Outdoor Camera Rotation Device w/o PTZ?

I am considering mounting a surveillance camera on a 10 ft pole near my mailbox looking back at my house. We live in a storm area and, conditions permitting, I want to view the house during and after the storm to quickly assess any damage.

My camera system is Ubiquiti Protect so my camera choices are proprietary and limited. Ubiquiti does have a PTZ camera option in the $2000 range but that exceeds my requirements and it occurs to me that some other suitably reliable solution could be pieced together for less.

The requirement is pretty simple:

  • at least 90* rotation forward and back, prefer 180*
  • No tilt is required
  • power via battery, prefer AC
  • control actuation using Hubitat or standalone app via wifi or Zigbee or Zwave

Thinking about the solution, I have considered hacking a water control valve to get the 90* rotation. Also, if I have the space, it might be possible to disassemble an Ikea Shade and use the motor with limit settings to achieve full rotation. Then, control for either one of these solutions would be via the Hubitat app.

Also, the idea of using an HVAC spring return damper motor could be used with a Qubino relay.

These are my initial thoughts and I would appreciate hearing your input and ideas. Thanks!

As you live in a storm area, waterproofing a diy setup becomes the main issue regardless of what device is used. My only thought is the ability to house the entire setup is some transparent case. If this is feasible then there hacking together a diy pan base with wifi control linked to the hubitat should be reasonably straightforward with either servos or steppers.

Also if I'm not mistaken water valves are either open or closed so may not allow you to stop the pan partway, and the speed would also be non adjustable?

And if you are only using it for inspection rather than ongoing surveillance, why not just get an inexpensive PTZ from one of various Chinese brands?

It's probably cheaper and easier to get 2 cameras instead?

Navat604, Thanks. And, yes... probably. Two cameras is a simpler and cost effective solution but it requires a reduction in data retention time to accommodate the extra camera. Not a showstopper so the two camera option is still viable.

Good points. Thanks!