Got a friend who has a very ill health father-in-law.
They want to be able to hook up a web cam on both ends so they can see and talk to each other at the same time, since they can't be able to go over to his place all the time.

I have an old M$ cam from way back I never used, being on dialup and with nobody else I know using a cam on their end. it sports 30fps for video but at a real low resolution. Another, Logitech Webcam Messenger, that I can get for free (shipping cost), which is also an older cam (but better than mine), will do 30fps at the same resolution as the still frame, but those both aren't that great either.

Todays more modern, but not the more expensive cams run around twice the resolution as those old cams. One in particular, the Logitech C500 (normally $48 shipped at the EGG) is on sale for $30 at OfficeMax this week.

SO, my questions are for those who are using/have used these webcams, and who know more about the issues.

----

Is the old 800+/- resolution old cam(s) good enough?
(BTW, the latest driver adds some "Logitech Vid" application - which requires broadband.

If the old cams are OK enough, or if a newer kind is aquired, can these work worth a dang on dialup?
The friend has Hughes.net satelite internet, and not sure what the FIL sports on his end, but I am still on dialup and was thinking about using one of those here.

Does it look more like the etrade baby commercials or like jittering delayed jerky motion video?

Basically, picking your brains for info on a subject I have avoided for some time. I got my cam in a deal, so that's why I even have one myself.

Thanks.

Gamer Rig______

In response to Reply # 0

I know there was some delay in 2000 /2001 using dialup using a webcam with MSN IM as I observered a brother use that method to talk with daughter in Illinois from out here. I thought it was worth the trouble.

Never have used it myself.

In response to Reply # 1
Wed Mar-03-10 03:58 PM by Ghouldini

Well I found out the FIL has cable internet. Don't know how old of a computer though, and no webcam.

The friends have Satelite and no web cam.
Their current computer is a local system builder rig. P4 2.6 I believe.

She thinks she needs the same camera for both parties.
I told that is not so, but it would simplify the situation.
The deal at OMax for $30 each ($48 newegg) would be $60 + tax and free ship since it's over $50. But money is an issue for them as well.
Things are tight - he's a carpenter, and winters are slow here.

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=Usb+Logitech+quickcam+messenger&cid=14847960160366553536#p

That is the freebie cam I can get. (well, for $7 shipping)

640 x 480 resolution for both still and motion.
My old one will do the same for still, but not for motion, at least not at 30fps.
That one will do 30fps at a lot lower resolution.

The $30 cam will do 1280 x 1024 @ 30fps.

Gamer Rig______

In response to Reply # 2
Wed Mar-03-10 04:35 PM by Train

640 x 480 resolution for both still and motion. With that freebie is fine and should do the trick nicely. Much bigger and it would eat up bandwidth.

Be darn my laptop has a cam, so I captured a picture 640x 480 and 21.1 K in size. That should transmit easy.

In response to Reply # 3

Used to do Trillian chat with biga way back. That seemed to go fast enough, though no video there of course.

That makes sense about the bandwidth.

Gamer Rig______

In response to Reply # 4
Tue Mar-16-10 10:40 PM by Ghouldini

Found a site where the dude (cowboyfrank.net) that tests webcams and even shows sample pics. This webcam messenger either is way better than my old Intel Easycam, or the software/setup he uses to take the pics is better than WinXP default viewer from Control Panel.

I took a pic of myself with that Intel, and man, it's lame.
The motion is delayed on the screen, from just the camera to WinXP, using a XP 2000+ cpu / 768mb ram system.

There is a new proggy via Logitech, which ANY camera user can DL and use, but it's broadband only.

Looks like something like Skype or the messengers themselves would have to be used here, and maybe those people with the Satelite internet too. Although I have heard is some cases the Satelite is worse because of timeouts on the uplink delays.

Gamer Rig______

In response to Reply # 5

I have chatted with a friend in Belfast, NI, UK every Saturday for about 8-10 years. We tried a lot of things in this time. Here's a brief summary:

1. Older webcams can do pretty fair job. In fact, I have an obsolete Hawking webcam that was top-of-the-line in 1999 and it compariable with some of the newer webcams. Of course, the more pixels, the greater the quality of the image.

2. High-speed internet is the only way to go. Dial-up would yield jerky images.

3. For two-way VIDEO chats, the best software today is Skype. They've done a great job with video and audio (especially!). Connects fast. No problems. We have tried at least 5-6 other chat software. We tried an earlier version of Skype and had kinda given up on it. However, the later versions are great.

4. For multi-party video, Skype and most of the other free chat software can't handle it (bandwidth issue). I have had multi-party chats with friends in New England, Belfast, Bangelore (India), and will soon have Germany. How do we do it? We use Skype for audio and for video we use www.mebeam.com. Just specify a "room" and let all parties know. Amazingly, the video has been in sync with movement and speech. The mebeam video is acceptable and they are continuously improving it.

5. A friend in NH bought a new Logitech webcam. Don't recall the model but it was about $85. Super cam. However, it had a fishlens kind of view. Maybe he did not have it configured correctly. Image as sharp and I could see detail behind him.

Anyone wanting to test out a webcam for video chat, let me know: janusz@lurkhere.com

j