murphomatic

Long story short... We have a client whom we installed an 8 port Geovision system for, using 8 of the newer Sony Exwave color cams (540 tvl). We got everything installed, after some minor cam adjustments, etc - we submitted our invoice and were paid for the job. Set the time machine for one month later. Someone breaks into a car in this client's parking lot. There are two cameras covering this lot in a wide-angle view. One of which was supposed to be focused w/telephoto lens on the parking lot entry - but at the client's request, was moved back to a wide-angle view. One of the cameras captures the event, but obviously does not provide the clarity to read the offender's license plate (camera is at a wide-angle focal length, about 300 ft back from the event). Client threatens to sue because we "didn't provide the high-resolution cameras that we promised" .. and futher states that unless we replace the cameras we installed with cameras capable of such high resolution that license plates can be ascertained from a wide-angle view, that they will do so themselves, and then stick us with the bill for it. What I'm wanting to know is if any cameras of this nature actually do exist (I've bent over backwards trying to find something of such high resolution, but can't), and just curious what everybody's perspective is on this. Thanks everyone - I appreciate everyone's input.

3RDIGLBL - thanks for your advice, we definitely added a disclaimer after that fun little scenario way back when... we also have a sheet that we print out displaying the camera views, and the customer acknowleges and signs off on each view. No more bs. eric9547 - With this particular customer - yeah, our attorney basically told him to take a long walk off a short pier .. and they never bothered us again. It's been awhile since I've updated this thread, and I wanted to be sure and thank everyone for their constructive input.

Did ya get it to work??

You should be able to configure the bios to use either sata or ide to boot. I would opt for using the sata interface as it offers a higher data throughput than traditional (parallel) ata, and the smaller sata cables allow for better airflow inside the box.

rxd+ and rxd- should be the ones you use for your rs-485 +/- leads respectively. Let me know if it works out - or if you've tried this already. Typically 485 runs on the "d" (data) +/- leads... rs-422 would use the four tr/rx leads..

Are the pins labeled? For true RS-485, you'd only use 2 of the pins .. Let me know if they have labels on the pins, and I can tell ya which ones to use..

In your 2nd pic, it looks like "Round-The-Clock" recording is selected. Make sure that when you modify your schedule, that you actually save the changes: 1. Pick the schedule you wish to set options from from the list. 2. Set the options (Rec - Motion Only) 3. Click the Modify Schedule button. That SHOULD do it. What version of GV software are you using ? 6.x?

I'm wondering if anyone out there uses the Geovision Hotline as the primary notification feature (dial a phone number and relay a voice-message or enter DTMFs for pager displays, etc). I think this aspect of the GV software is a bit lacking in usability as you cannot record custom messages for specific events (say dial different phone numbers and play different voice messages depending on which I/O pin or camera is experiencing an alarm). ....so I wrote a program to do this for GV systems. I'm curious if there's any interest in the community for this kind of application, or does everyone just use email alerts and never touch the hotline feature? The issue I've found w/email alerts is that if you're using email to send text messages, the messages may be delayed a number of minutes as they bounce around various networks before finally arriving to the recipient. I figured dialing a phone directly and playing a voice message to the person who answers would be faster, but became frustrated at GV's lack of ability to record custom messages for different events on the system. Has anyone else had these same kind of frustrations?

Thats only true for some of them .. and depends on the software and setup, most I have demoed have been low res. There is a thread on Motobix test images though, that one looks nice. He does however give you examples of the frames and image sizes. For most CCTV jobs though that kind of product wont be applicable or feasable. Back to Morph's question on Geo, you would simply plug your IP cameras into their decoder which will then plug into the Geo system. So just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly ... With the box GV is introducing - you could set it up so it takes input from an IP camera and streams that video to an analog output, that could then be plugged into the gv-capture card? So it goes IP -> Analog? Most of the products out there will do analog -> IP, but not the other way around.

I guess the problem their kao is that more and more of my clients are refusing the buy analog cameras, and are insisting on going IP. This little box doesn't help much when it comes to tying IP cameras directly to the GV main system.

The main screen of the application is nothing too fancy - just a simple log that displays the activity the dialer has received.... incoming connections, rules that have matched, outbound dialing, etc. The program works by way of "profiles". You create a "profile" that specifies a phone number to dial, and then contains various "rules" that trigger dialing under certain conditions, and define what is said on the phone line to whoever answers the call. Here's a screen shot of the profile configuration screen: The program basically intercepts GeoVision email notifications. The program then takes action based on the content of those notifications. You can see in the screen shot of my test profile that it's looking for key-phrases "Input 1" and "Input 2". If either of those phrases are present in the GV email - it will dial the phone and play the appropriate audio. This works better than standard email notification it can run on the main GV server, allowing it to receive the email notices from the GV system instantly, and immediately dial a number... instead of pushing the email notices out to the 'net and waiting for however long it takes for the notices to eventually reach the recipient or be dumped by a spam filter. This allows for faster response time instead of incurring several minutes of delay for email to process. We're just about finished with development. We've invested a couple thousand to get it developed, and are thinking of offering it at a retail price of $99. If anyone has any questions/comments or feedback on the retail price I'm suggesting, I'd sure love to hear your input. Thanks again for those who have replied already.

I've been asking GV this same question for some time now ... and they keep telling me it's coming... V7 came.... then V8 .... and there's been no IP support yet! Don't know if the belongs here or in the Geovision post....I'll let the mods sort it out The link below is to a product announcement showing the Geovision video server. I believe they are demoing it on their current tour. They will be in Chicago this Thursday, but unfortunately, I won't be able to make it. Has or Is anyone going to see this product? Feedback would be great! http://www.taipeitradeshows.com.tw/NewProduct/Product.aspx?ID=1632&Lang=E Hmm... that looks like it'll take analog cameras and put them on an IP address like any IP video server currently on the market. What I'd like to find out is if the GV-Main System they're showing in that diagram is capable of picking up an IP address ... or if they're just tying to the main system using the analog outputs on that box. GV really needs to set up their main system so that each camera can either take a data stream from their gv capture card or a data stream from an IP address. When that happens - the main gv system will truly become a hybrid system.

As far as I know - the plexed display of cameras in the main Geovision app cannot be split across multiple monitors.

I've been asking GV this same question for some time now ... and they keep telling me it's coming... V7 came.... then V8 .... and there's been no IP support yet!

Generally, it's not the users I worry too much about (you're generally talking about people who think a "port-scan" is taking a nice stroll down the dessert-wine aisle at the local grocery store). It's IT/IS... Unless IT/IS is subordinate to, or part of the security organization, you have more people than necessary w/access to the surveillance system. It also adds a layer of bureaucracy -- as any decisions made regarding the system also impact the network, and now require the blessings of another dept. Very few organizations that I've worked within have been willing to set the Security dept. up with their own autonomous network that IT/IS plays no management role in. Getting the seperate network set up itself is not too big of a deal ... but getting IT/IS to turn loose of it is next to impossible. Don't get me wrong - I don't think IP is bad or unvaluable - I just think the marketing hype out there is a bit overblown...and this causes people to make the wrong decisions on occasion.

At least w/analog cameras - you have the option of not putting the DVR on the network. Granted you lose the remote-access features, but the head-end still records all the same w/no network connection. Try that with an NVR... Anyway - your example of the 1 IP cam per site for your client w/40 sites is a PERFECT scenario where IP would be the beneficial route to go. I'll keep that kind of thing in mind.

A couple of things that make me chuckle about IP systems... People say you can use your existing network infrastructure so you don't have to run coax cable... ... ok - that's great, but how many places have network workstation drops at the far north-east corner on the roof? Looks like you're gonna be running cable ... even if it's not coax. The "CC" part of "CCTV" is CLOSED CIRCUIT. IP cameras basically blow that whole concept away. Welcome to OPEN CIRCUIT ...where if someone is savvy enough, they can hack at your cameras all day. I'm a software engineer, and in my day - I've seen PLENTY of network outages.... switches blow, routers croak, etc... Ever seen a coax cable "crash"? We have a client that has about 60 analog cams and has been sold on the marketing hype of IP. He's slowly starting to move over - new cameras installed are all IP. .. so far, he's got about a dozen IP cams up and working. A couple months ago - they had a network outage that lasted for 3 days. Needless to say - he didn't get much video over that time period. Like people have said - use the right tool for the job. Sometimes it's analog, sometimes it's IP ... but I agree with someone else's statement that IP has a looooooong way to go yet.

My company has developed an application that runs with GeoVision-based systems to expand on the Hotline feature within GeoVision. GeoVision's Hotline feature will dial a phone number and play a message (or enter a sequence of digits - example: when calling a pager) on the occurrance of a particular event. The problem is - that the message/digits relayed over the phone cannot be made specific per camera, or per I/O point - it is the same message no matter which I/O point or camera is "in alarm". The application we've developed works with the GeoVision software to provide this kind of granularity in notification....a custom message can be played for specific cameras & I/O points. I'd like to gauge what the interest is in the community for this sort of application. Thanks -

Some interesting cameras there Rory - What's your opinion on the practicality of using them in a surveillance application? The last link you posted looks like a camera that's more applicable to machine vision/automation, etc.

Yeah - you and me both.. futhermore, I'm curious how many cameras they'd be getting for the quoted $22,000. We installed 8 sony ExWave 540 tvl cameras - 7 of them exterior w/heater/blower housings - all 7 requiring the use of a hi-lift. We did the job for $11,500 (equipment, head-end, and labor)....so I'm having a hard time understanding how they're going to replace all 7 of these exterior cams with their new magic 1500 tvl cams for less than twice the cost of our fee. I can't find cameras anywhere with 1500 tvl. I think they're full of ****e and just trying to lie their way into us giving them a refund. What does everyone else think?

Well, a new twist in the story. This client has finally written us a letter stating that they found cameras capable of 1500 tvl using a Sony Super HAD CCD. They're having them installed for a cost of $22,000. They want us to come back and get our gear and refund the money we charged them. So - question to all you CCTV guru's out there... Does Sony really make a CCD capable of 1500 tvl resolution? Or are they totally blowing smoke?

Wow - I didn't know such a product existed. 21 megapixels is incredible. What's the ballpark cost of one of these cameras? Anyone know?

Thanks for the input everyone. I have looked at Extreme CCTV's LPR system an there's no way this client would've shelled out the dough for that. They were interested in getting the most bang-for-the-buck, so we figured a Geo system w/8 of the exwave cams would exceed their expectations. Like someone else said ... WAAAAAAY too much CSI, I guess. To answer some of the questions on this thread, the contract situation went like this. They dropped 3 "work-order contracts" on us after a demonstration of our system. We read through their naive gibberish stating what they wanted us to install, laughed, and wrote SEE ADDENDUM across it -- on which we provided an exact material list, and a statement of what were going to install (their CEO signed this addendum and list, btw). In no way did we ever guarantee event capture or functionality of the system. We simply stated that we agreed to install cameras that had a minimum of 480 line resolution, and were capable of detecting a minimum of 0.5 lux. ... which w/the Exwave cams, we exceeded that spec. The very sad part of this is that we did this job for just about cost, as this customer was large property management company, and we wanted them to be extra-happy so that they'd use us for their other properties. Anyway .. the 3 work order contracts. We performed the 1st one and they are now wanting sue us, saying that they're going to have the cameras replaced with ones that meet their spec (riiiiiiight), and that they're also going to have those same cameras installed at the other 2 properties, and since we couldn't perform to their spec - hold us in breach of contract and sue us for the cost of the other 2 properties as well. This whole situation is patently absurd, and I'm really just waiting to have a good laugh when they've finally filtered through a dozen different CCTV companies and can't get the magic cameras they're looking for. It should also be noted that we chased this client for over a year, providing 54 seperate proposals w/drawings depicting coverage, some of which were pricey and included nice PTZ setups. Of course - they always balked at the price of these, and wanted something cheaper. Unforunately, I think we're beyond keeping them happy. It went from them being perfectly satisfied w/the system, to them screaming at my biz partner over the phone, threatening to sue ... there was no "in-between" or mediation period. Even through all the screaming and threats of lawsuits, we offered to reposition/adjust/re-lens as necessary (FREE of charge) to get them a satisfactory view. They finally stated that the only thing we could offer that would make them happy would be cameras that capture the whole parking lot in a wide angle view, at such high resolution they could later magnify the recorded image and read license plates. I told them that the product they want doesn't exist, and that their expectations are not based in reality. I'm just really chapped by this because we literally bent over backwards for these people... giving them a system very cheap, very cheap labor to install, and also ate the cost on a couple of 480 line cams that we upgraded to the Sony exwave 540 line cams just as an extra "bonus" for them that - of course - went completely unnoticed, and also provided free training and materials to their staff. This was the reward we got for "going above and beyond". It really only just gives us incentive to do the absolute BARE-MINIMUM on jobs from here on out, with a whole bunch of liability-release legalese that to normal, good natured customers, make it look like we're desperate to cover our asses....which at this point, and thanx to these jokers - we are.

We told them that we could absolutely equip the camers with lenses capable of zooming to a distance capable of reading license plates. We told them that our strategy was to mount 2 cameras for the coverage area -- 1 of them focused wide-angle on the parking lot, and 1 of them focused telephoto on the lot entry to capture plates as the cars came in. All cameras are equipped with 6-100mm or 6-50mm vari-focal lenses, so they can definitely pick up plates when focused on an entry. We DID tell them that re-positioning and re-focusing the camera positioned on the entry would prevent them from seeing plates coming through the entrance. After re-positioning the cam, they looked at the views and thanked us, telling us the new view was exactly what they wanted. It was only after they called us a month later with lawsuit threats that they told us the camera needed to be both wide-angle and telephoto at the same time .. so that they could take an already-recorded, high-resolution, wide-angle image, and magnify it to read plates. The spec they signed says nothing about this. They're now saying they're about to install new cameras that indeed meet their requirements and assign us the bill. I'm just curious if they've found some camera i haven't heard of that's capable of capturing video on the scale of 7 to 10 megapixels per frame. I'm pretty sure it's ridiculous to think something like that exists...but I've been wrong before!

We use the CD55 for our PTZ in most installations. However, we're experiencing some issues with the pan-speed at one of our customers. This camera scales down the pan-speed based on how far you're zoomed in. The problem is that the thing slows waaaaaaaaaaaay down beyond being usable. My customer is wanting to be able to zoom in on people, and follow them as they're walking along-side the property, and the camera slows down too much to be able to keep up. As a result, customer has to zoom out, reposition the PTZ, zoom back in, repeat. Has anyone ever modified the pan-speed, or the speed ratio @ zoom for this camera? If so - I'd love to know how. Thanks! -Murph