Soundy

I agree - what's the point of even coming onto the forum, let alone posting in a thread, if all you're going to say is, "Hi, I could help you, but I won't unless you pay me"? If you don't have anything useful to add, just... don't bother.

GeoVision is decent for a DIY PC route - just make sure you buy from a legitimate source, as there are a LOT of grey-market cards out there (especially on fleaBay). Personally, I use and recommend Vigil, but they don't sell DIY; they sell only complete turnkey systems, they have some more advanced features, and they cost substantially more. (BTW, correction to my earlier post, it seems Qvis is no longer OEM'ing from Dahua, but instead are rebranding a Dahua knock-off. Fair warning.)

Visio finally gets one right! HDMI will give better results, but VGA will be FAR cheaper in this instance. You want a KVM-over-Cat5 extender, ideally one that supports both remote and local consoles. ATEN makes some good units that we've used on a number of sites: http://www.aten.com/products/productList.php?prdClassInput=By%20Function&prdSubClassInput=20110118145055001&prdInput=2011011814518001

Ignore this, it is utterly incorrect. This is your problem. Use only one pair per camera - blue/white-blue for one, orange/white-orange for the other, for example.

I'm an admitted fan of PC-based systems, never met a standalone I didn't hate, until I had a chance to work with a Dahua-made unit. Was definitely impressed by the all-around reliability, features, and performance for the price. They're re-sold under a number of brands, including QVis and Dahua.

You mean like this? viewtopic.php?f=19&t=11322&start=82

You are both incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_5_cable#Maximum_cable_segment_length According to the ANSI/TIA/EIA standard for category 5e copper cable (TIA/EIA 568-5-A), the maximum length for a cable segment is 100 meters (328 feet). If longer runs are required, the use of active hardware such as a repeater, or a switch, is necessary. The specifications for 10BASE-T networking specify a 100 metre length between active devices. This allows for 90 metres of fixed cabling, two connectors and two patch leads of 5 metres, one at each end. Note that these are the *specifications* and wiring should meet this *minimum* performance; it doesn't mean the network will simply stop working at 101m. I've actually seen functional networks over longer runs than the spec (and even certified them with a Fluke cable certifier). Not that any of this is relevant to the OP, as his runs are only 100 feet.

They're just little locking screws, and yes, I've seen them cranked down fairly tight from the factory at times. The odd time I've needed to use a small screwdriver to get them loose - you really don't need to make them that tight when you're done. Just loosen each so the barrel turns smoothly.

Most manufacturers have models that are designed to be more energy-efficient, sometimes running cooler and/or quieter... problem is, they're designed to spin down on occasion to save power, and that can cause intermittent breaks in access - not good when you're reading and writing constantly as you likely will be with multiple cameras. There are lots of reports in threads here about this causing stuttering or drop-outs in video. A/V (audio/visual) drives are a bit better, usually designed for higher-volume uses like home PVRs (TiVo, etc.) and home theater PCs... but again, are not so much designed for the sustained read/write levels that a surveillance DVR sees.

Standard 3.5", pretty sure they're all SATA II (FYI, SATA I/II/III are all cross-compatible). Main thing you want to keep in mind is to avoid "green" drives; even "A/V" drives aren't generally that well-suited to surveillance usage. High-end desktop or enterprise-grade drives are recommended, like the Western Digital Caviar Black or RE4.

I'd say pull out the lens that DOES fit and measure it up, at least, so you know what size range you have to look for.

There are two other specs you want to look at when shopping lenses as well: One, you need one appropriate for the sensor size. If your camera has a 1/2" sensor and you get a 1/3" lens, for example, you may see some "tunnel effect" especially at shorter focal lengths (a 1/2" lens on a 1/3" sensor is fine, of course). Two, if it's a "true day/night" camera with movable IR cut filter, you want to make sure the lens is IR-corrected (often listed as day/night or IR lens). Because IR light focuses a little shorter than visible light, when the camera goes to "night" mode and cut filter moves away, the image can become soft as the filter is no longer blocking the IR from reaching the sensor, and that portion of the light will be out of focus. A corrected lens will have coatings and/or optics to compensate for this and cause the IR wavelengths to focus on the same plane as the visible light. Unfortunately, the specs on the Agasio webpage are unclear on both these points... it SAYS the camera has a cut filter, but doesn't state if it's movable ("ICR") or if the camera is "TDN". One would ASSUME that it is, since it has IR LEDs, and those would be useless without ICR, but you know what they say about assuming... The specs also don't state the physical sensor size... 1/3" is probably a safe bet, for 1MP with CS mount. And of course, the other tricky part in your case, is something that will fit inside that ring of LEDs. I picked up a 3.3-8mm f/1.2 IR auto-iris 3MP-rated lens off eBay a while back, I think it was only $50 or so... wouldn't do in your case because your camera probably doesn't do auto-iris, and it's probably way too fat, but it should indicate that there's something suitable out there. You could try checking some of the manufacturers' websites to narrow down some model numbers, then look those up on eBay or NewEgg or wherever. You could also try contacting Agasio and ask if they have any other recommended lenses for that camera.

It would have to support bridge mode, and I don't see anything in the specs that say it does. This should work, though: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833156258

Matt, I bought a nice Tamron lens for it, but it was a shade to large in diameter to fit through the IR Led bd. I have a 4mm High Resolution lens, maybe I should try that one as well, but the F = 1.4 vs. F1.2 in the cam now so will be getting less light through the aperature, right? Just a smidge less - that's only 1/3 stop difference. Measurable, but not noticeable in this instance. Standard CCTV lenses tend to be made to a lower quality, lower detail, lower "resolving power" simply because they don't need to be any more detailed with SD sensors. What you end up with most often is a "soft" image when you put those lenses on MP cameras - the camera is capable of a higher level of detail than the lens itself, so any imperfection in the lens becomes much more apparent. A "high resolution" lens MAY be noticeably better... but for best results, you really want one that's actually designated "megapixel"... ideally one spec'd for the camera resolution you're using (eg. for a 3MP camera, you want a lens designed for at least 3MP or higher - a 1MP lens may still show softness). Naturally, the higher quality lens you get, the more it will cost, so it becomes a trade-off, cost vs. detail. But that detail is why you're spending so much more on a MP camera in the first place, so why would you hamper it with a substandard lens? It would be like spending a ton of money on high-end stereo equipment, then playing it all through a set of $10 computer speakers.

The benefit is higher resolution and higher detail... The recorder's resolution is limited by the analog video standard. Cameras of higher resolutions don't use analog video transmission; they use digital transmission, typically either over IP (network), or SDI. In either case, you need a different recorder designed for those types of cameras. As the other posts suggest, some cameras do have the ability to record internally to an SD card; you can then put that card into a computer for playback, or play it back over the network. However... Yes, you can, but the composite output still uses analog video and is still limited to D1 resolutions.

Again, that's not a PTZ camera; you CANNOT control it remotely. Zoom range is adjusted by loosening the thumbscrew closest to the camera body and rotating the barrel; focus is adjusted by loosening the thumbscrew on the front barrel and rotating that.

Agreed, Cat5 vs Cat6 is not your problem here. Cat5e supports gigabit ethernet up to 100m (330'). The reason you're only getting a 100Mbit connection is because ALL surveillance IP cameras only have 10/100 ports (even the 29MP Avigilon Pro is only 10/100). First thing to do: pull both 100' cables out and try connecting the camera WITHOUT the cable running through the attic. If it still doesn't work right, take both cables back to the store and ask them if they have a cable tester you can use on them, to confirm whether either cable was damaged. If the camera DOES work right at that point, chances are your run through the attic is passing near a pretty substantial source of EMI. Even a little interference can cause some weird issues: one place I used to work, all the PCs on one wall of one room would refuse to get an IP from the DHCP server when running Windows... but if I booted from a DOS boot disk, DHCP worked fine and even let me successfully image the machines from the network. Eventually I tracked it down to a point where the conduit for the cables on that wall, crossed over a conduit carrying power to the lights: they'd followed best practices and crossed them at right angles without the two conduits touching, but there was still just enough interference to cause the DHCP errors: I used a small pry bar and pulled the network conduit an extra 1/4" away from the power run, and the problems went away permanently. If you find both cables work fine when removed from the attic, then you have to plan your route better and be careful to avoid any sources of electrical noise.

Try a site like dslreports.com or speedtest.net to see what your actual up/downstream speeds are. [/url] (Mine would probably be higher if I didn't have so much traffic on my network all the time... damn bittorrent )

Pretty soft, and some distortion on the left side - try it with a proper megapixel lens.

DSL traditionally has poor upstream speeds compared to cable, limiting how fast the DVR can send the data, so that's half the problem. Knock the DVR down to 7fps and you should see a huge improvement.

I wouldn't waste the money on a PTZ. Unless you're sitting monitoring the system, it really doesn't give you any benefit.

RS-232 and RS-485 are similar data connections and should be *functionally* compatible. If the DVR has an RS-232 port, that's probably for PTZ/control output.

Everything I can find on that camera says it's 24VAC-only... are you SURE the old PSU was 12VDC?