LinuxMCE Forums

General => Users => Topic started by: rhormaza on June 14, 2010, 05:27:32 PM

Title: camera question
Post by: rhormaza on June 14, 2010, 05:27:32 PM
Hi There,
I'm new to LinuxMCE and I've been struggling a few weeks trying to setup the system

Currently, I'm trying to setup the surveillance system. I've got an ACTI cam (ACM 7411) which is working fine via motion wrapper.
At the moment, I can watch the image inside the Orbiter (core/md) but I think it's a bit slow (choppy)  ....so I just wanna check..is that normal? I mean, is that the framerate I can get?, if not can I improve it somehow?

Thanks in advance
Raul
ps: LinuxMCE version is 810
Title: Re: camera question
Post by: tschak909 on June 14, 2010, 11:57:30 PM
We only currently take single frames, so yes, this is normal.

-Thom
Title: Re: camera question
Post by: rhormaza on June 15, 2010, 05:51:01 AM
thanks  ;)
Title: Re: camera question
Post by: valent on June 17, 2010, 12:55:07 PM
Quote from: rhormaza on June 14, 2010, 05:27:32 PM
Hi There,
I'm new to LinuxMCE and I've been struggling a few weeks trying to setup the system

Currently, I'm trying to setup the surveillance system. I've got an ACTI cam (ACM 7411) which is working fine via motion wrapper.
At the moment, I can watch the image inside the Orbiter (core/md) but I think it's a bit slow (choppy)  ....so I just wanna check..is that normal? I mean, is that the framerate I can get?, if not can I improve it somehow?

Thanks in advance
Raul
ps: LinuxMCE version is 810

You can try and edit motion.conf and thread1.conf in /etc/motion but not sure if linuxmce will overwite it if you edit it manually. But these options are also exposed in motion wrapped via web admin UI.
Title: Re: camera question
Post by: tschak909 on June 17, 2010, 02:47:07 PM
valent...

I should smack you for blatantly not #$(@#(#@ reading...

The orbiter display only grabs one single JPEG image frame at a time. It will not be 30 frames per second smooth.

-Thom
Title: Re: camera question
Post by: rhormaza on August 02, 2010, 09:09:42 AM
I hadn't read this... :)


thanks again