i just watched inSORS install a node and their current software still allows for remote camera control. i personally never allow it and don't like it. but in certain situations (e.g., where one node-op is managing two different nodes simultaneously as David discribes) it should be very useful.
Canon also provides an SDK for their serial control protocol. i can't remember if it is C, C++ or what. their default controller application works, but has some annoying issues. the inSORS control interface is much more user friendly. i assume that they built it from Canon's SDK. i don't plan on writing another controller. i can live with the default Canon app. when not running inSORS-hooked AG. but someone out there may find it fun to give the SDK a try... --fred On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:15PM, David McNabb said: > (At least our early version of) the inSORS software came > with a feature to allow remote sites to control your cameras. > This was very cool and great fun to play with. If people got > out of control, you just turned off the allow-remote-control > feature and went back to controlling your cameras yourself. > > I never saw a "real" meeting case where it led to chaos, > though I did not ever use it in a meeting with more than a > few inSORS nodes present. I have seen cases where the > remote node did not have a node op or local participant > with spare time to tweak cameras, so getting them to turn > on remote camera control was extremely useful. > > IMHO, a serial port based camera-controller for evi's and > vcc4's would be a very welcome addition to AGTk, either > with remote-node control of local cameras or without. > > --David > > David McNabb > Project Lead, UMAGI > UM Access Grid Initiative > Office of Information Technology > University of Maryland > College Park, MD, USA > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Naylor <[email protected]> > To: Ulrich Schwenn <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:18:37 +1300 > Subject: Re: [AG-TECH] Remore controlled cameras > > At 07:08 AM 10/28/2004 +0200, Ulrich Schwenn wrote: > >Richard, > > > > do you really mean remote, i.e. any (a) or at least one > > (b) participating node should be allowed to control > > your camera(s)?. Case (a) would lead to chaos, > > because n different people will have n different > > views makes n! possibilities, thus (b) will never > > assure an optimal position. > > Case (b) could be useful, if you can trust > > somebody and dont have the time or manpower > > do do it on your own site. > > If you just mean remote but in your room, this is of > > course useful, but then you can use the standard > > RS.232 control of your Sony. > > If you have an audience, where people might feel > > supervised by external remote control it could > > become interesting for the unions. > > So better keep camera control under your control. > > Yes chaos = case A, but I wondered if anyone > actually tried it. > > I agree under a restricted access the remote control > has many possibilities. > > rich
