[mythtv-users] "Channelized" camera feeds for Myth

[Gregory J. McGee]

> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 14:22:49 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Shane Bush <sbush at dbtech.net>
> Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] "Channelized" camera feeds for Myth
> To: mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> Message-ID:
>         <Pine.LNX.4.50.0405131405170.25069-100000 at omega.dbtech.net>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> 
> 
> Shane Bush
> 
> 
> On Thu, 13 May 2004, PAUL WILLIAMSON wrote:
> 
> > >>>> "Shane Bush" <sbush at dbtech.net> 05/13/04 01:57PM >>>
> > >I'm trying to come up with a video survellance method that uses
> Myth for
> > >doing monitoring of rooms in a Daycare...  Myth would record the
> cameras
> > >from 6am to 6:30pm M-F and the Motion app would be working the rest
> of the
> > >time to look for intruders and such...
> > >
> >
> > So why have the time restriction?  Just have them on permanent
> motion
> > detection.  Or were you thinking Myth would record an entire days'
> worth
> > of activity regardless of movement?  Can myth do time-lapse type
> recording?
> 
> Well, I would want to record each room for the whole work day in Myth,
> then stop and let Motion take over ... I'm planning on streaming the
> video feeds to a protected internet site for parents.
> Motion wouldn't be anything other than an afterhours survellance
> mode...
> Of course it'd be storing its video so that MythVideo would pick it up
> :-)
> 
> > >I'm thinking that if there was some way to setup "channelized"
> video.
> > >Like Channel 1 be one camera, channel 2 be another, etc...
> >
> > So you'd need that many tuner cards, right?  Or would it cycle
> through them?
> > Or would the one detecting motion start recording when motion was
> detected?
> 
> Yup.. For each Camera (or Channel), one tuner card would be used..
> that is unless you wanted to stagger recording... In which this setup
> wouldn't be optimal.
> 
> 
> > >This would be successful in using Myth the way it was intended..
> with
> > >channels.  As well as being easy to maintain, it'd be scalable (I
> think).
> > >
> > >However, I don't know if a "Channelizer" exists, or even if it
> > >does, what it's called...
> > >
> >
> > I think it's a multiplexer.  But if each channel was a camera, would
> > you want each channel going separately into the myth box, or would
> > want them segmented on one screen so you could see all channels
> > at the same time?  I think there is already hardware that exists
> > to either segment or "scroll" through all the video feeds.  Sounds
> > like a good idea, even for a hmoe install of this.  I've been
> thinking
> > about getting some wireless cameras and putting them under the
> > eaves of my house, but the cost of a time lapse VCR is almost
> $1,000.
> > Using a homebrew myth box at about $400-$700 would be awesome,
> > and I could use it as a myth box too boot.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> 
> That's the beauty of it... You could do whatever before the
> 'multiplex' or
> whatever afterward..
> 
> I originally planned on splitting the video feeds to the lobby to
> separate
> tv's before this 'multiplex' idea ... But now I'm thinking that  8
> cameras multiplexed together and going to a box where xawtv/other has
> 8 instances open, and sized just right on the nice 50" plasma in the
> lobby, would be just perfect. ;-)

Consider a bunch of USB cameras...They are V4L, probably cheaper than
grabbers, and (should be) myth-usable. You can have almost as many as
you want...
A large variety are available, and you might be able to use an external 
program to "switch" between them, feeding the "common" to myth.