normicgander

For remote LAN/WAN viewing, TeleEye video recording servers are decent. Multil channel processing.

Some IP cameras can have an analog RS-170A output (reduced image size). However the original imager may not be progressive scan.

Yes, but often dedicated networks are installed anyway for IP camera systems. The problem with DVRs is most use ITU 601 encoder chipsets . So forget anything above 4CIF, then factor in compression. Ah, then let's not forget the 2 field problem associated with interlaced RS-170A video cameras in dynamic scenes. As a solution for the transitional market, We will see more OEMs introducing progressive scan cameras with analog outputs (There could be the potential for 700 to 1000 tvl plus cameras). This will improve performance of standard D1 DVRs. But, the problem will still be the DVR. If DVR OEMs would improve their effective TV lines of resoultion, it would be a big improvement. In the end, IP or analog, it's going to be the cost vs. quality, length of storage, bandwidth etc. which the customer/end user must decide to purchase.

First steps: Is the system battery or ac line powered? is it overt or covert? Can the system be accessed for maintenance and at what intervals?

Yes, overall analog RS-170A CCTV cameras have done a fair job over the last few decades. It's time to move forward- progressive scan cameras with digital signal transmission (serial/rf channels) to the recording /storage system hub. The problem is why the IP network from the camera to the headend? I realize the need and importance of the network connection for PC viewing etc. Perhaps the IP network (TCP/IP) was an available platform etc., so the sheep were hearded in that direction by the expert industry shepards.

Questions: Are standards always a good thing or does it limit competitve technical innovation? I’m not necessarily referring to “standardâ€

I'm thinking more in the line of developing a widget, such as a ditigal CCTV camera as example, which could be better than say an RS-170A (NTSC compatible) camera. We have been using the same type of analog camera for decades now. There have been many enhancements of course (DSP,WDR etc.). Not trying to get too specific here with examples. The end-users do drive the product requirements, but a company can always develop/produce a better widget to give the customer improved capability etc, especially if it more cost-effective. This is the heart of free-market competition. As for the auto industry, wow, their problems are more cultural. Change for them is like trying to turn the Queen Mary (which is perhaps easier ). Many big corporations are like the government -very hard to change at root level in my experience. Time to close up shop and go home. Cheers.

Dealer section perhaps? However, Scorpion, as usual, makes good points!

Good points Soundy. I'm still searching for that near perfect DVR. I tend to lean toward image quality first and archiving, because obtaining a good forensic snapshot of a subject of interest is critical. We need to educate the customer that 2 weeks of quality images is better than 2 months of low-quality "stuff." I would rather not deal with the future problems and disappointed customers. Catching a nice batch of perch through the ice can be more productive . We all see the poor quality images and video clips on TV. I have always recommended recording at the highest-quality settings, but even the $6000 DVRs come up short at times. Then there's the deinterlace issues of 2 fields which most DVRS don't even attempt to process. You will see more analog progressive scan cameras which will solve this problem, resulting in better image quality. The question is what can we do, besides progressive scan IP cameras? Are the ADC chip sets used in DVRs bounding quality as well or is it just over compression?

I would not discount your assertions Thomas. However, we have been using TeleEye DVRs with multi-steam video coders with success. Compared to the cost of GE DVMRe series we used to install, the TeleEye DVRs are significantly lower in cost and we can support the HDs etc....

Twist-on BNCs?

Hey Scorpion, I'm a bit linear but sounds like the police are conducting an arrest.... opps I missed the link... Seems interesting, but there's always risk in those structures.

We are starting to see dual codec DVRs and storage is much cheaper. Once we used see 160 to 320gb HDs in stand alone DVR offerings and now 1T is not unusual. So my point is reduce the level of compression to increase image quality because larger HDs are now available...

Seems we have been down this road before... 720x480, CIF, 2CIF, 4CIF, D1 or whatever means very little. The problem with our industry or perhaps the weak link is with DVR OEMs. They have failed to address poor image quality with too much image/video compression. They need to incorporate dual codecs, namely one for recording and one for network streaming. This way you can load up the DVR with TBs of low-cost capacity to record higher quality images, while remotely viewing lower quality video via the network. Of course the nework parameters should be adjustable based on bandwith. TeleEye seems to have the right approach in this regard, but they could also reduce video compression on the record channel. Then there is the issue of recording two fields when there is motion in the scene. Progressive scan cameras (i.e. Dallmeier) with intrepolated segmented fields for compatibility with typical analog input DVRs is required.

My goodness! Kell factor being applied to CCTV RS170 camera outputs which will be digitized, recorded and perhaps viewed on an LCD or printed on a piece of paper?

The new Dallmeier DF3000A-DN series cameras are awesome. It has a progressive scan imager and outputs 2 segmented field interpolations of of a captured frame. No more interlace distortion issues when recording D1 (frames) with motion in the captured scene. Just installed 8 box and 7 dome cameras in a high school. The remote control unit makes setup easy...

Using an NTSC waveform generator will represent the perfect camera. Specifically, the multiburst signal is ideal for testing frequency loss effects due to transmission media (UTP, coax, wireless etc). This is standard practice in broadcast TV for many decades.

For RS-170A OR NTSC compatible video (analog CCTV) you should use a multiburst signal and waveform monitor. Most baluns are just autotransformers which match the 75 ohm impedance to 100 impedance of the UTP cable.

Interesting article... http://www.3v.pl/pdf/or_manual.pdf

Yes there are many systems which fail to produce usable forensic evidence, but what were the end users expectations? Who is at fault really? Was it a charleton dealer/installer pushing low-quality equipment or was it the customer or end-user purchasing low-end equipment (internet direct) because they either didn't know better (or thought they did), or was it because they were too cheap to invest in a quality system. I would say most CCTV systems are used for post event analysis and are helpful to figure out when and what happened. Let's also face the fact that most DVRs over compress video to achieve longer record times, thus greatly deminishing image quality. The industry needs to move toward progress scan cameras, whereby compete frames are recorded, would be helpful under many conditions (even at D1). Most of the time yes, sometimes no. There are some criminal elements which will hit quick regardless of the countermeasure. Sometimes, but many industries have similar problems... quality, performance, service etc.. I would say they do deter many criminals. This is why some criminals often case businesses to see the weaknesses they can exploit. I'm not aware of any businesses or residences "requiring" any CCTV here the US (thank goodness). Perhaps there are some socialist countries or others which practice forms of totalitarianism. Hmm.. not sure CCTV itself can provide security and protection-especially unmanned systems. Perhaps alarms system can. Even with alarm systems a premeditated criminal could break in for whatever reason and be gone in a few minutes before the police arrive.....

It's not that you can't use 18AWG wire. You must adjust Vs to make up for the voltage drop (VRloop). Vload = Vsupply - VRloop The ampacity of 18AWG is about 2.3A for power transmission (operating temp and wire/jacket types are factors). The resistance (Rc) of a single conductor of 18AWG stranded wire is about 6.9 ohms per 1000ft. We have 2 conductors for a complete circuit, so: The loop resistance for 200ft of 18awg is: Rloop = Rc x 2 x d ------------ 1000 Rloop = 2.76 ohms or by ratios: Rc= 6.9/1000 = x/200 Rc = 1.38 ohms x 2 conductors = 2.76 ohms If It = 500mA (measure it at 12v to confirm), VRloop = It x Rloop = .5A x 2.76V = 1.38V The question is what is the operating voltage of the load device and are there other devices on the same supply to consider? What are the operating voltages of all loads devices and how do they compare? As example if you used a 12V power supply then: Vload = Vs - Vrloop = 12V - 1.38V = 10.62V You could use a variable power supply to compensate for voltage drop as example: Vs = Vload + Vrloop = 12V + 1.38V = 13.38V It's a sort of a game of numbers vs. the cable and power supplies you have available......

I hear what you're saying. DVRs in general over compress the video such that the video quality is not suitable. This is why "D1" or whatever is meaningless and has no figure of merit to obtain usable forensic images. With HD so cheap it's time the OEMs reduce the compression rates. Still won't help field interlace issues associated with analog cameras which can also impact image capture.

2.1mm x 5.5mm is most popular for mini domes and bullets....

Update: The unit was returned from Avermedia and they said no problems could be found. No reason for the failures....

Has anyone experienced the following error with the SA7208H PC based DVR? Critical Capture Device Fail!! This is listed in the event log. It can happen many times over a period of time and the DVR typically reboots. But at some point the unit locks up during reboot. A few months can go by unbeknownst to the customer. The DVR was sent back for repair once for this problem. They said it was replaced with a new unit. While the SA7208H was being repaired it was replaced with a SA6416 loaner it worked flawlessly over several weeks and unit didn't miss a beat. So it's not any environmental issue such as temp/humidity or line voltage. The environment is cool (68f)and dry. I have several SA6416 DVRs in the field with no problems. The second replacement SA7208H developed the same problem again. Now Avermedia says nothing is wrong with the DVR, despite having the evidence of problem recorded in the event logs and large blocks of missing video from the HDs. Any input appreciated. Not to sure about PC based DVRs anymore... This is part of an email to Avermedia during the second round: ........................... 5/13/2008: SA7208H under test to observe field failaure: 1. Unit has rebooted numerous times due to "Critical Capture Device Fail!!" as indicated in the event log. 2. Unit typically reboots, but will eventually hang or get stuck during the reboot cycle. Note: This state can happen without the customers knowledge and days/weeks/months can transpire without recording etc.... .......................... I was finally able to recreate the failure in the shop where the DVR locked up in a blue screen if I recall and then a second RMA was issued.