hardwired

Try raising the bitrate. I'm wondering, if you have it set for a fixed framerate, with a fixed bitrate too low to support a full resolution image at that rate, that might create some type of corruption during a high bandwidth image change. Also, try updating the firmware, and make sure the correct profile pack for the imager is loaded.

The TXB allows using an Esprit (or Spectra) on other protocols, besides Pelco (allowing usage on AD, Bosch, Sensormatic and other systems). The datasheet is here.... http://www.global-download.schneider-electric.com/852575770039EC5E/all/C9F857F22743121585257633005AD64A/$File/c1492.pdf

Try updating the firmware, the original firmware has trouble even with keeping a single IE browser session open, with no other cameras connected. I have had much better luck with them after updating the firmware (they are a great camera, overall) Sanyo tech support can give you a login for their FTP site (CoreFTP seems to work well for a client, on their site)

ΛΛΛΛ That's always an option, and if you run IP cameras that have their own free recording software (Acti, etc), and use an inexpensive PC as your recorder, the cost premium of the IP cameras can be well offset by the reduced cost of the recorder and the wireless IP link (keep in mind, multiple IP cameras can run on one IP link, where analog wireless transmitters requires one for each channel of video). And, the increased image quality and resolution of IP cameras may require less cameras to accomplish the goal, depending on conditions. For example, a good quality analog wireless link rated for 1+ mile retails for well over $1000.00, and that doesn't include PTZ control capability, or two way audio capability (add another thousand or so for that)..... Cost for Ubiquiti equipment to accomplish that distance link- under $160.00, MSRP. (which can comfortably run several cameras or more, at well over a mile)...That leaves a lot of room for better cameras and recording equipment, or analog to Ethernet encoders.

For more information, you can start here, at the Ubiquiti wiki... http://www.ubnt.com/wiki/Main_Page, take a look at "Transparent Bridging using two UBNT devices", that is probably the most common scenario when using this type of equipment. I have found that the Ubiquiti equipment performs as well or better than equipment costing three times or more, and use it frequently. Having said that, I use direct wired connections whenever possible, for the best reliability. A great primer on wireless networking is available for free at "Wireless Networking in the Developing World", http://wndw.net/download.html. It is a comprehensive overview of wireless and conventional networking technology, in a very usable format.

Not to mention the fun involved with pulling a 1000' run with no splices in an average building. An old install we did had nine sets of RG/59 and 18/2 running about 1000'... That took five guys simultaneously feeding the cable at different spots to get it through. And 1000' feet in a box/reel is only an estimated length, they can vary 10% or so, on that job we had boxes that had only three feet to spare at the headend, and others with thirty feet or more left. *****Edit**** We have a hospital with 2500+ foot twisted pair runs, we use Nitek active baluns, works well (although we are doing all new cams as IP!)

Nice to see it up and running, thanks for the feedback. Do you have it running on the solar yet?

Those appear to be Ubiquiti RocketDish 5G antennas,presumably with the Rocket M5 radio, those are very effective, but way overkill for a 600 Meter link, the NanoStationM5's (http://ubnt.com/nanostationm) would work fine, at a retail $160.00USD or so per pair.

That's incorrect. I just had the same question last week for a job coming up. More than one Exacq employee told me that encoders use 1 license per channel EXCEPT for select Axis 4ch models. I too was looking at using the Acti 16 ch encoder... but not anymore. Between the encoder and license price, I could put just put in IP cams from the start. I sure wish Exacq sold capture cards... Looks like an IP only solution at least for me. Encoders are too damn expensive. I had a system quoted out using the encoders, with the understanding from several people at Exacq, that only one license per encoder was necessary.... I'm glad I didn't get that job, now! Sorry about the misinformation, but that was the answer I had gotten from several people at Exacq, gotta have a little talk with them now....

Even their wireless-N stuff? Yes, this is with the "N" rate equipment. Keep in mind, I have tested this with IPERF, in real world conditions, with TCP packets which load a connection far more heavily than UDP, because they require an ACK return for each packet delivered. The 54/104 Turbo data rates often listed for A/B/G equipment is the modulation rate, throughput (even in perfect conditions) is approximately 22-45 Mbps (UDP). Also, manufacturers rate throughput as an aggregate of upload and download rates, which can artificially inflate specs (keep in mind, video is almost completely unidirectional traffic). Rating this way gives rates in the 200-300 Mbps range for the Ubiquiti equipment, but if you use these kind of specs for trying to calculate a link for video, you are going to be sorry. For link quality calculations, there are multiple vendor sites that have link calculators (Ubiquiti's is here, at http://www.ubnt.com/airlink/ ). For the best link quality modeling, I use Radio Mobile http://www.cplus.org/rmw/english1.html ,but it has a really steep learning curve, plus requiring a pretty good knowledge of the specs for the particular wireless equipment you are using. BTW, Ubiquiti equipment is capable of 100+ KM range, if terrain and Fresnel zones are clear (If you are doing links of any significant length, get an understanding of what Fresnel zone means before you start).

This is key - it's an auto-iris lens, meaning in bright light the iris closes down, which gives you greater depth of focus... so something at a certain distance may be in focus over a wide range of adjustment. When it gets dark, though, the iris opens up and lowers the depth, so a much narrower range of distances are in focus, and the distance that you set the focus at in the daytime may now be out of focus. I always focus cameras in daytime covering the lens with a #6 welding filter, that allows the iris to open enough to get a decent night focus with bright daylight.

According to Exacq, one license per MAC/device, no matter how many channels.

I can't speak on Video Insight, as I haven't used it personally, but I can say that you will have significantly less processor overhead from Exacq, compared to Luxriot.

I've worked with the single and four channel units (which have been working fine, 2+ years), I haven't used the 16 channel units, but I wouldn't expect any problems.

It would probably be best to try and hook up a server and client over a hardwired link, and see what kind of throughput you will have/need in that configuration. Depending on the server configuration, you might not get that framerate, even with a local connection, due to server/client limits. Best to figure that out first, and then work with your wireless links. I'm not sure about Hikvision, but often, servers have settings to allow adjusting compression type/amount for remote viewing to work with available bandwidth.

Line of sight is going to be a necessity to get the kind of data rates you are talking about, you may have to use masts to extend high enough to accomplish that, or find another site to use as a relay point. The highest throughput you are likely to get with Ubiquiti equipment is about 60Mbps (easily achieved at 1Km with Ubiquiti hardware, with quite a bit of fade margin for rain/snow), beyond that you will need to either use multiple parallel links with link aggregation in the switches at each end (LACP or OSPF), or some very high end hardware. You might want to look at the option of a server at each location, with just viewing/playback running over the link to a central station, (Milestone and Exacq can easily do this, as can other NVR softwares), the bandwidth requirements would be much lower. When just running viewing bandwidth, a few Mbps could be sufficient, and that could run on non-line of sight 900Mhz links. Getting 100Mbps actual throughput (or more) from a wireless link raises the price VERY significantly (as in, a server at each site might be cheaper!)... often $10,000 USD or more, for 150-250 Mbps links.

And that is why I want to become a Avigilon dealer NO ONLINE PRICING you can only buy direct though a dealer " title="Applause" /> AGREED! We do the same thing. We supply PROFESSIONALS with PROFESSIONAL level gear, there is no online pricing anywhere. Period. I wish more manufactures watched their online pricing structure closer. Not throwing any stones at Erron (didn't find his product online, as he said), but often the manufacturers that make the most claims about protecting their dealers (Panasonic I-Pro comes to mind, among others), do not protect their dealers as well as other, lower profile companies....

Wireshark is a very handy tool, also jperf is a great tool for testing bandwidth on Ethernet links (especially handy for wireless links). Angry IP Scanner works well for showing all live IP's on a network quickly (NMAP is good, too, but takes a little longer to use).

I had a install in a Vegas C-store where the clerk was watching us install the cameras (including directly over the counter), and text inserters. He then proceeded to skim the register.. that night! when we went back the following day, we were demonstrating the playback to the store owner when we came across the event. He didn't complain about the cost of the system, after that day!

I have a setup running a Pelco Esprit PTZ with the Acti encoder/decoder set, works well, one stream goes to the decoder with a monitor and KBD300 keyboard, the other stream is recorded on a Milestone NVR system. It's running a few hundred yards over Ubiquiti Nanostations. I've been using Ubiquiti wireless gear for several years now, both their Mini-PCI cards (SR9, XR2, XR5) in Mikrotik Routerboards, and their Nanostations, Nanobridges, Rocket and Bullet models, and had very good success with them. Their newer "M" series wireless N data rate gear has great throughput, at a pretty untouchable price (I've got some of the new 900Mhz gear on order, waiting impatiently to get it to test it out). Our local wireless internet provider, with several thousand subscribers, is changing to all Ubiquiti gear on new installs, and repairs.

Exacq will let you run up to the number of channel licenses you have purchased. It licenses against the MAC of the server it is installed on (purchase the licenses and give them the MAC of the server, and they give you the licensing key#). It does not require any licensing changes for cameras, just delete one camera and setup another one. It's performance requirements are low enough that you can run four cameras on just about any computer you have laying around.

Yes, those devices are Ethernet (IP) only. For transferring analog video, encoders and decoders would be required, although many DVR's are now supporting at least some IP cameras. What is your exact scenario and hardware you are working with? Or, if this is just in the planning stage, we may be able to help with some solutions.

A pair of the Ubiquiti NanoStation Loco M5's , http://ubnt.com/nanostationm, would run $138.00 MSRP, and would be capable of several Kilometers (carrying several cameras simultaneously), and are already weatherproof for outdoor mounting. They have other models that are capable of 20+ kilometers, for not a whole lot more. Analog equipment to run those kinds of distances effectively run into the thousands of dollars.

I haven't touched analog wireless video in years: the performance you can get with 802.11 based video far exceeds anything I ever saw in analog, plus you are establishing an Ethernet link that can be used for other functions, as well. ANY link, analog or IP based, can be susceptible to interference, but a properly installed Ethernet link will be far more resistant to interference, due to the error correction that is available in an IP link, compared to analog. You also have the ability to run multiple links on a single channel, something you can't do with analog wireless. The proliferation of wireless network hardware also means that equipment for an IP link will be significantly cheaper than analog equipment.

Yes, if you contact their technical support, they can give you a FTP login for downloading firmwares... BTW, Filezilla did not work well for a FTP client on their site, I had better luck with CoreFTP (also free).