Camera car

[Anonymous]

Just when you think that you have included everything in a post you click submitt and then think of one more thing. If you are considering a rechargeable 9 volt battery for your wireless camera Do Not use a NiCad 9 volt. The nominal terminal voltage of a 9 volt NiCad is really only 7.2 volts. The camera will stop working around 7 volts. A better choice for a rechargeable 9 volt battery is the Nickel Metal Hydride 9 volt rechargeable. The nominal voltage for this battery is 8.4 volts. The voltage is higher because the manufacturers place one more cell in the Nickel Metal Hydride batteries. These batteries should produce at least 5 hours of run time with a 14 hour recharge cycle.

Have A Very Nice Day,
Jerry - www.WirelessMicroColorCam.com

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cjtruax

I don't want this to sound like a commercial so please do not take it that way.

Sorry, but it's kinda hard for me not to.. [:D]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cjtruax

A lot of the camera systems on eBay may not be 1st run, top quality systems.

Do you have any kind of proof for this claim?
I already bought 3 of these systems on eBay and haven't had any problems with either of them.
Maybe I'm just lucky?

QUOTE: Originally posted by cjtruax

...and we are an American company.

Selling camera systems made in China. Gimme a break..

[Anonymous]

Kyle,

I am sorry that you are so negative about my post. Let me answer your questions.

1. I did not post for commercial reasons. I advertise in National Magazines and exhibit at over 55 train and hobby shows each year. My posts were to let the group know that there is help available for any problems or questions they might have with a wireless camera car project. We routinely answer questions from hobbyist that have not purchased our camera systems. I doubt that this thread would make any significant financial impact to our sales of WirelessMicroColorCam Systems.

2. When I was researching this business several years ago we purchased a variety of wireless camera systems from different sources. We tested these systems and found that the "cheap ones" more often than not did not meet the advertised specifications. I am an electronics design engineer with over 30 years experience in analog and digital designs. I verified the claim of "seconds or rejects" with our manufacturer in China. They have to do something with the "not up to spec" units so they sell them on eBay and other places for greatly reduced prices. I am not saying that all wireless camera systems on eBay are defective but your chances of getting below specification units are greater when you purchase from these sources. Some of the eBay sellers are actually employees of the companies that produce these neat little systems. They purchase the units for pennies and sell them to you for dollars and don't offer any support. Try to get a unit replaced with one of these sellers and you will understand why I said that lower cost my not be less expensive. You might be correct in stating that you were just lucky or is it that even with the reduced performance of the units that you purchased they will still work ok for you in your limited range environment? Either way if you are happy with your purchase then you made a good decision to buy the units from your source.

3. We ARE an American Company. The profit of our business stays right here in the good old USA. We are based in Bartonsville Pennsylvania. I was born in Gary Indiana, lived in New Jersey, and now reside in Pennsylvania. We pay federal, state and local taxes just like you so that is why we claim to be an "American Company". It is true that our manufacturer is located in China. This is because if we were to produce this equipment here in the United States it would cost three time more and you as the end user would not want to spend $300.00 for a system. So simple economics apply here. My company and you benefit from the lower labor rate of the Chinese worker. I am not here to solve world problems of worker oppression or sweat shop conditions so don't even go there. I am here to provide a good product for the hobbyist for a reasonable price including ongoing product support after the sale. I forgot to mention that I need to make a living just like everyone so our price does include some profit.

We sell our products to educational institutions, law enforcement agencies, hobbyists, and various other security and surveillance application users. I hope that I have not been too rough in this post. I wanted your post to be answered just as I answer all of the question that we receive either by telephone or by email. If you do look at our web site you will notice that our number one goal is "Customer Satisfaction". We strive very hard to make that a reality and are very successful in having "Happy Customers".

I do not want to get into an urination match with you, I just wanted to answer your post.

Have A Very Nice Day,
Jerry

PS Please notice that I did not place a link to our web site in this post, “Not a commercial”.

[ukguy]

Well my cam turned up yesterday and of course I had a little play, it was way cool. I paid $15.5o for it, it is full colour with sound and the picture quality is comparible to TV or camcorder. I am trying to get some clips online to share.
On the question of the camera not folowing the curves I have seen a way to do this using a second car with a pivot pin to turn the camera, I just cant seem to find the webpage right now, as soon as I do I'll post it for you guys.
I have run the car through my scenicked section and it does look so much better, I have also hand held the cam and moved it through the scenery, kind of a hikers viewpoint through the trees, it looks wild and puts a whole new perspective on the scenery.

Have fun & be safe
Karl.

PS thanks for the tips Jerry, esp that regarding the battery types, most helpful.

[MisterBeasley]

How about this for the camera pivot:

Remove the front truck, and drill a hole all the way through the car body. Replace the truck screw with a shaft, solidly mounted to the truck. Run the shaft up through the car body hole that you drilled out, and attach a platform to the top. The camera goes on the platform. This way, the camera will rotate with the truck, which should make it "lead" the car body into the curve better than a body-mounted camera.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Kyle S.
What type of camera are you guys using?
The image quality is great and you seem to get very little interference.
I also like the sound FX you put underneath.

Bit late in replying, sorry.
The camera is a £30 ($50?) eBay job. wireless. colour and sound.
That was our first attempt and worked quite well even though the receiver was on the floor and had my son and myself standing in between transmitter (camera) and receiver.
The camera was on a 4-wheel truck so would have had a better view 'around the corner'.
We will be trying again just as soon as our next layout is a little nearer completion (well, trains running at least).

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Governor

Bit late in replying, sorry.
The camera is a £30 ($50?) eBay job.

Thanks for the reply.
£30? It's a PAL camera than, is see. These extra 100 lines of resolution do
make a difference compared to NTSC.

I take it that you are running the camera with batteries, since you don't seem to
get any track power dropouts?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Kyle S.

£30? It's a PAL camera than, is see. These extra 100 lines of resolution do
make a difference compared to NTSC.

I take it that you are running the camera with batteries, since you don't seem to
get any track power dropouts?

I suppose it must be PAL as it runs straight into the laptop with a Belkin USB VideoBus II (Analogue to digital convertor?).

The camera is intended to run on a 9v PP3 battery but I purchased a battery clip that takes 6 x AA 1.5v batteries complete with the PP3 connector on it. I found the 9v battery lost performance very early in it's life. Obviously there is the room to do this with OO gauge. Gauges/scales smaller than HO would struggle for room.

On our latest layout the receiver will be placed higher up and in the center of the layout giving the best reception. I assume the camera will work at several hundred metres, but just to be sure of the best reception we're doing all we can to help it.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Governor

I suppose it must be PAL as it runs straight into the laptop with a Belkin USB VideoBus II (Analogue to digital convertor?).

Going by your link to the video, you live in the UK, which uses the PAL system for
TV and video, which is better than our NTSC (Never The Same Color..) system here
in the US. 625 lines in PAL vs 525 lines in NTSC of vertical resolution.

I envy you for having that much room to play with in OO scale.
In N scale, the size of the batteryclip connector to the camera already becomes
an issue..[:(]

I think I might give up on the idea of placing the shell back on the boxcar that I used
to mount the camera on, and use a 9V battery laying flat afterall.
Not pretty, but better than getting dropouts from using track power.. [:D]

[Anonymous]

Yes, I've just checked and it is PAL, though that is the output from the receiver. The camera is only 380 lines [:O]

How about six open wagons with an AA 'pencil' battery in each?
My camera car is an open wagon with elastic bands holding everything in place. What it looks like is of no concern to me as it's the only thing the camera can't look at.[:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Governor

What it looks like is of no concern to me as it's the only thing the camera can't look at.[:D]

You got that right! [:D]

[AltonFan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MisterBeasley

I'm building subways, and I'm really agonizing about the lighting. For now, it looks like my walls will be styrene sheet rolled over with a thick hydrocal mixture with a paint roller, then sprayed with gray primer. That gives me walls with some texture and structure, but not much weight.

For lighting, could you use LEDs to simulate the lighting used in prototype subway tunnels? Maybe something that could have variable brightness that can be used to simulate prototype appearance, or turned up brighter for use with a camera.

[MisterBeasley]

Actually, I did just that over the weekend. I put 3 LEDs, separated by about 6 inches, in a short test section of tunnel. The effect was pretty good. I've got a couple of them left over, so I'm going to try mounting one on the car itself.

[MStLfan]

If you want to make your camera train more realistic maybe you can put the camera in a dummy n-scale locomotive before the powered locomotive and have the big battery in a schnabel car disguised as a high/wide load?
It will take some time before I am ready to try this interesting thing but it sure is nice to look from an engineers perspective at your layout.
Marc Immeker

[Anonymous]

Update:

I completely redesigned my camera car. Call me nuts.

I tossed out the DCC track power supply and I'm running it on a battery, since I didn't like the power dropouts I was getting. LEDs are also gone for the time being.

But - I mounted the camera so that it will turn with the front truck, following an idea
from MisterBeasley, posted here earlier. Thank you for that.
The camera will now look into a turn, rather than just sorta "glide" through a turn,
which makes for a more realistic viewing experience.



Here is a short clip I recorded with the SCC (Swivel Camera Car):
http://nscalers.com/clips/scc_ride.wmv
(I put his clip up on my home server, so it might load a bit slow at times..)

[selector]

A noticeably different effect, but I hesitate to call it an improvement...perhaps we should see more? [:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

A noticeably different effect, but I hesitate to call it an improvement...perhaps we should see more? [:D]

I agree that it's not perfect yet.
The camera should actually turn more into a turn then the front truck.
Well, the only way I can see this happening is to mount the camera on a separate
base and then use gears to double the rotation of the truck to the camera.
Not a small feat in N scale, but I'll look into it. [:)]

[MisterBeasley]

Try making the rotating platform longer towards the back of the car, and putting the camera back further. This will exaggerate the rotation of the truck. I think it should be light enough, but you may have to counterweight the front end of the platform a bit. The battery might have to come back a bit, too.

When I looked at the video, it looked like the camera was pointing off to the right of the truck's direction. Is the stiffness of the power wires keeping the camera from turning smoothly?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MisterBeasley

Try making the rotating platform longer towards the back of the car, and putting the camera back further. This will exaggerate the rotation of the truck. I think it should be light enough, but you may have to counterweight the front end of the platform a bit. The battery might have to come back a bit, too.

When I looked at the video, it looked like the camera was pointing off to the right of the truck's direction. Is the stiffness of the power wires keeping the camera from turning smoothly?

I think you got a great idea here, MisterBeasley.
Currently, the center of the platform is more towards the midsection of the
camera. Actually closer to it's end.
If I mount the camera so that the front of the lens sits right over the axle of the
front truck, it should get enough rotation to fully look into the turns. I agree that
I will have to counterweigh it in this case.
But that is still much easier then starting with gears. Thanks!

In regards to the movement of the camera: I use 30 gauge wires to connect the
camera to the battery clip, so that it can rotate freely.

I'm also thinking of building a depressed flatcar, so that the battery sits lower
and the ride isn't quite as shaky. And switching to 6 wheel trucks as well.
Yes, I am obsessed with this! [:D]

I just wi***hat I could offer you guys some more interessing footage.
But my huge 3x5 layout only has so much track on it..
(Unless the wife let's me move the operation into the living room..)

[mcouvillion]

I recorded the Galveston Railroad Museum's HO layout this past Friday on VHS. I am trying to figure out how to get it digital so that I can post at least a part of the experience. You guys will not believe how realistic it looks. As mentioned in earlier posts, I use the RF Sysems Lab TC-9 color pinhole video camera, which has excellent resolution, depth of field, and a wide field of view. I think the problem with some of the cameras that have been used for the above short clips is that they have fixed-focal-length lenses, which makes it look like you are peering through a tube at least part of the way. The pinhole lens allows full focus essentially up to the lens, and a wide field view. The other thing is that the trains need to run SLOW so that the speed looks prototypical through the lens. Your train will creep along to your 1:1 perspective but be travelling at a realistic speed in 1:87. DCC helps immensely to be able to accompli***his.

The Galveston Railroad Museum used my camera engine a couple of weeks ago during their Gala Fundraiser and the comments on the cab-view were extremely enthusiastic. They will be purchasing their own cameras for the HO layout. As soon as I can get a clip on digital format, I'll post it.

Mark C.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mcouvillion

...I use the RF Sysems Lab TC-9 color pinhole video camera...
Mark C.

Hi Marc,
I just watched the sample video on the RF System site and I must say that I am
impressed with that camera.
http://www.ghz-link.com/global/product/tc9.html

It does have a wider angle lens and more depth of field then the camera I am
using right now. Great resolution. And it's even a tad smaller then my current
one. At around $165, the complete system is also 5x more expensive, but I think
it's worth it.
Do you know the light sensitivity of this camera? Is it less then 1 Lux?
How do you power it, with track power or a battery?
And lastly, did you purchase it here in the US?

I almost forgot: If you have access to a computer, the easiest way to digitize and
share your footage is to get a USB video converter (around $60) and just
record your VHS tape onto the computer. You will have to compress it, so that
the clips are not too large to download, but I can help you with that.

Thanks!

[mcouvillion]

Kyle,

I got the camera a little more than a year ago at the special price of $128.00 shipped from Japan. They had an 800# direct to the factory. I had to wait a couple of months but was so impressed with the performance that I ordered a second camera.

In answer to your questions, I don't know the light sensitivity of the camera. I do know that it picks up in the Infrared band and bulbs appear as pinpoint light sources (from the filament), obscuring lens color. From the Galveston shoot, I found that normal fluorescent lighting produces good uniform color, but the screw-in fluroescent bulbs shift the reception to red.

I have run from both track power and battery power. I'm leaning toward preferring battery power, since the camera performs better at above 10 volts. It is rated from 2 - 50 volts AC, DC, or DCC. It's backup battery is only 1.2 volts and is essentially useless, so I never use it. I have changed the wheels on my engine to help improve electrical pickup, but I'm still not convinced this will help enough. My second camera is temporarily using two 9 volt batteries in series for 18 volts, and the reception, color, and signal strength are much improved. The camera in the engine is powered off a bus that picks up track power for the decoder. Someone suggested running the camera off one of the function wires of the decoder to be able to turn it on and off. I didn't even think of that! What a great idea. For the museum, I suggested mounting the camera in a dummy engine with track power pickup and just shoving it in front of other engines. That way, it is always on lead and it simplifies maintenance. I would mount white LEDs for the headlights to pick up track power too.

Thanks for the suggestions for converting the VHS to Digital. I won't be able to do it as soon as I would like, but I'll get to it.

Mark C.

[mcouvillion]

Kyle,

Oh, another thing. The TC-9 camera is about 2/3 rds the size of a die (dice) and the wires all come out the back of the camera, making it easy to install in tight places, i.e., the hood or cab of a locomotive. The other cameras are larger with fixed lenses and they have wires coming out of the sides of the camera. This makes it very difficult to mount it in a small area. The TC-9 has a pinhole lens, so it can fit inside the shell behind a hole such as a light opening or window. I intend to mount the second camera with double-sided tape from the cab ceiling of an AC4400 to get the restricted view that the engineer sees (through the window opening, over the hood). My long-term goal is to mount one in the cab of a steam engine to get the engineer's view down the boiler on the right side, but I think I'll have to use mirrors like a periscope to get that to work.

Mark C.

[MisterBeasley]

Has anyone played with a fiber-optic front-end ahead of the camera? They use these things for medical applications. (Amazing, but uncomfortable from my perspective.) You would probably lose a lot of the advantages of that nice camera, but it would allow you to much more easily get the engineer's side-of-the-boiler view out of big steam.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mcouvillion

Kyle,

Oh, another thing. The TC-9 camera is about 2/3 rds the size of a die (dice) and the wires all come out the back of the camera, making it easy to install in tight places, i.e., the hood or cab of a locomotive....

Mark C.

Hello Marc,
thanks for your reply.
Looking at your post, I once again have to envy everyone who has enough space
to model in a scale bigger then N and can envision all sorts of installations for
this camera. I'm just glad at this point to even fit a camera on an N scale car..

I am surprised, that the manufacturer doesn't seem to have a distributor here in
the US. Even at a $165, it is just the price of a good engine.
Since I have a small layout with mostly 9 3/4" curves, I decided to swivel mount
the camera, so that it looks more into the turns. Since this camera is even smaller,
this should be easier as well.
So as soon as I have recovered from my latest spendings on MR stuff, I'll order one
of those too. Might even be back on sale by then!

As far as power pickup goes - I agree that batteries are working better. You
need a lot of wipers and axles to get good uninterrupted power of the tracks.
It's one thing if the light in your caboose flickers here and there, but having the
video feed collapsing is just no fun..

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MisterBeasley

Has anyone played with a fiber-optic front-end ahead of the camera? They use these things for medical applications. (Amazing, but uncomfortable from my perspective.) You would probably lose a lot of the advantages of that nice camera, but it would allow you to much more easily get the engineer's side-of-the-boiler view out of big steam.

The problem with using fiber-optics that I can see is that you would have to remove
the lens from the camera and mount it at the beginning of the fiber-optic strand,
or you would have almost no viewing angle at all.
Secondly, I would expect to loose some of the exposure when using fiber-optics,
which is somewhat thin to begin with..

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MisterBeasley

Try making the rotating platform longer towards the back of the car, and putting the camera back further. This will exaggerate the rotation of the truck. I think it should be light enough, but you may have to counterweight the front end of the platform a bit. The battery might have to come back a bit, too.

When I looked at the video, it looked like the camera was pointing off to the right of the truck's direction. Is the stiffness of the power wires keeping the camera from turning smoothly?

I tried mounting the camera with the lens lined up with the front truck, but there was just too much constrain on the truck to stay on the track. It just kept derailing.
Now I'm back to my original swivel design with the center of the camera right
over the truck.
The track that the camera car is running on is still within the frame, even with tight turns.
I also removed my mountain for a test drive, to be able to have the antenna point
straight up, which really improves the video reception and leads to less interference.

This is about as good as it gets with a $30 camera, I'd say. If I do get a TC-9
camera, the wider viewing angle would keep the running track more in the center of the frame and the 2.4 GHz frequency would probably allow me to bend the antenna back down and to go through tunnels with it.

Here’s my latest clip:
Dialup: http://nscalers.com/clips/traincam_64.wmv (1MB)
Broadband: http://nscalers.com/clips/traincam_3.wmv (4.5MB)

Enjoy!