent.
Of course surrounding a home with razor-wire fences, with tall poles at all corners, and cameras and floodlights at the top of the poles.... may provide a level of security. But the "compound-look" would likely reduce BOTH WAF and Neighbor Approval Factor.
I use my big chunky silver Astak IR camera where an intruder can easily spot it... DAY OR NIGHT. But.. If ALL my floodlights burned all night.. instead of just being motion sensored. Or if ALL my cameras were as easy to spot [as the Astak]... my home would more closely resemble the forementioned "compound".
Selecting the best camera for each location around a home may take a little trial and error. But the X10 cams really are tough, durable, easy to hide, little work horses. And they are very easy to integrate into any X10 system.... and they don't cost much ether. That's why I recommend them.
-
Whereas good outdoor lighting (floodlights) are a known deterrent to crime... cameras that are not seen provide NO deterrent.
I'd be interested to know your source for that statement.
Actually, there are DOJ studies that show that crime is NOT deterred by lighting... and in fact may make it more likely. As a personal anecdote, my grandfather's tack room was robbed... and all the outdoor light on the barn did was give the thieves better light to work by :/ Check out www.darksky.org for specifics (and by the way, the IDA is NOT against all lighting or even most lighting... their crusade is against bad lighting that either wastes energy, doesn't do its job, makes things worse, or all three).
Regardless, it's for sure that BAD lighting is much worse than no lighting at all. Why? Because if your lighting provides "pools of darkness" and glare for the perp to hide in, then you are in trouble. The perp can easily see you, but you cannot see them, because your eyes are shut down from the light, while theirs are adapted since they are in the shadows. Next time you are driving around town, take a look at the parking lot and other lighting, looking for dark pools and bad glare in areas that are supposedly "well lit as a deterrent to crime". Once you actually look, you'll be surprised. 98% of ALL lighting projects in this country were laid out by people with no real clue as to what they were doing, because there wasn't ANY standard for lighting designers until about 8-10 years ago...
Back to CCD vs CMOS, yes, CMOS is cheaper, but a CCD camera has over 2x the range and lower noise, so you do get what you pay for, especially if the cameras in question are for night use. I agree that everyone needs to make their own choices, I was just trying to provide some information concerning the differences in the two technologies so folks who might not know the difference between CMOS and CCD could make a more informed choice...
Regards,
--Lee
-
Here's a link to various studies that show the lack of a correlation between lighting and crime prevention, and perhaps more importantly, the very real negative health effects of not sleeping in a dark environment (to include a very measurable increase in breast cancer rates):
http://www.darksky.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=62906&orgId=idsa
One correction to my post above, it was an Institute of Justice (IoJ not DoJ) report to congress that I was remembering.
Regards,
--Lee
-
Here's a link to various studies that show the lack of a correlation between lighting and crime prevention, and perhaps more importantly, the very real negative health effects of not sleeping in a dark environment (to include a very measurable increase in breast cancer rates):
http://www.darksky.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=62906&orgId=idsa
One correction to my post above, it was an Institute of Justice (IoJ not DoJ) report to congress that I was remembering.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
I don't know if everyone knows WHAT "dark skys" advocates.... but I do. I respect your rights to have envirormental opinions. But please... this isn't the place for that.
-
One correction to my post above, it was an Institute of Justice (IoJ not DoJ) report to congress that I was remembering.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
I don't know if everyone knows WHAT "dark skys" advocates.... but I do.
The "DOJ report" you mention isn't a DOJ report... as is clearly marked.
"This report was supported by National Institute of Justice Grant Number 96MUMU0019 to the University of Maryland at College Park. Points of view or opinions stated herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the United States Department of Justice".
Yes, and I corrected myself before you replied. What exactly do you think "dark skies" advocates? Do you seriously believe bad lighting is a good thing? And the health effects are not some sort of joke or something cooked up. The link to breast cancer is real. The link of the effects of poor lighting on birds and other wildlife is well known. And I challenge you to provide just one reference showing that lighting alone has ever prevented a crime. Service stations (at least around here) are some of the most over-lit places there are. And they are also the most robbed.
Note that I DID NOT say all lighting is bad. Just lighting that intrudes into your bedroom when you are sleeping, light that is GLARING, thus hides perps in glare or shadow pools. I'm all for good lighting that is evenly distributed and actually does it job. And so is the IDA.
Or am I misunderstanding your comments?
Regards,
--Lee
-
Or am I misunderstanding your comments?
I think your ranting! Your environmental opinions.. are fine.. and I have no problem with that. But your feelings are not factual information. I have no intent to debate your emotional commitments.
I was editing my comments earlier..when you replied. Sorry.
-
Dave:
Sorry, I wasn't intending to rant. However, the fact remains that most people think "more lighting is better and safer" when it's not. *Good* lighting is better and safer. I've spoken to more than one cop who *hates* glaring floodlights around businesses. Why? If he comes into the lot on a call, and the floods are illuminating him, but the perps are in the shadows or in the building, he's one big fat illuminated target, while he cannot see them at all.
I'm also not much of an environmentalist... the way most would define it LOL. I have no problems cutting trees and hunting animals :D
As for dark skies, my profession is astronomy, so that is the main reason I'm interested. But another reason has to do with my niece and nephew. I grew up sitting out behind the house looking at the stars and letting my imagination run wild, as did many who grew up where and when I did. Now from my parent's house, you can barely see the brightest stars. I think it's a shame that kids can't marvel at the stars these days without driving for 30+ miles to get out of the city glow.
Around here, everyone walks within about 20 feet of the ground, and 100% of the outdoor crime occurs within about 10 feet of the ground :D Seems kinda silly for our tax dollars to be wasted lighting anything above that level, now doesn't it?
Now, since you state that my comments are not "factual" information... what facts do you base that statement on? Can you point to any documented evidence that more lighting in some way prevents crime? Or do you just think that it's "common sense" that more light is better in every case for preventing crime? Do you have any direct personal examples of lights preventing, say, a home robbery?
Cheers,
--Lee
-
Now, since you state that my comments are not "factual" information...
Sorry... I should have been more clear. I in no way meant to state that YOUR comments are not factual. I was referring to the "report by the University of Maryland at College Park" (that you provided the link to). Which itself describes as "points of view or opinions" (after all it IS a report... NOT a study). I know a little bit about grants and grad students.. and how for a price.. you can get a nicely worded opinion. If University of Maryland clearly state's.. AND THEY DID.. that "the report does not meet the threshold of scientific evidence"... I BELIEVE THEM.
what facts do you base that statement on? Can you point to any documented evidence that more lighting in some way prevents crime? Or do you just think that it's "common sense" that more light is better in every case for preventing crime? Do you have any direct personal examples of lights preventing, say, a home robbery?
As my old departed Dad (the Captain of the geographically largest police office in the state) used to say: "There is nothing common... about common sense". Dad (with his 25 years plus experience in law enforcement) was a BIG believer in using lighting as a crime deterrent. But... he never studied astronomy.
But there are little things blogged out there (and published) by the National Crime Prevention Council (http://ncpc.typepad.com/prevention_works_blog/2007/12/lighting-not-ju.html).
We try very hard here at the forum... to keep our posting as accurate as possible. Our desire is to help other users... like ourselves. Where I share with you an appreciation for the night sky... I cannot in good faith... place it above the wellfare of human beings.
-
Dave, I agree that the night sky should not be placed above the welfare of humans. However, what you seem to be consistently ignoring in this debate are my comments that:
I do NOT have a problem with good, non-glaring lighting that doesn't waste its light (and thus energy and ultimately your money) up into the sky where it does no good.
For the reasons I've stated above, lighting that glares is often worse than no lighting at all.
As to the welfare of humans, the studies of increased breast cancer rates are not "opinions" but multiple well documented scientific studies. Does this mean we should eliminate all lighting? No, but it does mean we should endeavor to install fixtures that don't light up your bedroom while you're trying to sleep at night.
What I've tried to say here (obviously not very well) is that there is a lot of lighting out there that does NOT do what it is intended to do, because of poor design. Lighting areas willy-nilly is not the answer. Lighting areas CORRECTLY so that the lights don't blind you with glare, waste half of their output into the sky, and/or leave dangerous pools of darkness in which perps can hide is the way things should be done.
Or are you saying that it doesn't matter if lighting is glaring, poorly designed, and wasteful? I'm trying to understand your reasoning. I'd be surprised to find any policeman who was in favor of glaring lighting or poorly designed lighting over lighting that did its job correctly.
Regards,
--Lee
-
Or are you saying that it doesn't matter if lighting is glaring, poorly designed, and wasteful? I'm trying to understand your reasoning.
This is a home automation forum... lighting is a basic part of the automation. If you read through the posts you will see that many... if not most of us regulars are using both CFL's and LED lighting. And promoting their use.
Most readers are up to the task of planning and executing good... or even excellent lighting themes. If you don't feel your up to the task yourself.. keep reading.. or post your problems (in the proper "general" area) we will be glad to help.
As far as wasteful.... an intruder (in the night) at my home will find himself in as much light... as if it was daytime. And I fail to see how that could waste a single watt. Maybe you could explain how many watts of light my family is worth... before it becomes wasteful.
-
Dave:
Obviously it would be silly to suggest that pouring the light on an intruder was in any way whatsoever unjustified. I never meant that, and I haven't ever heard any lighting professionals say that, either. I also suspect that you only have those lights trigger when someone actually is intruding, and don't have your yard lit up like Times Square 24/7/365. I also agree that lights coming on when someone walks up to your house will tend to deter them from proceeding further.
My point, which I guess I pretty poorly explained, is that cities have tons of crime. If you walk down the streets of any medium- or large-size city, you will find it is lit up like daylight. However plenty of crime still occurs. Light is obviously not a deterrent in this case, because it is the natural environment (unlike the case of home spots which come on automagically, as mine and yours do). Thus, the criminals learn to operate "in the light". Otherwise, if light is all it took to deter crime at night, there would be zero crime at night in big cities. I think we can both agree that is not the case :D.
The way that we can help our city leaders to make lighting more effective in inhibiting crime is to urge them to use lighting that, instead of glaring (and thus blinding) people, and creating dark pools between the well lit areas for criminals to hide in, evenly lights the scene on the ground everywhere, so the criminals have no place to hide. This DOES NOT mean fewer lighting fixtures, and in fact might mean more in many cases. However, with power costs increasing all the time, cities should be installing fixtures (of which there are many to choose from) which put 100% of their light on the ground, where it is needed. I think we can agree (or at least I hope so) that a fixture that puts 30-50% of its light above its horizon is a wasteful fixture that is not properly lighting the area it is intended to light. If it's lighting the sky, it's wasting money and the percentage of light above the horizon is doing *absolutely nothing* to deter crime whatsoever.
This is what the IDA is all about, NOT trying to get lights turned off.
Regards,
--Lee
-
My point, which I guess I pretty poorly explained, is that cities have tons of crime. If you walk down the streets of any medium- or large-size city, you will find it is lit up like daylight. However plenty of crime still occurs. Light is obviously not a deterrent in this case, because it is the natural environment
Your point IS clearly explained... but poorly reasoned. There isn't any city in the US which doesn't have many police officers. In fact... many of the most crime infested areas have the MOST police. Obviously (by your reasoning) police are not a deterrent to crime. Again... using your reasoning... any area in which a police officer isn't located... would create a (dark pool) place for criminals to hide.
By your reasoning.... police have no direct effect on crime and are a waste of tax dollars. Maybe if we eliminate police.. we would have no crime.
In the real world... bringing light to the night.. was the greatest advancement mankind has ever made. Yes... it does make it difficult to view the sky near major population centers. Life is full of trade-offs. If you want to see the sky at night... you can't live near a mall.
I trust people to know how to properly handle their OWN lighting costs. I don't think people are inherently too weak-minded that they need to be regulated into controlling there own lighting... I really think they are up to it.
This is what the IDA is all about, NOT trying to get lights turned off.
You could be correct.... from what I have read..... I got the impression that is EXACTLY what they want.
-
Dave, I never said eliminating lights would help the problem, and of course I don't believe eliminating police would help either. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I thought I just got through explaining above that in many cases *more* lights, not less, would be necessary.
Better lighting is what we need.
Do you really believe that street lights that put 30-50% of their light up in the sky are the kind we need to have? Wouldn't it be better to put all that light on the ground?
You could be correct.... from what I have read..... I got the impression that is EXACTLY what they want.
I know I'm right. I've been in the organization for my entire professional career, and am the VP of the North Carolina section of this organization. I've given a lot of talks with my colleague to town councils, police, county commissioners, and other groups, and interestingly, they all seem to agree that lights that put all their light on the ground where its needed and don't glare are the best kinds of lights to have. If you talk to lighting engineers, they also agree. That is a big reason there are so many choices of good, full-cutoff fixtures. The NC DOT no longer uses roadway lighting that puts light above the horizon. Nor do many towns. I invite you to read more about this subject. Good lighting doesn't have any downsides.
Regards,
--Lee
-
I think we understand each other... good planning is always best.
But.... this is a Home Automation Forum. Not a place to exchange ideas about social change. For most home owners... more lighting is needed... and the more the better! Cameras that can't be seen can't deter crime. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.
The average home owner may never be able to design a good highway (or even large parking lot) lighting system. But with a little reading, planning and trial and error... they can do a very nice job at home.
You apparently have learned a bit about lighting. You should start a thread or two and share some of this info with your fellow X10 users.
-
RebHawk,
Not sure if you had read my post concerning non-x10 cameras and compatibility with either the
AHP/IWititness (IWatchout) and the Video Receiver VR36A .
The camera that I bought was a Swann IR camera, but I believe that these types of cameras,
Swann / Astak, are somewhat generic.
My post describes my experience relative to X10 compatibility.
Hope this helps.
http://www.x10community.com/forums/index.php?topic=10465.msg61463#msg61463
-
I have the cameras, but still haven't gotten around to trying them out. In the middle of more pressing home renovations...
I'll report back once I know one way or the other.
Cheers,
--Lee
-
I have fourAstak cameras running on Active Home as well as 8 X10 cameras. I use a Appliance Modules to turn the cameras off and on using any of the 16 addresses.
The astak cameras are better in low light but in daylight the x10 are better in daylight. The Astaks are more dependable outside.
Jerry Lester