In ancient times, Windows would open a webcam and show you what's
going on .

I'm unfortunately running Win11 now. 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.

VLC Media Player can't seem top find the imager when it's set to cam
mode.

john larkin <jl@650pot.com> Wrote in message:r
> 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 and instructions 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.

Do you know which protocol it is? Rrsp, Rtp?

Cheers
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

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.
--
RoRo

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?

On 29/03/2024 22:19, john larkin wrote:
> 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?

I use 'Digital Viewer' for a USB microscope, but have found it works
with any USB camera I've tried.

https://plugable.com/pages/microscope-drivers

It's not very complicated, so may work.

--
Cheers
Clive

On 3/30/2024 0:19, john larkin wrote:
> ...
> 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??

On 3/31/2024 18:59, Don Y wrote:
> 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??
>
>

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.

On 3/31/2024 11:06 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> 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

I think modern OOPS software encourages lots of flitting around
invoking methods from various classes to achieve even the simplest
of actions.

But, even old procedural languages suffer from too much complexity.
Even *if* it was structured well (after several refactorings),
there's just too much for a developer to "internalize". You're
never really *sure* of what is supposed to be happening... just
vaguely optimistic.

> 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.

Consider what you, as a developer, have available for information
about something as trivial as a diode; several *pages* of technical
DATA characterizing it's operation over a wide range of conditions
(temperature, voltage, current). This implies that the design of
the component and it's actual manufacture has been quantified to
that extent.

Now, look at a *trivial* piece of software -- even something like a
small "standard function". It is *described* by a few paragraphs
of PROSE. Nothing beyond its intended function. Definitely nothing
specific/quantitative.

How *big* is it? How fast does it execute? What resources does
it draw on? Are there exceptions to its operation? How do its
"calling parameters" impact each of these issues?

strcpy(3c) copies a NUL-terminated string of characters from one
memory location to another. That *suggests* an implementation...
but doesn't DEFINE one! What if the source and destination addresses
are the same? We *assume* we know what the result will be.
But, do we know what will actually happen "on the bus"? Might
the implementation recognize this condition and simply quit
without doing anything? Will your system fail because it was relying
on side-effects from the operation??

What if one address is END_OF_MEMORY-(N) and the string exceeds N bytes
in length?

Now, look at more complex "modules". When is the ARP cache updated?
How is an entry selected for eviction? *IS* there a cache? How big
is it? What if the desired entry is not present in the cache?
What do each of these conditions cost? How can they be exploited
to coax the device to "misbehave"?

Can't answer definitively? Why not? Didn't know the mechanism
even existed?? Or the consequences of its presence? Ooops!
What else don't you know about the software that you are relying on?

If you don't know how a component works, how can you know what you can
reliably expect from it? Or, how to verify that it is functioning
correctly?

In light of this, don't you think YOU should be more thoroughly
documenting your code? Or, are you just going to worry about getting
something to LOOK LIKE it works and let someone else sweat those details?
Wouldn't your employer have procedures in place to ensure these
issues are nailed down? (or, does he naively just "trust the developer"
because he is unable to understand the issue or its consequences?)

Because this stuff isn't documented, there are no "component catalogs"
to browse to determine what's available to you when writing NEW code.

I saw a piece of production code that read a file, one byte at a time,
and incremented a counter -- to determine the size of the file!
Um, don't you know there are hooks that will TELL you that -- in
constant time? 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.

Jeroen Belleman

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.

> 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.

nfsstat() reveal anything interesting? I.e., is the problem with
the RPC subsystem, excess network traffic, etc.?

If the export is from some other (non-Linux) host, does the problem
persist?

> A traditonal command shell does not usually misbehave in that
> way, fortunately.

I have most of my "remote filesystem" problems with windows clients/servers.
E.g., copying a large portion of a filesystem across the wire often leaves
the connection in a dog-slow mode where you can see individual files being
copied (slowly).

I've not determined if this is a client or server problem. Nor if it is
related to the number of objects or the volume of data. I just don't do
it anymore (cuz I'm sure MS isn't going to do squat to fix it!).

[It's likely number of object -- protocol starts -- as I can build a giant
tarball and ship that over reliably (then, unpack it)]

On 4/1/24 17:44, Don Y wrote:
> 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.
>

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.

Jeroen Belleman

On 4/1/2024 11:32 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>> 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??)

Perhaps they are collecting data to show you the "size" of the hierarchy
below a particular subdirectory -- and just not displaying it (due to some
option you have disabled). (I think MacOS had a feature like that... made
directory listings slow as it drilled down to all terminal leafs from the
current folder -- especially in the days of slower media).

> 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.

I would have a problem with that as almost all of my mount points
are at the root of the filesystem -- or, perhaps, *one* level
below (e.g., I may have a shelf with 15 spindles and create
15 mount points under /shelf1). Otherwise, there are mounts
at /cdrom, /thumb, /0, /1, /2, etc.