normicgander

I stop by here once and awhile and I see that the same arrogant, condescending cheese *sticks think they're so smart and have all right the answers..... What happened here? That being said HDcctv is awesome for real-time manned surveillance.

RS-170A interlaced composite video output from a DVR often looks bad on LCDs, which are designed to display a progressive scan signal. Some LCD monitors and LCD TV are better than others, i.e. scalers and converters etc. Some cheap LCDs appear to drop a field to avoid deinterlace processing.

http://www.zowietek.com/html/products.htm#

NTSC broadcast viewed on TVs have horizontal resolution limitations around 330TVL (the Kell factor etc which is often debated). Keep in mind that the horizontal resolution for NTSC broadcast was limited or low-pass filtered around 4.2Mhz in order to meet FCC channel spectrum constraints of 6Mhz. Yes some OEMs cheat (i.e. the whole LUX thing), but I think some can produce 600TVL cameras. H.264 is standardized by the ITU, but is implemented differently by the applicators (the amount of bits/s output for example). On many of the IC encoders this can be adjusted. The problems with analog DVRs in general are: 1. Excessive image/video compression regardless of the method. 2. The recording of 2 time incoherent interlaced fields such that any significant motion of a target of interest will produce poor video still images (the police what a still image frame for investigative and court proceedings). Deinterlacing is never perfect and many folks drop a field (and the intended goal of higher frame resolution) when trying to get a useful still image. I think motion blurr because of the camera exposure setting is more of an issue and is sometimes confused with motion distortion do to video compression.

The simple answer is none that I know. Seems this has been discussed before on some old threads. DVRs use COTS ADC and compression ICS. Typically the ADC ICs are produced to meet the ITU 601 recommendation and will not effectively encode 600TVL cameras. It wouldn't be so bad, but the real problem is excessive image compression (all that low, med, hi, superior etc stuff which is appllied to the same D1 or CIF signal). But D1 is D1 right? Or is it low-D1 or High-D1? DVR manufacturers should provide specs in TVL, but we would be very disappointed if they did. Even if we could encode 600TVL cameras we would still have the problems (motion within the target scene) associated with analog interlaced video. Recording in CIF or 2CIF (fields) fixes that so they say. Perhaps we can install a a sign saying: "Please walk slowly, you are being recorded in Superior-D1" Did see some encouraging HD CCTV standalone progressive scan recorders at ASIS ....

The Vitek (most likely not the OEM) camera is an HD CCTV camera which use serial digital interface. There should be standalone HD DVRs out soon.

Wow, you are quick to call him a rookie installer but you don't seem to have the capability to troubleshoot the install . This is a big problem in our industry in general, and is what differentiates the vital elements of education, trainning and experience. Without knowing the equipment OEM(s), the environmental conditions and layout, it could be external RFI leaking into poorly terminated coaxial cable(s). As mentioned, ground loops encountered with unbalanced coaxial cable systems can be an issue in non-isolated systems. Although unlikely these days, the power supply could be a poorly filtered switch-mode type that is inducing RFI into the cabling. Typically, low-voltage power supplies can be mounted close to the rest of the head-end with no issues discribed. Often power supplies, DVRs and associated network devices are co-located together, preferably in rack cabinets.

As an installing dealer who must service and support your installations, how long do you think the cameras should last in the field (life cycle)? More than 3 to 5 years of contiguous service? -Why do Sony, Panasonic and Sanyo (to name a few) last for years. I know of some Panasonic cameras that are still working which were installed the late 1990s. The reason I ask is that I'm intersted in getting other dealer opinions. I installed 7 WDR mini dome cameras back in Jan/Feb of 2006 of they have had failures since the first year of service. The outdoor Sanyo cameras haven't even blinked and are rock-solid. Only 2 or 3 are now the original units and they are having problems as well. Some of them were replaced during the "2 year" warranty period. The OEM said they had problems with these dome cameras and are "trying" to get them replaced. I just got the run-around since ISC west last april and now they said they wouldn't do anything. I realize the whole warranty thing, but what about OEMs that make and sell a BAD product (high failure rates) and the dealer or end user gets the stuck? -Is this a cultural problem or disconnect? Are US dealer expectations too high? I could be wrong, but I think the Japanese would not sleep at night if they designed and sold such junk! Has anyone sued these OEM companies in Small Claims Court?

Has anyone used Indigo Vision equipment? They have a 10 channel MPEG4 encoder. It auto decimates the frame rate when there is no scene activity. http://www.indigovision.com/products_transrec.htm

I found it to be the best network viewing I've seen. Teleeye DVRs are well built and listen to input provided. The quality of the PCBs are very good of the main encoding chips sets are American (Techwell). Not the cheapest DVRs, but are a good overall value. My customers like the remote view software. I have also installed the 4 ch mobile DVR in some hot environments with no failures!

I agree with most of the comments made so far, especailly regarding cheap capacitors and poorly designed voltage regulator circuits. The cost of a cheap electrolytic vs. a tantalum etc. Here is some of the my correspondence with this OEM to provide more insight: To XXXX, Trust that I realize the units are out of warranty. I have replaced the cameras at my cost, both during and out of the warranty period. Our reputation and doing the right thing is paramount. Our problems with these cameras started after a few months after the initial installation. My customer is aware of these high failure rates. How do/would we explain or justify cost to this customer that the CCTV cameras which I sold them that did not provide even five years of service? This agency has several CCTV systems using other brands (specifically Panasonic) at their administration building, with not even one failure in service for over 15 years. I could understand charging a customer for perhaps one camera which was out-of-warranty, but they would lose confidence and question us for if we charged for 5 or 6 out 7 units. To XXXX, I’m following up on the issues with premature failures of the XXXXXX domes cameras, as previously discussed. I'm really confused at this point, as you indicated an RMA was forthcoming. Can you please inform me of the status of this situation so we can consider our next steps. I realize these cameras are now out-of-warranty, but the significant number of defective units (a few which were replaced during the two-year warranty) is too excessive, pointing to a electronic design problem as agreed in our previous conversations. What was the estimated MTF? Also keep in mind that the outdoor Sanyo cameras, powered from the same supply have been operating with no failures.

To think in terms of camera pixels- thats just the beginning. The results are actually more decimating to the final image quality, when video compression is applied..... Dual channel encoding and processing would help, but most DVRs don't have this capability (separate record and remote network veiwing channels).

although we don't know camera to target distance, lighting conditions etc, you will most likely not obtain useable, forensic quality video images from such equipment......

Hopefully mainstream OEMs are watching or looking at this approach. But, I think most manufacturers are amazingly not familiar with using SDI for HD CCTV applications. I think a 4 channel HD-DVR unit would be my choice to augment my customer's current analog systems (parking lots, entrances etc). I think they would buy them and the price would be affordable. What do you guys think?

Not yet- but I saw that you did! Thanks, Normic

2/2008 While progressive scan digital (output ) cameras are needed and will be the future, I’m not a big fan of Ethernet (IP) based cameras. Perhaps the IP video surveillance industry was too caught up in the cute concept of “convergenceâ€

I think the bottom line is interlaced analog video and DVRs that over compress the video often do not produce forensic quality video. It's time to move on IMO. I do realize it's cost-effective and it's fine for some applications. My point is that I can install the cable between the camera and the recording device (nvr/dvr hub unit or whatever you wish to call it) and it doesnt have to be TCP/IP. Let me record/view high-res HD at the local hub recorder and let me remote view over TCP/IP at 1Mb/s or any decimated rate if that's what I require. BTW- as a stop-gap, I've had better results using progressive scan analog cameras combined with recording at 720x480 in the highest quality mode setting. Better snaps in dynamic, moving scenes. Dallmeier DF3000A(-DN).

I could be wrong, but IP is not the best method to transport video, especially for high-datarate HD CCTV cameras. Some parts of the LAN/WAN you may not even have any control over. Our industry took the IP bait hook, line and sinker. EEs didn't get the entire briefing on field applications. Why not use a standard such as SMPTE 424M which supports up to 3Gb/s over coaxial cable between the camera and recorder? There could even be a new IEEE or SMPTE standard, if needed, for HD CCTV. Then the recorder hub will provide an adjustable, compressed IP network output for the important requirement of remote PC monitoring and administration. I not saying IP cameras don't have a role BTW. For many applications they're perfect.

Didn't see the Nitek, but have used the Veracity devices- good stuff. What I meant was alternatives to IP network transmission from a SD or HD camera to a HUB/DVR centralized unit. Everything was Ethernet based.....

ISC West was rather disappointing this year. Many company booths downsized or had less equipment displays. 1. No significant technology innovations. 2. Very few IP cameras with internal storage capabilities. The Sanyo HD camera has SD and HDD attachment capabilities. 3. Vivotek has a neat, simple 9 ch. NVR box. 4. It was amazing how so many companies don't understand the industry technology or problems (i.e. NTSC video interlace recording problems, ITU601 chipset limitations on resolution etc.). 5. I thought some companies would have had progressive scan analog cameras- there were none and did not realize its advantage in legacy DVR systems. 6. No different methods of digital video signal transmission (digital serial over coax) for HD CCTV. Just IP from camera....

Am I understanding this correctly: You purchased the cameras etc. and then hired a CCTV company to install them. Did they perform a site survey and inspect the camera to be installed prior to the install? The installer should purchase hardware/fasteners and other required materials. Often it listed in the quote as Misc. hardware and includes cable management supplies, labels, fasteners, sealants etc.

Now that's funny! Sign me up for that training...then I can understand my wife more.

I agree with you Scorpion. Video surveillance within public areas should be no big deal and it can be a effective tool. The funny thing is that many of the lib-socialist types are the first to complain about “big brother", while they are regulating people to death in most areas of life via “little brother.â€

The Sanyo HD camera is sweet! I like the external HDD attachment feature. the SD BNC output is smart also...