Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[essp2003]

Can sound comparisons between audible cameras trigger device events on AHP?


It seems appropriate to combine audible with visual signals to drive events.

For example, if sound is greater from camera closer toward neighbors house than sound from adjacent camera that is closer to street, then record vision and sound at applicable cameras for documented evidence. As well, with AHP, trigger flood lamps and/or other defensive non-audible weapons.   

[essp2003]

No such "off the shelf" device(s) are available to do that...... that I know of.

However, it sounds like a great idea! Much of what people do with X10 was never conceived of by the makers of X10. Some forum members have even written there own software to control X10 and automate thier lives.

• Figure out how to do what you want to do.

• Put it together (and keep track of model and part numbers and where to purchase what parts).

• Then start a topic ("how to set-up a combo sound/motion detection system using camera audio") and share your project with the forum community.

So Wish list doesn't mean I  don't have to think?
I thought Bill's invention seemed applicable after reviewing  the Third Party section. As well you and others have expanded upon his work in great detail in your own inventions.
Maybe a suggestion for skeletal concept perhaps??

It almost seems like a way to further define Bill's idea of source alarms. For example:

"Intrudor at back door" "Sounds greatest from side of house" (or "Sounds from both sides of backyard, possilbe multiple intrudors") which could be a blind spot in motion sensors and warn of 2 possible threats.
Mics are generally just $15 with 100' of audio/visual cable, and would need a selection method, auto and manual, for live or recorded sounds.

ALL cameras should have mics on them imo. Its like eyes without ears otherwise. Both senses are important considering blind spots in cameras and motion sensors.

Technically, this is an additional sense in detection that would require filtering from the street and echo directions by comparison of audio volumes.
Well it seems important to me anyway, especially in a well sound insulated house.   

[-Bill- (of wgjohns.com)]

No such "off the shelf" device(s) are available to do that...... that I know of.

However, it sounds like a great idea! Much of what people do with X10 was never conceived of by the makers of X10. Some forum members have even written there own software to control X10 and automate thier lives.

• Figure out how to do what you want to do.

• Put it together (and keep track of model and part numbers and where to purchase what parts).

• Then start a topic ("how to set-up a combo sound/motion detection system using camera audio") and share your project with the forum community.

So Wish list doesn't mean I  don't have to think?
I thought Bill's invention seemed applicable after reviewing  the Third Party section. As well you and others have expanded upon his work in great detail in your own inventions.
Maybe a suggestion for skeletal concept perhaps??

It almost seems like a way to further define Bill's idea of source alarms. For example:

"Intrudor at back door" "Sounds greatest from side of house" (or "Sounds from both sides of backyard, possilbe multiple intrudors") which could be a blind spot in motion sensors and warn of 2 possible threats.
Mics are generally just $15 with 100' of audio/visual cable, and would need a selection method, auto and manual, for live or recorded sounds.

ALL cameras should have mics on them imo. Its like eyes without ears otherwise. Both senses are important considering blind spots in cameras and motion sensors.

Technically, this is an additional sense in detection that would require filtering from the street and echo directions by comparison of audio volumes.
Well it seems important to me anyway, especially in a well sound insulated house.   

The difficult part of this is that you need a way to listen to multiple microphones at the same time and compare the signals from them.

Most PC sound cards only support a couple of inputs (usually a microphone and a line-in).

Simply put, I think this application would require "unique" hardware and maybe even a totally new audio input device for the PC.

I won't go so far as to say it is "impossible" but it falls into the catagory of "extremely difficult" at best.

I do really like the idea though!   

[essp2003]

The difficult part of this is that you need a way to listen to multiple microphones at the same time and compare the signals from them.

Most PC sound cards only support a couple of inputs (usually a microphone and a line-in).

Simply put, I think this application would require "unique" hardware and maybe even a totally new audio input device for the PC.

I won't go so far as to say it is "impossible" but it falls into the catagory of "extremely difficult" at best.

I do really like the idea though!   

Bill,

http://store.bluecherry.net/4_port_video_capture_card_linux_bt878_p/pv-153.htm
$160

Would not the capture card above do the trick? You can use up to 4 of these cards for 16 channel video AND audio at 480fps.

I appreciate your expert input, and now I have a starting place and a possible capture card to start with that I need to build systems around, or emulate at least.
Now I can just ask Bluecherry guy what else the card needs. And thats 120fps 4 video/ 4 audio for $160 so if its this card or a seperate 4 way sound card, it should have software to compare sounds, maybe. Good insight!

Living on a corner lot is constant action in the city, and I was impressed by your work and others off of your previous audio work. Sound is a precious tool that is always worth the time integrating intelligence into systems. When motion is detected, a sound audit should be  automatic. The filtering however will be hard depending on sound card comparison built in intelligence.


Thanks Greatly!!

[-Bill- (of wgjohns.com)]

Now that's what I call thinking outside the box!      

I hadn't considered using a video capture card for audio inputs!      

Something else to investigate!

Thank you essp2003!

While we're thinking outside the box, there are commercial DVR (Digital Video Recorder for the uninitiated    ) systems that automatically switch cameras based on motion detected within the camera's field of view.

[essp2003]

Bill:


Here's what Curtis said from Bluecherry:


" The video capture card is supported by linux.  I believe the audio ports work without any problems in the latest kernel however I'm not aware of a linux DVR program that accepts audio at this time.  Zoneminder
(www.zoneminder.com) might be something you should visit sometime.  It's a popular linux DVR application

Currently we have a known issue with our capture cards and server motherboards.  For some reason the server motherboards won't boot with these capture cards installed.  We are working on a solution for this. 
I'm not sure if this computer below is a server board, or just a high end workstation board.

It sounds like you have the hardware down.  If you plan on messing with Linux I'd look at Zoneminder.  If you plan on windows look at Luxriot or the ISIS DVR software.  However the ISIS DVR software 'takes over' the computer and you would have to a) make a partition to store the video files and b) minimize the software on startup manually.

Thanks"


So for a pragmatic solution like I was looking for you were right, it would be bleeding edge. It doesn't look like a clean application for efficiency either way: need linux to work with audio 4 way card/workstaion, no dvr for linux, ISIS DVR takes over computer (with manual complications), and there is a known boot issue with capture cards and severs mb's.

Luxriot is expensive software, about $250, and would 'work', but not with audio card, lol. I am real surprised Windows is not up to the task with thousands of Indian programmers for a decade now on Vista. They have done very little compared to the 10 years of American programmers  before that and up to XP, imo.

So if it can be done, Curtis is an expert linux and Zoneminder guru (he has FREE Zoneminder software that partitions linux on drive automatically), so he will be the first to figure it out. The easiest thing right now for my purposes may be a dvr and IR cam set. That way a hard drive can be installed later with linux or whatever is required.

Of course if you can figure it out, you could corner the market early and it should obsolete all else, imo, with all the possibilities 

This may be it for $900, but a no-name brand to myself anyway:

http://www.dvrmaster.com/product-406-4-channel-video-input-4-channel-audio-input-mpeg4-4-channel-loop-out-720x480-250gb-installed-web-server.html

Here's one a little more descriptive for a $819, 4 inputs and 2 outputs - mono:

http://www.youdoitsecurity.com/ATD785.asp

So they are probably record and can activate what viewing or one at a time although recording all 4. Not bad, but no easy way to change likely. But it does have documented evidence of applicable sounds which I like. That law is really stupid about privacy. Its your safety if multiple intrudors breaking in, and that seems like critical knowledge. It would be sounds and not verbal information. I'd be tempted to tell the judge just that since its the intent of the law that's important, and not the procedural description lawyers bend continually: since know judge too lazy to look up himself and hope to catch other lawyer off guard.


Thanks Bill!

[-Bill- (of wgjohns.com)]

essp2003

It sounds like you may be barking up the wrong video capture card manufacturer's tree.   

I know for a fact that several commercial DVR manufacturers base their DVR on either Windows or Linux based PC's with add-on video capture cards.  So, someone must manufacture a video capture card that doesn't have the problems this company seems to have with theirs!

As far as the legality of recording the audio, your application doesn't really need to record it, just sense it and determine which mic. input is the loudest.

[essp2003]

essp2003

It sounds like you may be barking up the wrong video capture card manufacturer's tree.   

I know for a fact that several commercial DVR manufacturers base their DVR on either Windows or Linux based PC's with add-on video capture cards.  So, someone must manufacture a video capture card that doesn't have the problems this company seems to have with theirs!

As far as the legality of recording the audio, your application doesn't really need to record it, just sense it and determine which mic. input is the loudest.

"It sounds like you may be barking up the wrong video capture card manufacturer's tree.   "

Maybe so. But the best one (last link offered) of 8 channel for $820 or 16 channel for $1100, both with 4 channel audio and dvd backup, state in better stats 4 audio input and 2 audio output MONO. Which says all 4 are recording, but no intelligence with macros in usually fixed dvr settings. Bluecherry and X10 are the flexible alternative solutions being investigated. But as a standalone dvr, I think linux would offer the superior flexible archetecture without all the Windows overhead required for most applications security over the net. I know they advertise more capabilities now and in fact BOTH of the 4 channel audio dvr links above are linux. Go with the flow.

Macro intelligence with the 4 channel audio input is the goal. And dvr software may not function normally with parameters changed like that even if you could. I would like to find out a way to do this before I get something so can see if possible to upgrade later. I hate getting something that is scraped every upgrade step.

And although light is quicker than sound, you will USUALLY hear threats before you see them (at night), since crooks are prepared to minimize visual contact while already on your property (one last surveillance before no turning back action). And although they are quiet, they ARE audible. This is just the obvious solution no matter which angle you look at it. And integration seems to only be bridged by the same components with audio hardware now, but you need a macro insertion point in software inputs/outputs for alarms.


Thanks Bill!

[-Bill- (of wgjohns.com)]

essp2003

RE: "It sounds like you may be barking up the wrong video capture card manufacturer's tree.    "
I was speaking specifically to the problems you stated they were having with their cards (boot up problems, etc.).

You are quite correct about Linux.  For the reasons you mentioned, as well as cost, most of the PC based DVR manufacturers seem to have chosen Linux.

Anyway, back to the audio.  One big problem with doing what you suggest in my software will be finding a sound card or other multiple audio input device that is compatible with the MS Voice Recognition engine that my software presently relies upon.

To make a long story short, although I have reason to believe I may be able to do it, it is going to take some figuring out, as well as investigating some new hardware.

In other words; "Not real soon."   

[essp2003]

Bill,

I understand exactly. I  am not enthusiastic about learning a new 'dos code like' generated operating system.

That's what was appealing about the stand alone dvr's with linux already in them. The problem is finding one that can be manipulated
with 'excel like' macros for the expandability in features that seem apparant and easy.

But Big Money will NOT let that happen if they have anything to say about it. They have warehouses full of obsolete hardware in storage now,
so they would lose big and can only provide reasonable prices like Samsung and Sony offer manufacturing in big batch volumes for price and expert statistical process controlled product.

Any language is manageable in small macro level chunks, but the hardware is made to minimize cost so not one extra feature is offered which means it has to be bridged by additional basket case hardware (in most cases) and/or software. Software alone is the best option and the most difficult without the programming infrastructure support.

But often, if you keep chipping away investigating the root structures and requirements, sometimes a new fangled product will bridge the divide nicely. I am just starting my investigation but I really like the $820 dvr with 8 video and 4 audio channels, except its probably a China product which has inherent operational limits in engineering, quality, and materials. But it would be nice to take one out for a spin. Hopefully Curtis will have more input next week. You were right that he slightly shades the truth toward his products offered, but that's a small price to pay knowing that. It took me 5 minutes on Google to find out different, but there are so many shades of truth in functionality: and he is a top notch linux programmer from what I understand. With as few experts in linux security, especially that offer value quality products, he seems like an excellent source.


Thanks for your guidance Bill! you have helped me understand the application limits much better now (so I can sound semi-intelligent when talking with Curtis, lol)   

[essp2003]

Bill,

Here's a little more reliable company with a 4 video/4 audio and descriptive specs.
It says alarms are externally controlled so that means you would have recorded sound on dvr, but would need something externally to drive the alarm.

http://www.honeywellvideo.com/products/recorders/em/52917.html

$975

So it wouldn't be all neat inside dvr camera, but would be like video motion alarms on film and sound, heat sensor and/or motion alarms externally. So it sounds quite doable. I still  think there are new dvr's on the verge of coming out. When Samsung or Sony has them, that will be when good prices are everywhere and don't worry about quality from these two and others in same class.

Honeywell high dollar due to low demand, but the quality is there. Everything outside our homes will soon be photographed and sound recorded. I don't see the problem in it. It may add some sanity to our society. I guess I'll keep looking and searching until see the big boys out with a similar model. Google and Ebay caters to the Chinese so it will take a lot of searching. I checked on Samsung site and didn't see anything. Even Tiawanese would be acceptable. They have made very good inroads into manufacturing and would pick over Chinese made any day.

Cameras are already there. Sound alarms and boxes to sort and prioritize alarms, and this technology will be mature imo.

Very interesting stuff. I thought this would be stuff X10 would jump on, but maybe they have several more barriers to break even though more flexible and modular. I'm slow and steady not ready to jump in until I see an end before I begin. Technology changes that fast it seems.


Thanks for the information again!!

[Oldtimer]

I've been following this thread with great interest since it was first posted since the first half of my  professional career was in Audio Engineering and I have been a full member of the Audio Engineering Society since just after I got out of college.  I've racked my brains for possible solutions to this problem and haven't found any so I'd like to suggest a totally different approach.

The Powerflash module PF284 and its kin are advertised by X10 as accepting audio input as well as AC and DC although they require a 6+ volt signal level which could be provided by an op amp.  You could also use a diode and capacitor after the op amp to "average" out the signal level for more stable actuation.

Considering the $800+ price of some of the units discussed here four PF284s at $30 a pop plus the accessory electronics sounds like a possible cost effective alternative.  Each PF284 would have its own macro in AHP and flags and timers could be used to prevent collisions between them.  If there are collisions, a minute or so of A/V in turn from each camera location might be what you would really want.

Anyway those are my thoughts on the problem.  Let's hear what the rest of you think.

[-Bill- (of wgjohns.com)]

Oldtimer:

Yes, we have digressed a bit from the original idea.   

That being, which camera's microphone is picking up the loudest audio?

I had been avoiding ideas that require knowlege of electronics, soldering, etc.

Basically, what is needed is a pre-amp for each microphone, followed by a multiple input comparitor to decide which microphone signal is loudest, and somewhere in the mix, a comparitor to decide if the volume level is above a certain threshhold (to keep from recording if all that is heard is "normal background noise".

Any ideas?

[Oldtimer]

The adjusted averaged input signal to the PF284 will supply the trigger threshold you require, but we need to examine the logical difference between my sampling method and your comparison method.

If you think about it I don't think you want ONLY the loudest signal, you actually want to record samples of ALL signals above the threshold. The PF284s with macros can provide that but a comparator won't.

[-Bill- (of wgjohns.com)]

The adjusted averaged input signal to the PF284 will supply the trigger threshold you require, but we need to examine the logical difference between my sampling method and your comparison method.

If you think about it I don't think you want ONLY the loudest signal, you actually want to record samples of ALL signals above the threshold. The PF284s with macros can provide that but a comparator won't.

I guess the question to answer first, is; "Do we want to (and / or can we) record from every camera who's microphone detects an above average audio level, or do we have to select a specific camera based on which one is loudest?"