hardwired

The Avalan radios are your bottleneck: their Ethernet throughput is limited to 935 Kbps. If you need true NLOS you could look at the Ubiquiti Loco M900 series radios, I've gotten 15+ Mbps through them. If it's just a small amount of tree tops in the Fresnel, though, I'd try a set of the Ubiquiti Nanobridges or Nanostations in the 2.4 GHz band, lots less interference issues (900 MHz only has four channels available, even at 5 MHz channels). I've gotten 2+ miles with them through a thin line of trees.

I've used these, http://nitek.net/products/networkextenders/EL1500C.htm, and they've worked well, but they aren't cheap either. FWIW, I have several sets of the Veracity units in place for a while now working fine, so hopefully your problem was a fluke.

Wait until you hear the price... Yes, but unfortunately, local recording of some type is going to be necessary, unless he's planning on getting a dedicated Metro Ethernet connection, which has a truly terrifying price!

I usually heat with wood in the winter, I've wondered how much extra heat I could get by subscribing to as much junk mail as possible for fuel!

Try changing the resolution in the Smart Client setup tab from "Full" to "Super High", or "High" on each of the cameras (you can change one, and then scroll down to "apply to all" to copy this setting to all cameras).

I use a program called Radio Mobile for calculating my links, but it is not very user friendly, and nothing that I know of will replace going to the actual site and looking at possible obstructions in the path. Even SRTM 1 meter data and landcover maps are limited in that regard, they show major obstructions and elevation changes, but not small obstructions or foliage growth.

That's one great thing about wireless gear for IP based video systems: we now have the ability to use products designed and marketed to a vastly larger market segments than there was for analog wireless video equipment, and as such prices are falling, and quality and performance increasing, at a rate that the CCTV market by itself could never hope to match.

Do you have a link? http://www.ubnt.com/airvision- Not directly wireless, but will power from the secondary port of a NanoStation (same non-standard 12-24 Volt PoE that the Ubiquiti wireless gear uses). From feedback on the site, the cams are somewhat OK (no D/N cutfilter, fixed cheap lens, etc), but the software is really not ready for prime time (uses huge amounts of processor, crashes a lot, etc.)- Evidently, they are in the middle of completely rewriting it (it is originally based off of Zoneminder). They do have a "Pro" line of cameras coming that will have varifocal, IR capability, and some other features, I'm curious to check those out when they're released.

If you can give a Google Earth-type view of the area, (or at least a rough diagram), with camera/viewing locations and obstructions marked out, we can probably help more.

Life's full of irony, isn't it? Actually, I used to have a well-earned distaste for wireless gear (and still do, for most "nannycam" quality analog (expletive deleted) stuff flooding the market). However, the advent of quality IP video camera capabilities, coupled with robust market offerings for good, low priced IP data links, and customers who I wasn't going to be able to provide video for any other way (lots of agricultural operations spanning huge areas) has led me quite a ways down the path for wireless implementations.

Take a look at the Rohn push-up masts here- http://rohnnet.com/rohn-telescoping-masts. It appears that both buildings are two story. If you get on the roof of them, you will probably only need twenty to thirty feet of additional height to clear most trees, unless you have something else really big in the way. The NanoStations are very light, and a very small wind load area, they don't need a massive structure to support them. As I mentioned, the NanoStation M2's (2.4 GHz) can penetrate a reasonable amount of foliage at the distances you are describing. If you can get LOS with masts, NanoStation M5's (5.8 GHz) would be the way to go, for less interference issues.

What is the obstruction that keeps the link NLOS (non line of sight)? If it's a small amount of trees, you MAY have a chance with 2.4GHz gear (Ubiquiti NanoStation M2's come to mind, MIMO equipment seems to penetrate foliage better than single chain hardware). Is there any possibility of raising the antennas enough to clear the obstructions? 5.8GHz gear is a definite no, any foliage at all in the path will kill the link (although if you can raise the antennas enough to get LOS, it would be my first choice, due to less interference in that band, and more channel choices). 900MHz gear will do the job, but the 900 band is never my first choice due to much more interference possibilities from SCADA gear and other noise sources. At that distance, though, a set of Ubiquiti NanoStation Loco M900's would likely do the job (less bandwidth capability, but probably still enough for your application, depending on what kind of framerates you are expecting). Another possibility would be to locate another server at the second site so you are just passing viewing network traffic, rather than all the camera data.

In looking at the description at Honeywell here http://www.honeywellvideo.com/products/accessories/ip/55935.html, it appears that analytics are an additional, by the channel purchase. Are you sure that you have purchased and enabled the analytics option?

Milestone will support USB cameras, their limited "Go" version is free for up to 8 cameras, might be worth experimenting with.

I watched something about the UK outlawing samurai swords after a rash of samurai sword attacks left people maimed (and many wished they had been killed)... anything can be an effective weapon, where do you draw the line? Also, pepper spray makes a terrible offensive weapon, you want to run away after you spray it or you'll get choked up too. I do a fair amount of work in prisons, you should see the creativity of inmates, making weapons out of just about anything there!

Panavise makes quite a few different ones- not the cheapest, but very sturdy.

I did find a high power 802.3at mode A injector here http://www.midspans.com/pdf/POE36U-1AT.pdf with a PoE passthrough splitter + 12VDC output here http://www.phihong.com/html/poe21-120h_21w_dc-dc_splitter.html. You still will only have 10 Watts for PoE, and 12 Watts for the 12VDC output though, probably still not enough for the application described. ******Edit****** I'm American, BTW.

If you have the choice, and your camera supports it, 24VAC power is preferable due to reduced ground loop issues, and reduced power drop over the cable.

Nope, it doesn't work that way, the wattage of the UPS is the peak power it can supply, not for how long. Take a look at a UPS selector here- http://www.tripplite.com/en/products/ups-system-runtimes.cfm to get a better idea on runtimes. I would just localize power at the DVR, it simplifies things greatly. As long as the runs are not terribly long, you might want to consider using baluns and CAT5 cable, that way you have everything in one cable, and you could change later to IP cameras (assuming the runs are under 300 feet). Another choice would be to use Siamese RG59U with 18/2 power wire in the same cable.

Never work - have you ever tried to slip an entire planet under your jacket and slip out the door with it without being noticed?? Years ago, I did see a guy get a pair of small block Chevy heads out of a wrecking yard under his coat, that was pretty impressive....

So is that why I only saw you for a minute, I wasn't close enough to the bar?

Actually, I wouldn't try to power the camera from the Nanostation's secondary port, there's been a lot of problems doing that, plus the output from that port isn't 802.3af compliant, and most cameras will not work that way (I've tried quite a few). Just use standard 802.3af PoE injectors (I use ones from Phihong http://www.midspans.com, and they work quite well). If you are going to use two cameras, get the regular Nanostation M5, not the Loco, that way you can have two ports available without using a switch, just two PoE injectors, and the Nanostation power supply. So, you'd have Nanostation (Primary port)---Nanostation PoE----Standard PoE----Camera Or, for two cameras, Nanostation(Primary port)---Nanostation PoE----Standard PoE----Camera for the first camera, and Nanostation(Secondary port)---Standard PoE----Camera, for the second camera. It's a great idea, not needing to run a separate CAT5 cable for the camera, but it doesn't work so well in practice.

For the wireless side, a pair of NanoStation Loco M5's would do just fine, the unlicensed 5GHz band is well away from any potential interference concerns, as long as you select U.S. operation in the units (newer ones shipped for U.S. use are locked to legal frequencies). At the distances you are describing, you'll want to turn the power outputs on both units almost all of the way down, or you can overload the receivers in units used at short range. There's a getting started guide for your type of application here http://wiki.ubnt.com/How_to_bridge_internet_connections. This guide is for a older generation of their products, but the basics are still the same.

That item you mention will probably work well for passive PoE devices (I may very well end up using something like it for Ubiquiti wireless gear), but keep in mind you will still need a 48 volt power supply to go with it, which raises your cost quite a bit. For single port PoE injection, I use Phihong injectors ( http://www.midspans.com), you can get them for about $20 USD or so.

I've tested DSL-type twisted pair Ethernet converters over an existing spare traveler phone cable pair, and it worked fine.