0

For a project that I am working on, I need access to may cameras that monitor certain gauges on tanks. The specifics of the project are relatively confidential, but in essence, each tank has 2 gauges and the current set up involves a cameras monitoring each gauge. For each tank, both cameras are connected to a USB hub, with the hub being connected to the USB port (USB 2.0) of an older ThinkPad, that being multiplied across 6 tanks(6 sets of 2 cameras, 12 cameras total). The current method to switch subject views on the computer is unplugging a hub and plugging in another, meaning I need to keep track of 6 cables.

I am thinking of reducing this with a PC build that has many USB expansion cards occupying the PCI slots such as this one. I am using basic Logitech USB webcams such as this one.

The cameras are sufficiently close that an active USB extender isn't required.

Would this solution work? Are there any other ways to more efficiently monitor this many cameras on one computer? I've seen a post discussing the possibility of connecting many USB cameras to a single computer, but seems outdated in the discussed tech and I am wondering if there are any current improvements.

Thanks

[Edit]

Thanks for advice. Thought it'd be helpful to note that with the current setup, connecting a third camera to a USB doesn't work and only results in a black screen. In terms of switching between inputs, how could I switch between cameras without replugging cables? Is there a software solution to this? And is there a solution that allows access to multiple tanks at the same time?

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    You could probably make do with a simple USB hub-based setup. Get two 7 port USB hubs, and plug one into the other. You’ll have 13 free ports and only one plug that needs to go into the computer.
    – Cole Tobin
    Jun 8, 2021 at 18:29
  • Connecting "12 USB cameras" is merely a power and connection issue. The real issue is handling the video streams, which you neglect to specify for resolution, frame rate, codec, et cetera, in other words the data rates.
    – sawdust
    Jun 8, 2021 at 23:57
  • @sawdust yup but, as I mention in my answer, if OP intends to keep using the cameras the way they are now (no more than two at a time), and just wants to be able to switch between them in software instead of having to go over there and plug and unplug things, the data rate and the decoding overhead doesn't pose any new problem :)
    – hobbs
    Jun 9, 2021 at 1:51

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Physically: yes, sure.

Logically: yes, USB supports up to 127 devices per root hub, and each controller card will contain one or more root hubs.

USB-bandwidth-wise: yes — in fact you probably don't even need multiple controller cards, you could probably just use the motherboard's builtin USB ports and a hub to fan everything in (and in fact you may not even need a new computer at all). If the cameras are particularly high-res or particularly bandwidth-inefficient then 12 of them might be enough to saturate a USB2 bus, but it's not that likely.

Host-machine-wise: yes — decoding and/or saving all 12 streams at once might be beyond the ability of a low-spec computer, but if you intend on only viewing one or two at a time then there's no problem.

Improve this answer
2
  • A problem I've been facing is that the USB host (2.0) gets saturated with 2 cameras running at 480p, or 1 FHD camera. Any additional cameras plugged into the hub result in a black screen. I believe this to be a bandwidth problem, but could this possibly be a power problem?
    – lupop
    Jun 9, 2021 at 12:47
  • @lupop If the camera's don't have independent power-supplies you are phasing BOTH bandwidth and power-issues,
    – Tonny
    Jun 9, 2021 at 13:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .