bunny webcam

I got this webcam for looking at pet rabbits for my girlfriend's birthday. (webcams, dear children, are something still fascinating for people born before, say, 1985)

The set up was pretty straightforward. I plugged it into the local ethernet and it appeared at 192.168.1.239. The local ethernet uses 192.168.1.0/24 but I think maybe have been just chance that it configured itself that way - it wasn't using DHCP out of the box. When I switched on DHCP it reconfigured itself to a DHCP-allocated address in the same range.

The supplied manual (on paper) describes downloading and installing some setup.exe to configure, but I ignored that, and using nmap discovered it was running an http server on port 81. Logging into this as admin, with no password, I found myself able to view and control the camera without need for any software.

I couldn't get the wifi working, but only spent 10 mins or so on that - we decided it would be best placed right by a wired ethernet port, so there was no need for that.

We attached it to the underside of an Ikea table using electrical tape. There was a balance to strike between being low enough to get a good angle, but high enough that they can't eat the camera or the wires. I would have loved to have put it in the cage with them, but the lifetime of the wires would have been measured in minutes, or possibly seconds.

The camera has motors to pan and tilt, though where its installed that isn't really necessary, and the whirring of the servos seems to scare the white rabbit a bit. That one likes to sit looking at the camera on the other side of the fence, hanging off the underside of the table.

There's a night vision mode too. The camera is surrounded by a ring of infrared LEDs - actually also a bit visible red too. These are turned on by a CdS cell above the camera lens (so you can trigger them with your finger rather than needing to put the camera in the dark).

The user interface is clunky but functional. The main page looks like this, with arrows at the top left to drive the servos. There are admin menus too, which appear even if you aren't authorised - they just don't work for non-authorised users. This clunky interface means its not a good camera for streaming to the public at large.

So, for £40, was this worth it? yes

(btw, not all the pictures in this post were made with the webcam - for example, the pictures of the webcam were taken with an iPhone rather than a complicated mirroring optical arrangement)

3d cat

here is a picture of me with a stuffed cat at the oxford natural history museum. I happened to have two frames with a slight difference in position, so I combined them in an animated gif in a 3d display technique that I've seen before. It has the advantage that you don't need special viewing apparatus, but the disadvantage that you get seasick watching it.

new photo frame

On sale, €33 at Media Markt, I got a digital photo frame.

It has a slot for a USB stick, and for various memory cards. It looks like an upgraded version of one I bought for my parents a year ago, where the USB interface worked well but the card reader seemed unreliable. So I put one of the many free conference USB sticks in my collection in.

People seem to have an instinct to unplug these things continuously. Why? You don't put curtains over the print photos on your wall and only open the curtains for a few minutes at a time to look at the photos behind.

The frame is 16:9 aspect ratio. My camera makes files of ratio 4:3 (or 3:4 in landscape). (apparently print photos are usually 3:2. my camera has a helper mode that overlays grey bars on screen to show you 3:2 ratio. But it doesn't have a similar mode for 16:9)

On my laptop, I have gimp. But I found that Preview is good enough for rough cropping of photos to size. That's the technical side of cropping easily dealt with. On the artistic side, though, its hard to get in the habit of evaluating photos for such cropping - photos that I think of as "too much space at the top / bottom" are ones that are perfect for this frame, and photos that fill the frame nicely are too full for cropping.

As the frame is so low resolution (~ VGA) its possibly to crop smaller details from a frame, so that you end up with an entirely new picture rather than something that looks like the original photo but a bit cropped.

I've had a desire but not enough motivation to actually look at my photos from a cropping perspective. Perhaps this will provide the motivation.

chess rankings for photos

I have a lot of photos - around 50000. I want to have some kind of scoring system for them.

The obvious one is something like a 5-star scale: when presented with a photo, you can award it from 0 to 5 stars, with 5 being best and 0 being worst.

But thats not very granular, and it is not clear to me that clearly defined standards for the 6 different scores will emerge.

I preferred something that says "this is better than that, so this should have a higher score than that".

But I don't want to have to manually make a strict linear order of all photos (despite the fact that a numerical score would do so), and I want the system to tolerate inconsistencies (eg. A>B, B>C, C>A) somehow.

Eventually I read about chess ranking, where each player is assigned a numerical score indicating their "goodness" and the scores are adjusted by pairwise comparisons between players - chess matches.

I adapted this for scoring my photographs. I started with the glicko system and modified it some.

The way this works is:

Photos compete against each other, as chess players compete against each other. The equivalent of a chess match is a presentation of two photos alongside each other in a web browser, with the user clicking on the photo they prefer. So, users do not assign an absolute score to a photo. Nor do they pick how much better one photo is than the other. They pick have a simple choice: "a>b" or "b>a".

Each photo is assumed to have a single numeric score, such that the difference in the score reflects the probability that one photo will win over the other photo. (this is affine: 900 vs 1000 is the same probability as 4000 vs 4100)

It is assumed that the score cannot be known exactly, but is approximated by a normal distribution (so there is a mean, and a standard deviation).

Adding a comparison between two photos gives information about the distributions for both photos causing the mean and standard deviation to be changed to more accurately reflect the score, as described in the glicko paper.

For my 50000 photos from the past 5 years, I have about 20% voted on at least once.

For a recent trip to rome, where I took about 1000 photos, it took a few hours to include each photo in at least one vote, where each comparison was an unvoted photo vs a random photo (which may or may not have been previously voted). This does not give a huge amount of information per photo.
Once that was done, I spent some hours making other votes: sometimes random vs random, sometimes random vs the photo with the closest mean. This caused rankings to become somewhat refined (sometimes causing surprisingly large changes in mean score)

So here are the top 3 photos from that trip:



and here are the bottom 3:



It seems to work reasonably well, though I think I need many more votes to get more accuracy. But that will come over time: as new photos are added, they'll get their scores by being compared against old photos, which will give more information about the old photos too.