Close

email a screen capture

Share tips and tricks related to Sighthound Video or your full security setup.

Moderator: Staff

no avatar
falcon999
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:47 pm

email a screen capture

by falcon999 » Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:52 pm

I just bought the pro version, actually it was a gift and i find it very helpful

I actually have a dvr that records all of my 16 cameras but I use vitamin d for it's motion capture. The dvr records 24/7. Unfortunately I figured out that vit d needs a lot of hardware. I have a q6600 cpu with 6gb of ram, but with 6 cameras running at the lowest resolution all 4 cores are at 100 percent cpu. If I try to add anymore cameras they start to not be able to keep up with the video.. But

My question is

1. can i have vit d email me a snapshot of my frontdoor when someone walks up. I already have it send me a email, and actually it's sending the email to my text message, but it would be cool if i could get a picture as well. Or what is a quick way for me to figure out who's there.

all of my video is being captured at rtsp streams.

no avatar
falcon999
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: email a screen capture

by falcon999 » Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:03 pm

I guess i should take from the crickets in here that it can't be done.

oh well.

no avatar
falcon999
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: email a screen capture

by falcon999 » Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:17 pm

well i went back and read the manual and it seems to work if i email to my email and not my text msg, so i'm thinking of doing 2 different msgs one to text and then one to email so that i can get the picture

User avatar
ryan
 
Posts: 1015
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 2:52 pm
Location: Palo Alto, California

Re: email a screen capture

by ryan » Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:06 am

Hi falcon,

Sorry for the delay, but glad you've found the answer. We are definitely always sending an image along with the outgoing email, my guess is that whoever is in charge of your email to sms/mms gateway is stripping the images (doesn't support mms).
Learn more about Sighthound Video in our support pages - Reference Guide | All Articles
Are you a developer? Check out our cloud APIs - Demo | Docs

User avatar
DrBunsen
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:57 am
Location: Fate, TX

Re: email a screen capture

by DrBunsen » Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:16 pm

falcon999 wrote:Unfortunately I figured out that vit d needs a lot of hardware. I have a q6600 cpu with 6gb of ram, but with 6 cameras running at the lowest resolution all 4 cores are at 100 percent cpu. If I try to add anymore cameras they start to not be able to keep up with the video..

Holy smokes! That's more CPU than I expected.

I have the basic version, though I don't have it active right now (planning to put it back into action soon). When I was experimenting with it last year, I had 2 cameras running at a resolution (as I recall) of 640x480. That caused fairly high CPU utilization on a 2.4GHz Pentium 4, which wasn't unexpected. But a Q6600 is WAY faster than the old P4 I was using. According to Passmark (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php) it's almost 10 times faster. It's also more CPU than what I was planning to use in what will end up being my security PC.

Here's something that I noticed last year that I think you should try (and please let us know if it makes a difference): I noticed that if I kept VDV minimized it didn't use NEARLY as much CPU as when it was in a window on the desktop. Is that true in your case as well? When I noticed this effect, I kept VDV minimized all the time, except when I was actually checking on things.

I'm still debating which way to go with my security setup, and the amount of CPU needed is an issue.

User avatar
Semper Vaporo
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:51 am

Re: email a screen capture

by Semper Vaporo » Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:55 pm

I recommend that you take a look at the resolution that the cams are outputing to the computer. I suspect that they are set to provide high resolution (which is nice for OUR viewing of the images) but VDV reduces the resolution to 320x240 (QVGA) for the motion detection operation (less data, so it is faster).

I am GUESSING that maybe the CPUs are tied up doing down-conversion of the video. Try setting the cams to output at a lower resolution to see if that reduces the CPU usage.

Regardless of the resolution the cams are providing, the view port in VDV is close (I cannot measure them exactly) to 640x480 in the live view, and the thumbnails are about 160x120. The review mode displays in either about 470x360 or 640x480 (depending on the "Small" or "Large" setting of the "View" menu). You have to export the archived video and view it with a different program to be able to see it at the full resolution sent by the camera (I think the saved video is in the camera's resolution!).
Semper Vaporo,

User avatar
Semper Vaporo
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:51 am

Re: email a screen capture

by Semper Vaporo » Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:19 pm

Oops, sorry, I just re-read your original post and see that you say you have them at the lowest resolution already. It just doesn't make sense that the CPU usage would be so high. I am running 5 cams (and periodically a 6th) and CPU usage in a quad core Athlon X4-645 runs between 25 and 60 percent and all my cams are presently set to VGA (640x480). Lowering them all to QVGA (320x240) lowers the CPU usage by about 10 percent on all 4 cores.

Have you looked at the "Windows Experience Index"? What numbers does it tell for that computer (look deeper than just the overall rating number)?

The 5 rating are: Processor, Memory (RAM), Graphcs, Gaming graphics, and Primary hard disk. What nunbers do you see for each of them?

What other programs are running in the background (such as to eat up CPU time)? Maybe you have something (software) going on that is broken or stuck in some sort of loop? Have you looked at the list of Start Up programs that run when the computer starts. (There are several places where program names can be listed to start on boot-up/sign-on so there are more places to look than just the Start menu... I recommend using a program like "CCleaner" to list those programs. "Autoruns" (provided by Microsoft on-line) will show even more lists of what runs on starting the computer. Both programs have a method of temporarily removing programs to see if they are a problem (or can be dispensed with altogether!... I have dumped over a dozen silly and useless programs from each of my systems and they all work lots better now!).
Semper Vaporo,

User avatar
DrBunsen
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:57 am
Location: Fate, TX

Re: email a screen capture

by DrBunsen » Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:08 pm

Semper,

Your performance information is encouraging. Your CPU is about 20% faster than Falcon's, but your utilization is substantially lower (though still quite high).

Does your CPU utilization dive when you minimize VDV like I noticed last year on my 2-camera setup?

User avatar
Semper Vaporo
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:51 am

Re: email a screen capture

by Semper Vaporo » Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:02 pm

MAYBE, just MAYBE one core dropped in utilization by 2 or 3 percent, and it was the lowest usage of the 4 at this time, being about 30% to begin with (if we assume the lines in the graph are 16.66 percent steps). Not much else changed. But I think Winders is off doing something on its own right now (maybe the daily defrag?) as core 4 is much more variable that it usually is.

Normally, the percentages are: either core 1 or 2 is about 25 to 30 percent with 10 to 15 percent Kernal usage (the red line) and the other one at about the same as core 3 around 40 to 50 percent with kernal usage the same 10 to 15 percent. Core 4 is usually higher percentages for both at just above 50 percent for the overall usage and 25 to 30 percent for Kernal usage. Earlier today core 2 was the low usage, and now it is core 1; I not did notice when the change occurred. There is normally a flurry of activity on all 4 cores every 256 seconds (though sometimes it occurs sooner) that lasts about 25 seconds. The lowest utilized core seems to catch the brunt of that activity, increasing to 90 to 100 percent for that time, but all 4 increase in usage by 20 to 40 percent.

An odd thing right now is that core 3 is showing about the same Kernal usage as core 4 at about 25 to 30 percent.

Core 4 seems to have settled some while I am entering this, but 3 and 4 still show high Kernal usage. The graph for 3 is a bit smoother than 4.

I am now trying it with VDV minimized again and see about the same as I observed before. Core 3 still shows about the same Kernal usage as core 4.

Restoring the VDV window seems to have created a short lived spike in usage in core 1 and a slight increase of the same length of time in 2 and 3, but nothing in 4 (but 4 is so variable as to possibly mask detecting the temporary increase). Things have settled now, and it all looks pretty much like it did.

On "my" system I see very little difference in whether the window is visible or minimized. With my limited understanding of the way Winders uses the hardware I can see where it might make a difference on some systems. Probably associated with how powerful the graphics display processor is on the Display card. i.e.: does it need help in building the display window?

One thing I have noticed on some of the systems I have worked on (a long time ago) is that the factory setting does not fully impliment all the features of the dispay card. Many I had to go into the setup screens to enable a lot of the features that were bought and paid for, but not turned on when received. I don't think this happens as much as it used to, but it could be something to check.

I have also turned off many of the "enhancements" that windows can do to "improve"(?) the user experience, but also take lots of CPU time to implement. Assumming you are running Windows 7 (and I think XP and Vista have similar abilities): run Control Panel and run the System applet. Note the "Windows Experience Index" (I'll get back to it in a minute). Then, click on "Advanced System Settings" (on the left side). You'll get a dialog box with 5 tabs at the top and the center one will be preselected. Click on the "Settings" button.

You'll get another dialog box with 4 options at the top and a list of "features" in a window at the bottom. More than likely, the top option is selected which lets Winders decide which enhancements the computer can do the best with the least impact. (On my system Winders selects all the features except "Save taskbar thumbnail previews".) The option for "Best Appearance" will enable all the features and the option for "Best performance" will deselect all the features. I selected "Best Performance" and then in the list below I selected a few of the features that I like (and know will cost me some in performance). Most of the features only use CPU time when you are interacting with the screen (moving the mouse or dragging windows, etc.) I only enabled 5 of the features and 1 of those is expensive as far as general CPU time goes, ("Smooth edges of screen fonts"). Some of the other CPU intensive options (that I do not have enabled) are "Shadow under the mouse pointer" and Visual Styles. Most everything else only uses CPU time when the user is doing something, not when a program is working.

I just noticed that one of the features I turned on is the one that Winders does not select as what's best ("Save taskbar thumbnail previews"). Wonder if that makes much difference? I am not even sure what it does!!!!! :oops:

Now, as to the Windows Experience Index...

On the System window (opened earlier) there is a blue box near the middle with a number in it. That is the lowest number of what Windows assigns to 5 different categories. If you click on the words next to the number ("Windows Experience Index") you will get a list of the 5 categories and their individual numbers. The numbers can range (presently) from 1 to 7.9. Higher numbers indicate better "experience" for the user. USUALLY, if you have a computer that is sluggish, check this set of numbers, and consider upgrading the hardware associated with the lowest number of the 5 rather than throw money at those with higher numbers. This is not always true, but is a good guide line to follow, it just depends on what exactly is slowing the computer (it could be nothing to do with hardware, just too many programs claiming CPU time and Memory space.

The difference between my triple core laptop and the quad core desktop are:

Component . . . . . . . . . . . . Laptop . . . . . . . Desktop

Processor: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3

Memory (RAM): . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3

Graphics: .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4

Gaming graphics: .. . . . . . . . 5.4 . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9

Primary hard disk: .. . . . . . . 5.9 .. . . . . . . . . . . 5.9

I think just about every computer I have seen this list on has had the worse number for the Graphics card. I have been considering updating the graphics card in my Desktop PC, but it runs the 5 cameras I have (and sometimes 6) well enough. I think if I were to add many more it would be something to consider more carefully.
Semper Vaporo,

User avatar
DrBunsen
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:57 am
Location: Fate, TX

Re: email a screen capture

by DrBunsen » Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:10 pm

Way interesting... It may be true about the graphics card having an impact. The old PC I was running it on had integrated Intel graphics on the motherboard. When I do eventually get my security PC set up I'll experiment with both onboard and discrete graphics to see how much of a difference it makes for me.

Hopefully Falcon comes back here and chimes in with what sort of hardware he has, and his Windows Experience Index.

Next

Return to General Discussion
cron