NotoriousBRK

Wait, so the hdcctv guys haven't even developed a full suite of products and worked out all the issues around the *current* quasi-standards, and now they're trying to talk about hddctv 3.0? When will that be available? 2020?

In the typical outdoor scenario our camera DOES replace a burglar alarm. That's how it works, we've got a slew of video central station partners building profitable businesses around getting valid events, and screening out all the nuisance alarms and garbage you get from outdoor beams and motions that make it impossible for those technologies to be a reliable replacement.

IMO They are a total waste of money, definitely NOT a lot of light and I used 2 models. The light they emit is hardly useful for CCTV cameras and yet its so bright on the eyes its painful, better off using Infrared, a Dusk to dawn or motion lighting. What spectrum of visible light is not usable by CCTV cameras? I'm curious what camera(s) you tested with, my results with the Raytec units have been similar to Thewireguys', they've worked well.

Ive done alot of PC repair work for homes over the years and Ive had to replace many routers. I myself have gone through 3 routers in the past 3 years or so alone. Most dont have switches though. Then again Ive had some routers last 10 years without a major glitch. But it IS an additional point of failure. In the common IP network, the *router* is rarely in the packet path between the cameras and the NVR. Of course, if you're trying to build a quality surveillance system, you might not want to use some little $40 plastic-encased thing from Wal Mart (which is probably a $90 plastic thing in the Islands ) You don't need super high-end gear, but spend an extra $100 for a decent switch and it'll last as long as the cameras in most cases. Many of the larger analog systems I've seen have more potential failure points in the signal path: amplifiers/ Disti Amps, physical layer converter devices, etc.

I wouldn't call that a "fair" statement. Both camera types will generally have a dedicated cable running from the camera, back dozens or hundreds of feet to a centralized device. In either scenario, a cable failure of any kind will render that camera inoperable. In both systems you have a centralized recorder. A DVR for hdcctv, an NVR for IP cameras. There are a number of factors that could cause either of those centralized recorders to not function. The central recorder is the weak point of BOTH systems. The LAN itself is generally no prone to failure. Network switches have become commodities, and last for many years of constant duty and don't frequently fail except in cases of things like a power failure, or someone spilling something in the switch (uncommon). Central recorders with moving parts (hard drives) constantly chugging video from multiple cameras are the most common cause of video loss.

I'm always a little surprised that anyone falls for any part of the hdcctv gambit, but this is one that is especially puzzling. Look at your "average" cctv deployment, and what the typical customer is really willing to spend money on. Almost none of these will budget enough pixels-per-foot to capture all the details they want in all the camera views. So, you can take a 720p or 1080p camera and cover a 100ft wide area. You'll get a much better picture than would have with an SD camera, but in most of that view you're not going to have enough pixels per foot to get *really* good detail. Carrying the image over IP or SDI or via Carrier Pigeon doesn't materially affect the outcome of a system that has placed 400 pixels *total* on a license plate at the far end of the FOV. In the end, I don't see hdcctv offering any real benefits in terms of cost, picture quality or system usability. It's sweet spot is the limited markets that value lower latency images, and DIY systems where people don't want to pay an installer, or only want the most basic system.

Google "Dranetz meter".

No one the pro-hdcctv points you made were accurate or logical. I didn't want to spend a lot of time disputing them, especially when others have already done so. Your perspective seemed to be that of the "afraid of IP" perspective... Worrying about theoretical failed switches and network outages and stuff like that.

RG9, the whole system is cheaper in the long run and its stronger cable. Stronger cable? What exactly are you doing with your security camera cabling down in the Bahamas?

Not sure which "supplier" you mean. Why would a dealer buy from a different distributor? And/or why would a dealer buy a different product (eg: camera)?

Rugged in what way? Vibration proof? Extreme temperatures? High g-forces? Vandal deterrent?

No offense (ok, maybe a *little* offense), but if you don't understand why a cellphone camera is a horribly inadequate platform for a CCTV camera, then you probably shouldn't opine on higher level topics like the overall viability of any one architecture over another.

Thanks for your explanation. Can I have (2) LAN addresses within the same network? Like 192.168 for existing and configure the cisco wireless router for 172.17 for the mobotix cameras? Again, thanks to all of you, I have learned so much. Yes, you certainly can. But a device with a 192.168.x.x IP address cannot talk to a 172.17.x.x device (even if they are on the same switch) without the aid of a router. You also have the ability to bind multiple IP's to a PC. So the PC could be on both networks and use the 192.168.x.x subnet for Internet access and the 172.17.x.x for camer access.

Yes, that's what we're saying. 4 people streaming a typical VGA camera would be about 2-4Mbps (assuming h.264). A small mjpeg stream might be 3x that (6-12Mbps), in either scenario not a significant impact on your network. Or, think of it like this, you could buy a cheap IP cam and have it setup and working in an hour or two. If it *didn't* work and chewed up the network you would know almost instantly and could return it or sell it on craigslist or something. Then you can do your convoluted (sorry) 1980's era cable-drop-to-every-station approach. But, I think you'll find the IP camera won't be a problem

Why would you not want to use an IP camera? Get a cheap D1 IP camera that supports h.264. The image stream will be less than 1Mbps. 5 or 6 people watching this on a typical 100Mb/s network is a rounding error in the network impact it would make. What you're proposing is likely to be more expensive, and highly cumbersome to deal with.

195.85.1.x is a "routable" subnet. It is specifically assigned as follows: BRKs-MacBook-Air:~ brk$ whois 195.85.1.225 # # Query terms are ambiguous. The query is assumed to be: # "n 195.85.1.225" # # Use "?" to get help. # # # The following results may also be obtained via: # http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=195.85.1.225?showDetails=true&showARIN=false # NetRange: 195.0.0.0 - 195.255.255.255 CIDR: 195.0.0.0/8 OriginAS: NetName: RIPE-CBLK3 NetHandle: NET-195-0-0-0-1 Parent: NetType: Allocated to RIPE NCC Comment: These addresses have been further assigned to users in Comment: the RIPE NCC region. Contact information can be found in Comment: the RIPE database at http://www.ripe.net/whois RegDate: 1996-03-25 Updated: 2009-03-25 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-195-0-0-0-1 OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre OrgId: RIPE Address: P.O. Box 10096 City: Amsterdam StateProv: PostalCode: 1001EB Country: NL RegDate: Updated: 2011-03-15 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/RIPE ReferralServer: whois://whois.ripe.net:43 OrgTechHandle: RNO29-ARIN OrgTechName: RIPE NCC Operations OrgTechPhone: +31 20 535 4444 OrgTechEmail: do_not_email@ripe.invalid OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/RNO29-ARIN RTechHandle: RIPE-NCC-ARIN RTechName: RIPE NCC Hostmaster RTechPhone: +31 20 535 4444 RTechEmail: search-ripe-ncc-not-arin@ripe.net RTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/RIPE-NCC-ARIN # # ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use # available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html # % This is the RIPE Database query service. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions. % See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf % Note: this output has been filtered. % To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag. % Information related to '195.85.0.0 - 195.85.127.255' inetnum: 195.85.0.0 - 195.85.127.255 org: ORG-DA10-RIPE admin-c: PL4834-RIPE tech-c: SL5260-RIPE netname: DK-DANISCO-970206 descr: DANISCO country: DK status: ALLOCATED PA mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-routes: AS15411-mnt mnt-lower: AS15411-mnt source: RIPE # Filtered organisation: ORG-DA10-RIPE org-name: DANISCO org-type: LIR address: Danisco A/S Per Lahrmann Langebrogade 1 DK 1001 Copenhagen K DENMARK phone: +45 32 66 20 00 fax-no: +45 32 66 21 61 e-mail: per.lahrmann@danisco.com admin-c: PL4834-RIPE admin-c: SL5260-RIPE mnt-ref: SE-COLT-MNT mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered person: Per Lahrmann address: Danisco A/S address: Langebrogade 1 1411 Copenhagen K Denmark phone: +45 40460515 mnt-by: as15411-mnt nic-hdl: PL4834-RIPE source: RIPE # Filtered person: Steffen Lindemann address: Danisco A/S address: Langebrogade 1 address: 1411 Copenhagen K address: Denmark phone: +45 51169075 nic-hdl: SL5260-RIPE mnt-by: as15411-mnt source: RIPE # Filtered % Information related to '195.85.0.0/17AS15411' route: 195.85.0.0/17 descr: Danisco Enterprise Network origin: AS15411 mnt-by: AS15411-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered So, in your first building the routers and network were setup to know that this publicly routable subnet was in fact in that very building. When you moved all the cameras over to the new building, you didn't do anything to configure the routers there. So, when you try to go to http://195.85.1.225 from your 169.23.1.x subnet, the PC says "that address is not local, let me send these packets to my router so they can go to the Internet". Then, your router tries to send those packets out to where it expects that address to be (presumably the other building). But, of course the cameras are no longer there, so the whole thing fails. You basically need to re-address the cameras to have IP addresses on the subnet they are now installed on.

Our cameras (VideoIQ) will handle cold weather just fine. Standard models go down to -20C operating temp (keep in mind the cameras generate some of their own heat), and extended temp models go down to -30C. We have units deployed across parts of Canada and other regions that get very cold with no issues. Add Fluidmesh to your list of mesh network companies to check out.

A 14mm lens will have a 2.5ft *horizontal* FOV, but only a 1.75ft *vertical* FOV, so you wouldn't cover the entire 30"x30" area. In this case, since he's looking for a square (1:1 ratio) area on a rectangular (4:3) camera, and the vertical resolution is smaller than the horizontal, you have to solve for the vertical. At a 7.5' working distance, an 11mm lens will give you a vertical FOV of ~2.5ft and a horizontal FOV of ~3.3ft. Note, the actual numbers may be *slightly* different, I'm working off an old skool lens calc wheel, not that fancy online thing

What is the size of the text you are trying to see? An analog camera is going be in the range of 704x480 pixels. If you're trying to cover a 30"x30" area, then you're going to be limited to having about 480x480 pixels on that area. 480 pixels / 2.5 feet (30 inches) would be 192 pixels per foot, so you should get good clarity down to at least about a credit-card font. So, it's just a matter of lens math... On a 1/3" sensor 4:3 camera you're going to want a 10mm lens. Most lenses are varifocal, so look for something that goes from at least 7-13mm (give or take a bit), so that you have a little bit of wiggle room in the lens setting based on how things end up after the install.

How about this: [edit by mod-store link removed]

Well, I thought I had a pretty good idea about video motion detection, but maybe I'll pay attention to more of your posts and try to learn some new things. You've clearly got this figured out.

False I have a camera mounted under my front door and overlooks my walkway, driveway and street. I ONLY get recordings when people walk up my driveway or front door walkway. Never since setting up my motion detect region to mask the street have I had emails or recordings sent from street motion. Maybe your just using the wrong equipment No, maybe I just have more experience in it than you do. I will guarantee that you do not ONLY get recordings from people, unless you have also managed to prevent any kind of animal or weather intrusion into the area as well. Motion detection is horrible outdoors, and to lead someone to believe that it's a viable solution is improper. I will admit that when some people compare "free" motion detection to an actual analytics application that has a real cost, they MAY decide that they do not want to spend additional money for greatly enhanced performance, but there is not a "motion detection" product on the market that can properly deal with all the random activity that comes along in the typical outdoor environment. If you want to use the motion detection only to try to maximize recording time, then it can have limited benefit, because you're not getting alerts, you're just using it to mask out the completely dead times.

"Motion detection" doesn't work in any outdoor setting. You're going to need some kind of real video analytics to achieve what you want without getting a flood of false alarms.

It depends on a few things. If you have a picture (eg: a static image file) stored in a lossy compression format (jpeg, etc.) there is little to no enhancement you can do with that. If you have a picture from a DSLR or higher-end camera that is stored in a lossless (eg: RAW) format, you can often coax some additional details from the image. I'm not aware of ANY security cameras that produce any kind of snapshot image that can be reasonably enhanced. If you have a video clip (eg: a series of images), you can *sometimes* get a little bit of additional detail out of it. This is usually achieved for example when you have a license plate that appears across several frames, and portions of the plate are clearer in some frames vs. others. In that case a skilled person can sometimes composite a full license plate image from a series of stills from the video clip. You still cannot generally create detail that doesn't exist (it's unreasonable to expect to get a plate image from a video file that captures the plate with 10 pixels per foot on target, no matter how many frames you get.). So, the summary is that for the most part "what you see is what you get".

I admit I haven't done a whole lot this kind of stuff, but it sounds like you're mostly going to be looking at equipment intended for broadcast TV functions, which is going to mean high price. 10 seconds is a very long time to buffer an analog signal without suffering severe degredation of the signal. I doubt there is a solution much under $700. It might make sense to have a small PC with a USB video capture card and some kind of software that can just do a 10 second timeshift. Or, buy about 5 used Tivo Series 2's on ebay. They seem to add a natural 2 second lag