Fiona

Might want to take a look at the topic about microphones under Security Cameras. Lots of info about Louroe from mike_va and Soundy and Co.

Is there any cost effective method of GPS tagging a vehicle and tracking its whereabouts with a PC? I believe personal phones can be used if the personal cell/mobile phone is known. Otherwise, I suppose that the vehicle would have to be 'tagged' with a GPS emitter and then that signal would somehow have to be recognised by a satellite which would then pin-point its location. I have advised the Drug Squad to tag a few local drug dealers' cars, but I don't suppose they'll listen to me.

Thanks a lot Mike. Is that the Verifact A in the photo? Nice shot of the PCB. Probably the same internals for the Verifact E Outdoor Enclosure: http://www.louroe.com/products/specifications/emic_louroe.pdf The larger base stations seem only to take 110AC. Still going through their spec sheets. Louroe AP-2TB http://www.louroe.com/products/specifications/ap2tb_louroe.pdf Plus they sell a single base station plus the Verifact E as a kit too. http://www.louroe.com/products.php?id=121

Thanks for the chart and the advice Soundy. Looking at Louroe now: http://www.louroe.com/ http://www.security-technologynews.com/article/louroe-microphones.html I will add the details of a specific microphone... Louroe seem to have a lot of surveillance microphones. (Mostly I USPS everything straight in from the US. Six days delivery.)

Thanks Soundy. I am dead on my feet. For those who find all this a bit hard to believe, here is a poor image from a moving dome of the Police last night. (I moved the dome away from them.) This is about a 1/6 image from the VK. There are three male officers and a marked Police vehicle.

I had the Police turn up again last night. I didn't make the call. Other neighbours must have gotten jack of the worst neighbours you have ever seen. That event prompted me to stop procrastinating about the microphone solution. If I had to explain every criminal activity..... Another heroin addict stuck a needle in his arm just minutes ago. Thanks Mike. I am now looking into the recommendations you made. I am a bit drowsy today. Didn't get much sleep at all last night. Axis 243SA: http://www.axis.com/products/cam_243sa/ Axis 243SA Pdf: http://www.axis.com/files/datasheet/ds_243sa_32853_en_1010_lo.pdf I need a microphone that can go into the DVR and also somehow give me live sound on the bad nights. Anyone know of a complete Plug-and-Play solution regardless of cost?

Everyone knows about Newton and Einstein, but James Clerk Maxwell barely gets a mention. Yet he is regarded as their equal. (I first heard of him through a physics teacher.) Wikipedia: "His most prominent achievement was formulating classical electromagnetic theory. This united all previously unrelated observations, experiments and equations of electricity, magnetism and optics into a consistent theory.[Maxwell's equations demonstrated that electricity, magnetism and light are all manifestations of the same phenomenon, namely the electromagnetic field. Subsequently, all other classic laws or equations of these disciplines became simplified cases of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's achievements concerning electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics", after the first one realized by Isaac Newton."

The way Dahua is devouring the Chinese market, it looks set for market domination one day. As any company gets a larger slice of the market, it is able to devote more capital to R&D and distribution etc. This process becomes self-perpetuating until the efficiencies of scale put other smaller factories out of business. This is the same for any company. I wonder about a DVR manufacturer mostly, because the amount of work behind the software is huge. (Unless the software separates from the hardwire like IBM and MicroSoft.) I was only loosely comparing Dahua to Pelco and their domes. The technology in a Pelco dome (apart from the chassis camera) looks minor compared to the effort required to make a state-of-the-art DVR. I don't doubt that CNB domes are fine. Though I don't know about CNB's approach to parts. With Pelco, the domination is such that any part is easily available. Cameras are certainly the big problem. As far as the generics go, ASA 9001 manufacturers form my shortlist.

The secret around here is Dahua. However, the day may come when we regret the market domination of this company. It is the objective of every company to dominate and monopolise its market. It seeks to do this for obvious reasons. Market domination may also allow it to increase its price dramatically because it will by then have devasted the smaller DVR companies. That is why I am wondering about other alternatives to this brand. We don't need to create another Pelco and then watch it turn around and burn its customers by charging premium prices because there are no viable alternatives.

I obviously read that. But you miss the point. I wondered: "Any explanation as to why it has better fog capabilities?" The KP-DE500 appears to be marketed as Hitachi's top 1/2" camera and sells for $6000+, while the KP-D5000 sells for $1800. It seems remarkable that a camera that sells for 1/3 less than the KP-DE500 outblasts it in a fog test. Anyone might wonder why the KP-DE500 doesn't have AFR. And, besides, cameras are replete with terms like this. It seems rather incredible that the processing of an image can remove fog. The question still stands: how can fog, which acts like a vapour laden screen, be penetrated digitally after the fact. Unless this is simply another marketing ploy - Hitachi uses a very, very light fog and then claims to have magically beaten it. Like I have already told you Stanislav, I read everything. I just don't believe everything I read.

Just as a footnote to Tom's recommendation, I stuck an indoor DSC Encore onto an exposed outdoor location a couple of years back. I taped the seams with packing tape and tried it out for the heck of it. Two years later, that sensor is still working perfectly. It has no IP rating as the plastic cover is rather flimsy. Never designed for outdoors but it worked. Okay for a DIYer but not recommended for other installations. Also, any opinions on the GE Sentrol 6180?

The three still shots come from three different Hitachi cameras aimed at the same subject. The top left shot is the KP-D5000. It retails for about $1800 US. Any explanation as to why it has better fog capabilities? Hitachi refers to “Adaptive Fog Reduction.” It appears to be a highly sensitive CCD, but the details of the sensor have not been established. Also, without a reference shot, it is difficult to estimate the extent of the ‘fog’ released by Hitachi. Any explanations about the top left photo?

Strictly speaking, the thicker the fog gets, the worse the visibilty. Light just bounces off the water-laden air. The expert claims that the characteristics of IR light in fog closely match the behaviour of light from the visible spectrum.

Is it worth knowing the difference between IR, visible light and low light image capture in conditions of fog, rain, snow or smoke? Do thermal sensors always have the advantage? (Notwithstanding high price.) Example of image in fog with the Hitachi KP-D5000 vs KP-DE500. Hitachi claim it's a Hitachi Fog Demo. The description below it says 'smoke'.

Closed circuit television has always implied the connection of a camera to a television set or a monitor. This obvious fact is often overlooked as we take the display for granted. Therefore we should acknowledge that Television was invented: and that the invention of television played an indispensable role in the establishment of CCTV . The inventor of television was John Logie Baird in 1926. Baird, like Maxwell, was Scottish. http://www.bairdtelevision.com/

Hi Stanislav, sorry to butt-in at the end of another one of your tour-de-forces. I wonder if you might be so kind as to comment on the affect that fog or smoke may have on reflecting or absorbing IR illumination. Any comments would be warmly welcomed. Question: Does fog, smoke or heavy rain reduce the affect of IR illumination?

SecurityNub observed: "Looking for another camera, but I can't even find the specs." That is the basic problem that now prevails across the entire CCTV industry. You will not find any valid specifications for any camera because every manufacturer and retailer lies through their teeth about what they claim their cameras can do. When this problem of hugely exaggerated specifications of cheaper cameras began, the Japanese seemed to be caught flat-footed. Instead of vigorously attacking the fantasy specifications and explaining to the general public, or even to the small demographic of users, professionals and enthusiasts, that objective camera specifications can, do and should exist, what did the Japanese brand name companies do? They started lying about their own specifications as well. If the Japanese have ever gotten anything wrong, this is it: the indecisive specifications' response to the phony camera specifications that ate into their market is the supreme example. There is a need to identify specific CCD Sensors that are installed in specific cameras so that a clearer idea of the performance of these specific sensors can be known. As Stanislav has pointed out, the specific sensor makes a profound difference to the potential capability of any camera. By identifying sensors, it ought to be possible to create a short list of cameras that have a potentially similar performance, notwithstanding other issues such as DSP, longevity, heat capacity, power consumption etc.

I'd imagine the first surveillance happened when the Neanderthals were stalked by Cro-Magnon man about 43,000 to 24,000 years ago. The Neanderthals were compassionate, intelligent hominids who cared for their frail kinfolk unlike the brutal and stupid Cro-Magnon man. The brutal Cro-Magnons exterminated the compassionate Neanderthals. This scenario was all fully explained by Charles Darwin. Survival of the better adapted. What does that say about the future of Homo sapien sapiens? If the Pelco protocols are simply Pelco's arrangement of commands over the Manchester Code, then perhaps there is still a chance that new protocols will emerge. With the boom in PTZs, I can imagine the possibility of a new, more rational approach to the problem of keyboard commands. Although, granted, it's not likely. Pelco is the dominant player certainly, but we know there are many other manufacturers who refuse to dance to Pelco's tune. (That's why Pelco invented the translator board.)

The Manchester Code seems to shadow the entire PTZ language realm. As an analogy, I understood that the Code functioned like DOS in a PC: as an underlying basic language? If that is true, then the chassis camera communications were established on top of the Manchester Code? If this is true, then did Pelco simply establish a set of awkward commands through the Manchester Code? And then, presumably, because Pelco had some influence on the market, the Pelco protocols assumed a dominant position with the PTZ realm, and this dominance was then picked up and used by other manufacturers as a defacto industry standard? N.B. I am not expecting anyone to answer this. Just thinking aloud.

Hitachi KP-DE500 Ultra High Sensitivity Camera. The sensitivity threshold for commercial ½” CCD cameras may have been set by the Hitachi KP-DE500 which uses the Ultra High Sensitivity EM-CCD image sensor with thermoelectric cooling. Cost: approx. $6320 US (plus lens) Hitachi KP-DE500 & KP-E500 Colour Datasheet Dated November 2010 (2 Pages): http://www.hitachi-keu.com/content/industry/kameras_sw/pdf/kp-de500_kp-e500_datasheet.pdf Hitachi KP-DE500 & KP-E500 Datasheet Dated May 2011 (2 Pages): http://www.imagelabs.com/wp-content/plugins/imagelabs/cameras/42.pdf Comparison of KP-DE500 with KP-D531U and KP-D591U http://www.rmassa.com/specsheets/High%20Sensitivity%20Spec1.pdf Demonstrations of KP-DE500 night performance: Quote: : “they put the latest sensor and the most expensive setup”: (1.23 mins) Following video not particularly useful: (56 secs) Hitachi’s own fog demonstration. Hard to make sense of it as there is no reference image. (60 secs) Hitachi KP-DE500 Specifications Rev 1.0 Dated November 2005 (9 Pages): http://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/165004/HITACHI/KP-DE500.html Comparison of sensors: ICCD to EM-CCD http://www.stanfordcomputeroptics.com/t-iccd-and-emccd.html The KP-DE500 with15X Optical is used within the Hitachi HC-268 360º x 90º unit which retails for $37,584 US: http://www.hitachi-kokusai.co.jp/global/products/camera/ptz_camera_series/hc-268-f_t.html Also see: Security Cameras: Camera light sensitivity specifications

Let’s not forget that Marconi simply applied the electromagnetic theory of James Clerk Maxwell, (a Scot) and one of the 19th century’s most brilliant scientists. This fact has been written out of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell

I've been looking for historic documents for a while and apart from a brief overview in Wikipedia, I have found little. I am also curious about the historical evolution of the Pelco protocols which work in a language established for the chassis cameras: who first developed the protocols and how did the original, commercially supplied dome cameras come about; presumably as a liaison between Sony or Hitachi and Pelco many years ago.

Further to the discussion of S.M.A.R.T. characteristics: various shareware and freeware versions of these applications are available on line. The installation of these applications on a PC would help users familiarise themselves with the very broad range of measurements S.M.A.R.T. applications catalogue.

As an alternative to PIRs (Duals, Redwalls etc), it may be possible to use a photoelectric sensor such as the Sunx NX5 long range thru-beam sensor. Aimed across any wide access point; corridor; driveway or yard, it would provide a very reliable optional method for activating a camera.

S.M.A.R.T. hard disk evaluation software does not produce 100% reliable assessments of any particular hard drive. Every S.M.A.R.T. application interprets a S.M.A.R.T. supported hard drive with subtly different measurements which figure into an algorithm that is simplified for the user and presented as a Health or Condition Rating. This rating can be a term such as ‘slight wear’ or it may be simply a percentage. Either way, the application software is aiming at the same objective: the prediction of hard disk failure. Every S.M.A.R.T. application evaluates hard disks differently. The use of three or four different S.M.A.R.T. applications on any test hard disk will produce three or four slightly different results or evaluations. For example, one S.M.A.R.T. application will assess the test hard disk as 100% Healthy while the next application will give it a rating of, say, 99.8% with some obscure mention of an error. Often these errors are irrelevant to the reliable functioning of the drive. It is possible to test a hard disk with several thousand hours of hard use and the S.M.A.R.T software will give the disk a warning and flag it as a candidate for replacement. At the same time, that disk will continue to function correctly with no bad sectors or issues detrimental to the data. The whole point to S.M.A.R.T. is to act as an extremely cautious and pessimistic evaluation tool for the prediction of hard disk failure. Ivan at Dahua probably wasn’t too worried about it because there is no need to be concerned. N.B. S.M.A.R.T software has infinite uses for checking the minutiae of information about a particular hard disk. It is not simply there to predict catastrophic failure.