Ask Slashdot: Fixing UVC Camera Issues Under Windows? 148
Khyber writes: I bought some cheap Chinese camera glasses with built-in microphones. These are (supposedly) UVC cameras manufactured in 2015. Under Windows XP, these cameras are seen perfectly fine and work as web cameras; even the microphones work. Under Windows 7, the camera appears to install just fine, however I get the 'This device can perform faster if you connect to USB 2.0' (which it is connected to) and when I try to load it up with any camera viewer such as manycam or any chat program's built-in previewer, I cannot receive any video from the camera. I can get audio from the camera microphones under Windows 7, so I am wondering if the camera device is having problems enumerating as a USB 2.0 device due to some change in Windows 7 (which it doesn't seem to have issues doing under XP,) or if the UVC driver for Windows 7 is missing something in comparison to the one used for Windows XP. Anybody else had issues getting newer UVC cameras to work in newer operating systems?
Since when has /. become tech support? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
While we're at it, my printer sharing seems to not be working properly.
Which is this, "my crappy vendor has no current drivers", or "Microsoft hasn't written a driver for my crappy camera glasses"?
Definitely a big "WTF" on that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is this, "my crappy vendor has no current drivers", or "Microsoft hasn't written a driver for my crappy camera glasses"?
Definitely a big "WTF" on that one.
Uhhh... You do know that UVC [wikipedia.org] is where you're not supposed to need a special driver for your webcam, right? Where anyone who's claiming full USB support is supposed to have a driver for those crappy camera glasses, and my very cheapest yard sale webcam, and many other devices besides?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you mean a cheap product someone bought off the interwebs doesn't adhere to a spec, or Microsoft has decided not to implement the standard?
I'm shocked, shocked I tell 'ya ... nobody ever doesn't adhere to a standard. Because they're magic!!
Sorry, ever since there were "Windows Modems", or any "standard" to ignore, people have been doing this shit. Most especially Microsoft and cheapo devices.
"Supposed to" my ass. Companies have been doing a terrible job of implementing standards since forever. I've
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you mean a cheap product someone bought off the interwebs doesn't adhere to a spec, or Microsoft has decided not to implement the standard?
If you skim the thread, it works on x32, and not on x64. Did they decide, or just fail?
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter? Someone failed to, or didn't bother doing some aspect of this ... we should be surprised at this why?
At this point, I pretty much expect products are taking shortcuts and being pushed to market in a half assed way.
Because that's how products are done these days; everything is apparently a continuous beta intended to be fixed later (if at all) but sold now. And as often as not, once they have the money, they immediately stop caring about any issues with it.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, I pretty much expect products are taking shortcuts and being pushed to market in a half assed way.
That's always been true. Most things have always sucked. Especially if they say "Microsoft" on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence, my original post. ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
obligatory T Shirt [thinkgeek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
obligatory link to my previous experiences with ThinkGeek shirts
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Here we go with the blame-Microsoft bitch fest. Might as well get that in. We already got the "Beat our dicks off to Elon Musk" story in for the day. Next up: Graphene.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they work under Windows XP (very old) but don't work under Windows 7 (much newer than XP). So it used to work on a Microsoft product and now it doesn't work anymore. I don't see why he can't blame Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, these glasses were manufactured in 2015. You would expect the opposite - that they'd work with 7, and not XP. That they work with XP hints at UVC 1.0 support being subtly broken somehow between XP and 7, since UVC is a Microsoft thing.
I also think UVC 1.0 support got broken somewhere, as 7 sees the device exactly as it should except for claiming it's not on a USB 2.0 port. USB Mass storage works, and when you switch over to camera mode, it does see the camera and microphone, the microphone works, but
Re: (Score:3)
My guess is that there is an embedded USB hub somewhere in the device which is USB1.1, XP ignores that and allows the traffic to go through, while 7 is throwing an error because the camera expects a USB2.0 path, which it apparently isn't getting. Without a link to what device it is though, I have no way to be able to troubleshoot.
I would call the tech support for the glasses, but likely, as they are cheap chinese knockoffs, the poster got what they paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
So, Microsoft is expected to make everything that worked on Windows 3.1 continue to work on any and all future versions of their OS and gets blasted when they don't, but Apple gets a free pass any time they EOL support for anything.
I wonder if the OP tried something similar to this: http://answers.microsoft.com/e... [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Since when has /. become tech support? (Score:5, Informative)
You must be new here. :)
Anyways, this is not a driver issue, per se. I believe this is a Windows issue. I have seen reprts of other UVC devices in laptops (their built-in webcams) having the exact same issue.
Turns out, those devices are UVC 1.0, and Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, changed something in their newer USB Video Camera driver that breaks devices following the UVC 1.0 spec, despite Microsoft claiming that Windows 7 has full support for UVC 1.0 devices.
For those people with laptop issues, usually they could fix it by finding the (semi-rare) updated driver from the manufacturer website.
This manufacturer has no driver. It is a claimed plug and play. And funnily enough, it works under Linux and OSX 10.4+ as advertised!
This is what leads me to believe that this is not a driver issue on my end, but a MS driver issue.
And I really, REALLY don't feel like having to constantly run in Test Mode to run a modified driver that's protected by WFP.
It should work under 32 bit... (Score:4, Interesting)
...and will fail 64 bit versions.
I have a couple of older video capture card that won't work under 64 bit, either xp or 7.
Both work fine in 32 bit.
The only other thing I could suggest is a utility to switch the usb mode, or force a different speed.
Making a custom Linux or XP virtual session might be easier to do.
Good luck!
Re: (Score:2)
Attempting this in a 32-bit Windows 7 environment was not something I had considered. I happen to have a 32-bit machine right here, I'll get 32-bit 7 installed and I will report back.
Re: (Score:2)
Your suggestion is 100% correct. I installed 32-bit 7 and the camera worked off the bat.
Now, to find out why 64-bit 7 A. throws the "This device will perform faster if you connect it to a USB 2.0 port" error and B. does not get video yet gets audio just fine and then see if C. I can rig a driver hack to fix it and get it past WFP.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like you are the poster. Sounds like you know a ton about it and still you are wasting slashdots time with your stupid tech support problem.
Why dont you post your question to /r/techsupport? Even if I had the answer I wouldn't give it to you because the last thing I would want is for every idiot with a driver problem getting their own "ask slashdot". Sure. ask slashdots are normally stupid, but yours is particularly stupid, and can only really apply to your specific circumstances and so is not interes
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Why dont you post your question to /r/techsupport?"
Because Reddit is a circlejerk shithouse reminiscent of most Linux 'help' forums?
Because unlike Reddit, I atually expect /. people of my UID or lower to likely have the obviously low-level knowledge required, whereas the majority of Reddit users regurgitate things without bothering to think critically?
Because Reddit is a shithole that went SJW?
Need more reasons?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You never know, such a story might come out of this very conversation IF PEOPLE WOULD STAY ON FUCKING TOPIC (I know, this is /.) and not bitch.
Then Slashdot could possibly start becoming the tech hub it used to be - because people with actual knowledge used to be seen collaborating on this site, fixing weird issues like this, providing answers that are actually useful, discussing the deeper inherent issues of such things, instead of griping. Much like /. used to try to do, in the late 90s after it ceased be
Re: (Score:3)
Did somebody wander in here thinking it was StackOverflow?
Or did they already try over there and have "discussion closed" for any of a number of picayune reasons?
Device compatability / driver problems ... (Score:5, Funny)
You must be running Linux, why don't you just be safe and come back to Microsoft, all hardware vendors make sure that their kit works with Microsoft Windows. Oh, wait .....
Re:Device compatability / driver problems ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, I laughed at this one.
Because I have that same camera and it works perfect under Linux. LOL
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Same here. I also have an old scanner and a USB microscope that Windows shits on when trying to find drivers. Plug them into Linux and they work. Same with some steam games, windows BSODs with WHEA error and reboots. Run them on the Linux steam client and they run all day at full settings. The worst I had to do with hardware/peripherals on Linux was to search google, someone has already figured out a solution. Windows just sucks.
Windows doesn't suck you just need to:-
Re:Device compatability / driver problems ...FTFY (Score:2)
Windows doesn't suck you, but it does me
Re:Device compatability / driver problems ... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a crapton of stuff that works only well under Linux out of the box now.
In our lab, there are like a bucket of USB serial adapters. All of them work with every linux device. But almost none of them work well with windows.
Re: (Score:3)
You should get one branded FTDI. They are really cheap from Chinese eBay sellers. Even better the company keeps its windows driver up to date with windows update.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice joke.
For those who maybe miss the reference:
http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
So there is the solution for using these devices with a modern operating system - switch to linux.
Apparently, windows support doesn't last. Works in one version, not in the next. Weird, but it is their choice. Linux made a different choice.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a scanner that I recently needed to get working again. It's a 15 year old scanner. First step I tried just plugging it in to my Windows 10 machine. It didn't work. Wasn't much surprised there. Then I remembered that I used to have it working on Linux. So I booted up a virtual machine with Ubuntu. The scanner was detected but trying to scan an image with XSane just caused it to crash. I might possibly be able to get it working, but didn't want to spend too much time messing around with it. I instal
Re: (Score:2)
It's hilarious that you mention scanners because basically every scanner I have ever owned (except the first one, and one other... out of about a dozen) has been used. In the only two cases in which I know of why they became available to be, it was because the user had upgraded to a newer version of Windows and the scanner manufacturer no longer provided a driver. In several cases, these were HP scanners which (having checked into the details via the SANE supported list) actually used the same protocols as
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I ran into that when looking for drivers. The problem is is that the software is $40 (currently there's a sale) and I could probably go purchase a current model scanner for close to the same price. That might be a good idea for somebody who has a bunch of old scanners that they want to keep working but isn't a good value for me who only uses the scanner once every year or so.
The new improved Slashdot (Score:1)
Now with more tech support!
Welp... (Score:4, Insightful)
cheap Chinese
there's your problem...
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to what, expensive Chinese hardware?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, now that I double-checked the company - it's a USA company and has been around since 2003.
So no, not cheap Chinese crap. Cheap American crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not spit the model and manufacture out? The answer might be something unique to that model. This could be something as simple as a codec package to support H.264 or some USB video class extension which would require vidcap.h so it would need either a driver from the manufacturer or the Windows SDK installed.
Re: (Score:2)
Manufacture? ExcelVan. Model? No fucking clue.
"This could be something as simple as a codec package to support H.264"
Not being a UVC 1.0 device, no. That's MPEG/MJPEG. UVC 1.0 has no h.264 support.
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost as if you are saying the car doesn't start and when asked for details you insist it is red and other red cars start. Either way, it is likely a codec issue or you need a driver.
But first, the UVC version doesn't necessarily limit the use of H.264 or any other codec. The class extension can enable the support and i picked the h.264 as an example not a diagnostic. It could be any native compression in the hardware and i will have very little clue without knowing manufacturer or model.
Now on to so
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.amazon.com/Excelvan... [amazon.com]
My assumption is that there is a USB1.1 hub built into the glasses, XP doesn't care, but 7 detects it and prevents features from working. Poor design is likely the issue, not actually Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
If you scroll down to the lower description, it lists "storm codec " under player. Interestingly, the storm codec is a codec package and when 64 bit Windows became available, codecs had issues (the 32bit versions didn't play well in the 64bit version ).
I would give that a serious consideration. I think your usb error might be ancillary to this.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no USB 1.1 hub as the device transfers files at USB 2.0 speed. Only when switching to camera mode does the device throw up the "This device can perform faster if you connect it to a USB 2.0 port."
Re: (Score:2)
Inside the device, there could be a hub connected inside the camera to allow the microphone and camera to work, and the storage device could be on a different hub, or even directly connected.
Go to device manager, view, devices by connection.
Expand out ACPI... (usually), and expand out until you find the USB stuff, and expand those all the way out, then connect the glasses, check how many devices it adds, and how they are wired up.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. What he needs is Expensive Chinese (one with a well-known US name on the badge).
USB 3.0 chipset, 2.0-only cable/connector (Score:5, Interesting)
I've gotten this a lot with devices besides cameras (eg. an LG G3 phone), even when plugged into a 3.0 port. It seems to be caused only by devices with a standard micro-USB connector, not a full-sized one. My thought is that the device's USB chip is 3.0-capable, but the connector and/or cable don't have the extra pins/wires for 3.0 so the device is reporting itself as 3.0 but can only run as 2.0 which makes Windows complain. I haven't seen any problems because of it, even under Windows (I normally connect the devices to Linux machines).
Re: (Score:1)
He's getting the "USB 2.0 device plugged into USB 1.1 port" message, not the "3.0 device plugged into 2.0 port" message.
Re: (Score:3)
So the solution is to get a USB 2.0 ONLY add-in card.
Or a USB 2.0 ONLY hub.
Re: (Score:2)
This is almost certainly the OPs problem. On XP the timing requirements for USB 2.0 devices were a bit more relaxed and out of spec devices worked. USB 3.0 drivers are even stricter.
I can only suggest trying a few USB 2 cards, but it's a long shot.
Have you tried turning it off and on again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, turning it on and off again because of USB enumeration issues was one method of fixing UVC camera issues that was mentioned in my searches for the cause of the issue.
Sadly, it did not work.
compatibility mode (Score:1)
have you tried running the consumption (camera) apps in XP compatibility mode?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:compatibility mode (Score:4)
There are no consumption applications for the camera. If there were, I'd have mentioned trying them and them not working.
Don't you find it the least fucking bit odd that a camera made in 2015 will work with XP, works under Linux, Even works in OSX 10.4 or higher (I checked) yet it won't work in Windows 7?
I suspect the UVC driver has changed between XP and 7.
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't you find it the least fucking bit odd that a camera made in 2015 will work with XP, works under Linux, Even works in OSX 10.4 or higher (I checked) yet it won't work in Windows 7?
After a decade plus of supporting Windows PCs, I ceased to find any Windows behavior odd. Windows is a humongous, amorphous, poorly documented, blob of code, trying to be all things to all people. I can't see any evidence that anybody inside or outside Microsoft understands it, and I can't think why anybody with a choi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they do claim to support 7.
You need the right cable (Score:4, Funny)
Once you get the right cable [arstechnica.com] you won't have to worry about your camera issues anymore!
huh? (Score:1)
Ask Slashdot: How Can We Improve Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
By not posting stupid tech-support questions... some random guy's hare-brained scheme... or pseudo-science that isn't backed up by common sense.
Inexcusable (return them) (Score:3)
Dude in 2015 you bought a device that only works on an unsupported 15 year old obsolete and now dangerous OS for internet streaming??! Seriously
If the camera was from the XP era I could understand. If you want to keep it then get an ancient XP box and DMZ the LAN behind a firewall to prevent internet access. But if you purchased this to use over the internet then the manufacturer gave you a shoddy and liable product that is negligent.
Re: (Score:2)
Shit, I still run XP as admin, firewall off, older browser.
Still hasn't been infected in over a decade.
XP just fucking works.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking, as long as you don't install Flash or Java, and stay away from IE (especially IE6 and IE7) you'll probably be okay. But why?
Thank you for calling Slashdot tech support (Score:2)
https://technet.microsoft.com/... [microsoft.com]
Or more likely here:
https://www.google.com/ [google.com]
So there's your advice.
I was going to take the opportunity to launch into a full tech-support monologue but it brought back too many old and bad memories.
Let me google that for you (Score:3)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=let+me+google+that+for+you
If that doesn't work maybe someone has a GeoCities site about this issue.
Cockney Rhyming Slang (Score:2)
In these parts, 'Khyber' is CRS for 'arse'. Also on /. it would seem.
Need tech support? Look here. (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Let me Google that for you. (Score:2)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=I+bought+... [lmgtfy.com]
Inverse Shibboleet? (Score:2)
I wonder if there's an inverse version of shibboleet [xkcd.com] that would be helpful when newbies ask for support in knowledgeable forums.
Similar issue... (Score:1)
Can anyone help me get this WinModem working under linux?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know the Modem AT commands by heart? Who needs drivers when you can talk directly to the hardware, like one would do in DOS?
Re: (Score:2)
You can't talk to a Winmodem with AT commands - it's basically just a DAC/DSP where the driver itself implements all the modulating, and demodulating. The hardware can basically just open or close the PSTN connection and make/receive sounds. Everything else is software.
Windows 7 32bit? (Score:2)
32bit Windows version might have a bit better luck, you might try running an XP driver under 7 32bit although playing with the USB stack or an on-board USB controller in that way may be ugly or bork things horribly.
Maybe you need to upgrade (Score:5, Funny)
Windows 10 probably fixes this.
I'd just go ahead and upgrade if I were you.
Couldn't hurt...
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what?
32-bit Win10, works flawlessly.
64-bit Win10, 66% functional (mass storage and microphone work.)
Re: (Score:2)
I really tried to ride that fine line where people couldn't tell if I was being serious or not.
Feeling that it went pretty well.
New low. (Score:2)
I went back through the archives to read Roland Piquepalle's last 50 posts to cleanse my brain from this level of Zika virus induced retardedness.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you just admitted that you couldn't understand an implied low-level technical question for what is likely involving one of the lower-level Windows subsystems (and not a driver issue) and had to read RP garbage to clean it out?
Re: (Score:2)
hub power (Score:2)
I've had similar issues with flash drives. I'm one of those nerds who like to load external hubs with older flash drives and thrash them until they die. Thing is, they all need power. USB2 spec is 0.5A per port, but if you're running a passive hub off one port, each port on that hub has to share the power available. Eight hub ports splitting that half an amp can get a bit tricky, especially on USB2. Usually what happens is it hits a low threshold and drops to USB1.1 which requires less power to run.
On the s
Side note: Whomever edited the submission (Score:2)
You actually did a decent job. I hadn't had much coffee when I wrote that.
UPDATE: /. poster has the correct answer! (Score:3)
User Grog6 noted that it would likely work in 32-bit Windows 7 and fail to work entirely under 64-bit Windows 7.
This ends up being correct. There is something off between the 32-bit and 64-bit usbvideo files that makes this particular set of camera glasses not function 100% under 64-bit Windows.
Now for the fun part: figuring out whether or not the difference is so drastic that I can't hack in the missing code, and whether or not I can fake the Microsoft driver signature so WFP doesn't flip its lid (and I'm not going to turn WFP off, sorry!)
Have you tried... (Score:2)
To all of you noobs... (Score:2)
...who are complaining that Khyber's question/post is stupid, etc -- YOU ARE THE PROBLEM,
*NOT* KHYBER. Slashdot used to be a valuable resource for questions like this. Try and Contribute something useful to the discussion IF you have any knowledge worth sharing, or feel free to go elsewhere and post your useless whinging somewhere else. This falls under "Stuff that matters."
--Even tho I don't have any skin in this game, I learned something useful reading the responses that actually tried to help the guy
Re:More info needed (Score:4, Informative)
" there's literally nothing to go on in your description"
Incorrect. As stated, it is a UVC camera. That means it's a USB Video Camera universal device which means no drivers are required - it's the same standard that almost every single laptop webcamera uses and has used for a long time, even OSX and Linux support it.
Then I provide information that it works under XP, and half works under 7. I describe what does and does not work (Everything works in XP, only the video feed does not work in 7.)
Mentioning that it is a UVC camera, you would logically think to check for UVC versions, right? This is a UVC 1.0 camera.
Going to the Microsoft site, it shows that UVC 1.0 is fully supported from 2000/XP on up including in Windows 10.
Any other device plugged into that port operates at USB 2.0 speed. Same port under Windows XP sees the camera just fine. Under 7? It sees the camera, it simply refuses to acquire a video feed from it.
Re:More info needed (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, since you're asking Slashdot... how about posting the USB Device descriptors, along with the USB port debug information from windbg (!usb2tree)?
Re: (Score:2)
Take your 7-digit nonsense outta here, sonny. This is real tech talk, because we're getting into actual subsystems, not simple drivers. Deuces!
Re: (Score:2)
Lol.. no your not.
Your stuck on this being a UVC and not realizing the extendable format or codec requirements which could either require a driver or an SDK to be installed as well as a codec. Not knowing the brand and model is like saying my car won't drive and refusing to describe what it is actually doing because its on a road and cars drive on a road.
Re: (Score:2)
I love how your username continues to belie your ignorance.
This is a UVC issue, period. Apparently you have no clue what UVC entails (codec support is AUTOMATICALLY BUILT-IN.)
Specifically it's a difference between the UVC files usbvideo.sys/.inf/.pnf between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows 7.
While you shoot off at the mouth, a real person with real knowledge isolated the issue immediately. [slashdot.org]
Way to be useless, like most Linux support forums.
Re: (Score:2)
You better check the spec again idiot. UVC certainly does allow it to extended and incorporate different codecs. And yes, a driver to enable the extendable units is still within the spec - at least with MS operating systems.
It's funny, You come here crying that a cheap webcam kicked your ass and begging for help then pretend to know it all when someone offers assistance while you spout completely incorrect facts.
Here , read all of this carefully before shoveling another falsehood out of your trap.
https:// [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You failed to read your own link, right at the bottom.
H.264 support - NOT AVAILABLE IN XP/VISTA/7. Midway down the page, bottom of the second chart.
Try again when you can actually read and comprehend the source material you're trying to quote.
Re: (Score:2)
And you have failed to read period. The reference to H.264 was nothing but an example illustrating you were not giving enough information. But if you look further down the page you will see the extension units reference. Here H.264 or any other codec can be implemented via plugins (most likely to direct show ).
My god, its like you lost your wallet and refuse to look under the couch where it actually is because you want to think it is somewhere else. If you don't understand what is on that page, say somethi
Re: (Score:2)
Probably NOT my motherboard drivers as all other USB 2.0 devices enumerate properly as such on the exact same system under XP and 7.
I suspect this is Microsoft's issue, not the camera maker.
Re: (Score:2)
> as all other USB 2.0 devices enumerate properly as such on the exact same system under XP and 7
and billions and billions of other USB devices work without problems on other systems, so the obvious conclusion is...
> I suspect this is Microsoft's issue
Yep. Probably. Couldn't be the device's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Is entirely Microsoft's issue. UVC is a universal video standard. Or, not-so-universal. Turns out, it breaks somewhere between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows. The hardware works in its entirety in Windows XP, and 32-bit Windows 7. It will not work in 64-bit Windows. It will work in 64-bit OSX and various 64-bit Linux distros.
Were this a hardware issue, it wouldn't work AT ALL. That it worked 100% in XP and only 66% (Microphone and USB Mass storage worked) in 64-bit 7 indicates that it's not the hardware itself.
Re: (Score:2)
"XP camera drivers are typically VFW (Video for Windows) based"
Microsoft has utilized UVC since oh 98/Millennium. Only companies trying proprietary crap tied into their software used VFW.