teerex

James: I have first-hand experience with the QT428-based system and another Q-See system based on the 4-channel QC-444 DVR that came with 4x cameras having similar specs to those of the Swann (1/4" Sony CCD with 3.6mm lens). The QT428 is an 8-channel DVR so even if you buy the $300 4-camera system now, you can add another 4 cameras at a later date if you need to. With the Swann system, you get a 4-channel DVR so if you wanted to add extra cameras, you would need to get another DVR. Another nice thing about the Qt428 is that it has 8 alarm inputs and an alarm output. This lets you integrate the DVR with an alarm system and have it trigger an alarm (output) based on motion detection, or conversely, start recording from a specific camera based on an alarm being triggered (input). For an extra $50, you may be better off with the flexibility of the 8-channel DVR.

Thanks for your reply, Rory. I've been configuring the DVRs over the network except for the initial setup where I connect them to my monitor so I wasn't aware of this. I've registered with DynDns.com but have been having trouble using the service with both the DVR as well as my router. The myq-see.com DDNS seems to work (when myq-see.com is up) but I've never been able to get my dynamic IP associated with the domain I have chosen on DynDns. Maybe, this weekend I will troubleshoot this and get it working. Also, thanks for the tip on the bulk conversion tool that you've developed.

I recently ordered both bundles from Costco - the 4 camera/QC444 one and the 8 camera/QT428 one. The 4 camera bundle has 1/4" Sony CCD 3.6mm cameras with 420 TV lines where as the 8 camera bundle has 1/3" CMOS 5mm cameras with 500 TV lines. I installed both cameras in the same positions and I feel that the image from the 1/3" CMOS cameras was definitely better than the one from the 1/4" CCDs. The field of view was also a tad larger than the one on the CCDs. The CMOS cameras also have 36 IR LEDs compared to 24 IR LEDs on the CCD cameras. This gives better night vision, IMO. The DVRs being manufactured by different vendors also have different interfaces and slightly different features. The QC444 DVR is flaky, IMO. My first bundle from Costco had to be returned because the DVR kept locking up right out of the box. The replacement is fine for the most part. However, it's supposed to let you record live and view previously recorded footage at the same time. In my experience, it would freeze when viewing previously recorded footage and would require a reboot. Eventually, I had to download the files off the DVR and view them offline to get to the footage that I was seeking. If the button on the front panel is pressed for 3 seconds, it's supposed to power down the DVR. This never worked on either of the 2 QC444 DVRs that I received. Comparison between QC444 and QT428 ========================= - One nice thing about the QC444 was that it supported D1 at 30fps on Channel 1 without affecting channels 2-4. On the QT428, if I want D1@30fps on any channel, I have to reduce the frame rate on the other channels even if they are recording in CIF. - The QC444 also has a "watermark" setting which is lacking on the QT428 though I'm not sure how/what it's used for. I'm guessing it's for authenticating the video footage in legal settings. - The QC444 can be rebooted from the web interface where as the QT428 cannot. - The QC444 can be set to reboot on a periodic schedule which the QT428 cannot - You can set a HDD low water mark on the QC444 based on a percentage of disk space and it will alert you (e-mail, buzzer, etc) when the HDD gets full. On the QT428, the alert is based on a fixed amount of remaining HDD space (0MB - 2GB). - QC444 has a separate on/off switch at the back which is lacking on the QT428. - QC444 has a smaller footprint than the Qt428 which is to be expected as it only supports 4 cameras - QT428 has 8 alarm inputs and an alarm output which can be tied to an alarm system if you have one. That way an alarm relay can start the recording on a given camera, or conversely, motion detected on a camera can set off an alarm. - Both DVRs are whisper quiet which was very nice - I had trouble downloading recorded files from the QC444 onto an external FAT-32 formatted USB HDD. However, it seemed to work fine with an SD card in a USB adapter. I haven't checked this with the QT428. - QC444 backs up files in a proprietary format. One nice thing is that when you back up the files onto external media, the DVR also includes an executable and necessary codecs, etc to play the backed up files. You can download a player from the q-see website that will convert the proprietary format video to .avi. The QT428, otoh, allows you to save the files in .avi eliminating one extra step of conversion which can be tedious if you're looking at backing up lots of video. - QC444 allows fast forwarding 8x where as Qt428 allows 16x - QC444 allows recording upto 120 min per file where as the QT428 has a 30-min per file hard limit which cannot be configured. - QT428 remote has a power button. However, it still requires the user to confirm on a monitor using a mouse which, IMO, defeats the whole purpose. If I need to have a monitor connected simply to confirm the power down, I might as well initiate it from the monitor and not even bother to use the remote. - The QT428 brings up a live video window when enabling the motion detect mask. This is helpful as you know exactly where the motion will be detected. The QC444 brings up a blank window so you have to guess which squares to enable on the grid. - e-mail and DDNS were similar on both DVRs although I've noticed that the q-see DDNS website seems to be down every weekend and holidays. - QC444 uses an Android app provided by q-see and it seemed to work fine. QT428 allows remote viewing on a smart phone using SuperCam. I haven't had a chance to use it so can't compare the two. - The QT428 supports PTZ cameras which the QC444 doesn't. I don't have PTZ cameras so I can't comment on how well the functionality works on the 428 Cheers