In ancient times, Windows would open a webcam and show you what'sgoing on .I'm unfortunately running Win11 now. Can anyone recommend a goodwebcam viewer?I just got a decent, affordable termal imager with close-up lens. Theuser interface andinstructions are of course obtuse. I managed to getit to save snaps to its SD card, and can open them, but I'd like torun it in webcam mode too.VLC Media Player can't seem top find the imager when it's set to cammode.
Can anyone recommend a good
webcam viewer?
I just got a decent, affordable termal imager with close-up lens. The
user interface and instructions are of course obtuse. I managed to get
it to save snaps to its SD card, and can open them, but I'd like to
run it in webcam mode too.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 13:33:54 -0700, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
Can anyone recommend a good
webcam viewer?
I just got a decent, affordable termal imager with close-up lens. The
user interface and instructions are of course obtuse. I managed to get
it to save snaps to its SD card, and can open them, but I'd like to
run it in webcam mode too.
If it is a webcam, it will have a built-in web server with an IP
address.
I think you have a USB cam, not a web cam.
I use AMCAP to view USB cameras, such as borescopes, microscopes etc.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:15:40 +0100, Robert Roland <fake@ddress.no>
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 13:33:54 -0700, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
Can anyone recommend a good
webcam viewer?
I just got a decent, affordable termal imager with close-up lens. The
user interface and instructions are of course obtuse. I managed to get
it to save snaps to its SD card, and can open them, but I'd like to
run it in webcam mode too.
If it is a webcam, it will have a built-in web server with an IP
address.
I think you have a USB cam, not a web cam.
I use AMCAP to view USB cameras, such as borescopes, microscopes etc.
Yes, it is usb cam. It's a Uni-T Pro thermal imager. It can be set to
work as a live cam (which I can't get to work) or as a USB memory
device that saves images to an SD card. That mode barely works and is
very weird.
Decent thermal imaging, nice snap-on close-up lens, ghastly embedded software.
On 3/29/2024 22:00, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:15:40 +0100, Robert Roland <fake@ddress.no>
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 13:33:54 -0700, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
Can anyone recommend a good
webcam viewer?
I just got a decent, affordable termal imager with close-up lens. The
user interface and instructions are of course obtuse. I managed to get >>>> it to save snaps to its SD card, and can open them, but I'd like to
run it in webcam mode too.
If it is a webcam, it will have a built-in web server with an IP
address.
I think you have a USB cam, not a web cam.
I use AMCAP to view USB cameras, such as borescopes, microscopes etc.
Yes, it is usb cam. It's a Uni-T Pro thermal imager. It can be set to
work as a live cam (which I can't get to work) or as a USB memory
device that saves images to an SD card. That mode barely works and is
very weird.
Decent thermal imaging, nice snap-on close-up lens, ghastly embedded
software.
On windows 10 Yawcam works OK for me. Don't know about 11, you say it
won't show up in the file explorer directory tree so it is uncharted >territory for me.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 23:39:24 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:
On 3/29/2024 22:00, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:15:40 +0100, Robert Roland <fake@ddress.no>
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 13:33:54 -0700, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>
Can anyone recommend a good
webcam viewer?
I just got a decent, affordable termal imager with close-up lens. The >>>>> user interface and instructions are of course obtuse. I managed to get >>>>> it to save snaps to its SD card, and can open them, but I'd like to
run it in webcam mode too.
If it is a webcam, it will have a built-in web server with an IP
address.
I think you have a USB cam, not a web cam.
I use AMCAP to view USB cameras, such as borescopes, microscopes etc.
Yes, it is usb cam. It's a Uni-T Pro thermal imager. It can be set to
work as a live cam (which I can't get to work) or as a USB memory
device that saves images to an SD card. That mode barely works and is
very weird.
Decent thermal imaging, nice snap-on close-up lens, ghastly embedded
software.
On windows 10 Yawcam works OK for me. Don't know about 11, you say it
won't show up in the file explorer directory tree so it is uncharted
territory for me.
WebcamViewer finds it and tries to open it and says it's broken.
It does appear as a USB memory stick. To save an image file, pull the
trigger twice, unplug the USB cable, and plug it back in.
File explorer "refresh" doesn't work.
Why is software continuously getting worse?
...
Why is software continuously getting worse?
Oh that's easy. Because they have been piling shit over heaps
of shit for decades now.
On 3/31/2024 6:49 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
Oh that's easy. Because they have been piling shit over heaps
of shit for decades now.
It's not that they are "piling it"; rather, that they don't understand
the stuff they are piling onto or piling on!
How many fools think "Oh, we'll just run Linux!" and base their entire product on a piece of software that, I suspect, NO ONE in their
organization has the skillset to understand?
With hardware components, you understand their limitations and
see all of their interconnections (on a sheet of paper).
You know what operating limits exist on its use and can verify
that it's use in a particular application (circuit) will
not subject it to stresses outside of those limits.
["Here are some electronic components that APPEAR to be able
to provide this particular functionality. Please design a product
around them with incomplete knowledge of how they work"]
That's not possible with software. Especially for software that
you inherit/embrace without having an intimate understanding of
it's design, goals, technology, etc. Do you know what the first
instruction executed after reset is -- in the *source* code?
Or, even the basic order that modules are invoked to bring the
system up?
Notice how many folks will add a network stack to a device...
and not even understand the protocols that they will be using
(nor their expectations, vulnerabilities, etc.). Or, glob
some layer of "security" onto a design ("Let's require a password
to access this functionality!") without considering how it can be
subverted.
["I put a note on my front door saying 'Keep Out'. Surely that should
be sufficient to prevent any theft!?"]
And, with the legions of "programmers" who are just trying to
get something to APPEAR to work, there isn't even a real desire
to ACQUIRE any of this understanding. Who can blame them? Will
they be rewarded for producing a robust product ("But, that's
your JOB! Why should we reward you for doing it?!") or
penalized for making a shitty one? Is there even anyone in
the organization who has the skills to be able to make such
an assessment??
And, with the legions of "programmers" who are just trying to
get something to APPEAR to work, there isn't even a real desire
to ACQUIRE any of this understanding. Who can blame them? Will
they be rewarded for producing a robust product ("But, that's
your JOB! Why should we reward you for doing it?!") or
penalized for making a shitty one? Is there even anyone in
the organization who has the skills to be able to make such
an assessment??
Well these and other details amount to what I keep on saying about
shit and piles of it. Look at the sheer amount of memory they *waste*.
I don't know what they do - as you know I live on another "planet" for software - but I strongly suspect they keep on putting everything on
the stack which ends up full of what is effectively waste as most of
it gets accessed once in minutes of not days. The thought of what
the mass software looks like - be it MS or FOSS - just makes me
sick, I am glad I went my own way all these decades ago. Cost me
several fortunes I guess but people have spent many times that
and don't have a fraction of what I have - which I will likely carry
into the grave, so what.
Common sense -- do you think a list of files in a
directory is produced by reading every file in its entirety in order
to be able to report their individual sizes??
On 4/1/24 04:19, Don Y wrote:
[...]
Common sense -- do you think a list of files in a
directory is produced by reading every file in its entirety in order
to be able to report their individual sizes??
On Linux, when I do something in a directory that contains a
mountpoint to a remote file system, it often slows to a crawl.
I suspect it tries to stat() every damn remote file, despite
doing nothing useful with the data. GUI 'open' or 'save' dialogs
are the worst offenders. I have to be careful not to stray into
such directories using GUI programs. This is a nuisance.
A traditonal command shell does not usually misbehave in that
way, fortunately.
On 4/1/2024 2:40 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 4/1/24 04:19, Don Y wrote:
[...]
Common sense -- do you think a list of files in a
directory is produced by reading every file in its entirety in order
to be able to report their individual sizes??
On Linux, when I do something in a directory that contains a
mountpoint to a remote file system, it often slows to a crawl.
You are *on* an NFS client? (presumably running Linux?)
And, is there a remote file system ACTUALLY mounted?
The directory *contains* a mountpoint? Or, *is* a mountpoint?
I.e., in the former case, only the mountpoint references an exported filesystem. In the latter, everything in the directory is external.
The directory *contains* a mountpoint? Or, *is* a mountpoint?
I.e., in the former case, only the mountpoint references an exported
filesystem. In the latter, everything in the directory is external.
It's not NFS. The problem manifests itself in both openafs and sshfs.
It's the GUI file dialogs that ask for far more information than they
really need. It's vexing, because those same dialogs also tend to hide information that I *do* need. (Where did it put my files??)
As I said, I avoid directories with active mount points in them when
using GUI programs. It's still annoying, because it forces me to put
mount points in subdirectories, which I would not have needed to do if
these dialogs had been better designed.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 97:12:07 |
| Calls: | 6,719 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,252 |
| Messages: | 5,359,546 |
| Posted today: | 1 |