Soundy

I'm sorry, but foisting your own NVR software on my machine when all I need to do is configure the camera for another system, is arrogant and unnecessary. I shouldn't need to read the manuals to find out that I need to disable that, it SHOULDN'T HAPPEN in the first place. I guess it's my bad for expecting more PROFESSIONAL operation from this outfit.

It would probably be in the section where you set up your record destination(s) - ie. where you tell it what drive/folder you want to record to.

Ridiculous. I should be given the option *during installation* to have that happen or not, or for that matter, the choice of which components I want to install. The only option I'm given is the install path. I'm using these cameras with existing hybrid DVRs. ALL I need is the configuration utility to assign the cameras an IP. I don't need their NVR, I don't need a local database of the cameras. And what about the next tech to come along, that doesn't have a laptop or the Arecont software and needs to reconfigure the camera? Oh... great. So if I DON'T uninstall the thing or reconfigure the DEFAULT options, it's going to frak up my NVR operation?? Actually, I'm leaning more and more to simply NOT installing Arecont and sticking with IQEye... so far I haven't seen anything "special" about the ones I've set up. Their web-based configuration and features appear to be FAR more limited than IQ's as well.

CCD stands for "charge coupled device" - it's a type of semiconductor used for image capture in all types of cameras (the other common one is CMOS, or "complimentary metal-oxide semiconductor"). The 1/3" or 1/4" refers to the size of the sensor. IN GENERAL, the larger the sensor, the better image quality and low-light performance you'll get, but there are other factors that come into play as well that aren't necessarily related to the sensor size.

This is normal - the "TV OUT" on your card doesn't show any processed video, it just takes the analog inputs and replays them out. It's like taking the analog output of the camera and sending it straight to the monitor. There are three ways for this to work: 1. as 'thewireguys' suggests, if you have a multi-head video display card, run a second VGA cable to the TV using a VGA-to-composite adapter (or straight to a VGA input, if your TV supports it). 2. switch to a system like Video Insight or Vigil that uses a card with a software multiplexor (such as VI's VJ-series cards, or Vigil's XECAP-series cards), and you can split-screen your analog and IP cameras. 3. switch to an IP camera that has an auxiliary analog video output, like IQEye's Pro-line cameras.

Good point, but the other side of that coin is, how many people who might otherwise join up, will just move on if they do a search, find a link here, and then find they can't read anything? I suppose a compromise might be to have SOME forums readable by guests, but not all, while still having the complete forum listing visible to all, so they at least have an idea of the full scope of the site? BTW, one of those Guests might have been me... I get the email notifications of replies on my phone, but when going to the link, my phone's browser doesn't log me in automatically, so I end up reading replies as a Guest.

I did end up using my laptop, which fortunately I had with me (wouldn't normally have had it yesterday, but I'd left it in the van the night before). And that's still beside the point. Oh yeah... rebooted my desktop machine last night for a Windows update... came in this morning to find some kind of Arecont NVR software running... uh, wut? I don't recall giving anything permission to load at startup. Becoming more and more annoyed at these people...

If the software allows you to configure drive pools - in other words, allows you to specify multiple drives to record to - then you don't gain any space by RAIDing them. I can't count how many times on other boards I've seen people come in asking how to recover their data when one of two drives they've set up with their motherboard's onboard RAID has failed... or worse, when the RAID controller itself has failed, and they lose two drives' worth of data, or have to go through complex recovery procedures... and usually, they don't benefit anything by doing it in the first place.

Uhh... how about because there are still perfectly stable systems running Win2K out in the field... like the one I tried to install on today? There's nothing wrong with it as-is, so why would I change it to XP just to be able to use their cameras? Or maybe because the competition bothers? IQeye's "IQfinder" utility will not only install on Win2K, but I can copy the install folder from my workstation to my flash drive and simply run it standalone (handy if one doesn't have install permissions). Oh well, I'll keep this in mind the next time we're spec'ing cameras... it may be for XP systems in the future, but it's the principle that counts. BTW, looking on Arecont's website, I don't see anything in a Linux or OSX version either...

What's wrong with that? Still need to log in to post.

Just one bit of advice, don't bother RAIDing those two drives - it won't gain you anything in performance for this purpose, and if one drive fails, you'll lose the data on both. Just install them as individual drives and be done with it. (Well, assuming the software can record to multiple drive letters - some can't.)

I'm still waiting for a printing fix from them... ever since v2.3, and current on 3.1.1.2, on certain systems, live video will print properly, but recorded video prints a black frame overlaid with an image of whatever dialog box happened to be up over the image (usually a print dialog of some kind). I'm told it will be fixed in v3.5, but that's AT LEAST a month or two away (no definite date yet). Took me forever to get that answer out of them, too (just this past week), and I've been asking for over a year. Normally I've found their support to be exceptional, but this one issue has been a real bugaboo for me. (And no, I won't be able to convince this client to do a paid upgrade to v4.x for TWO machines).

One of the drawbacks to standard analog CCTV is that it's a point-to-point topology, and there's really no way around that (at least not without extreme expense). HDcctv does little to change that - although "hubs" to consolidate/collect multiple signals and send them over a single line should be POSSIBLE, will existing cable be able to handle the combined bandwidth of three or four cameras? For most intents and purposes, it's still a point-to-point system. And I'd like to know how one would integrate, say, a camera at a remote site into a system using this method? With IP, it's easy - run it through the Internet. No, you won't get the massive bandwidth necessary for 3MP at 30fps... but you CAN GET THE SIGNAL THERE. Thank you, that's exactly what I've been saying all along. Any new technology will be initially expensive, to recoup development and tooling costs. Economy of scale is the main thing that drives prices down - as more people buy them, the required profit margin for the manufacturers gets smaller. The more of something that a given assembly line churns out, the less it needs to recover per unit to pay for itself. I don't know that HDcctv would be "technically superior"... from the descriptions, it has some advantages, but still has other limitations compared to IP cameras. Neither would usurp the other outright for every situation. The problem is, while HD continues to be developed, IP prices continue to fall, and the limitations continue to be addressed and improved upon. A 2MP camera that does 30fps will eliminate one of the main stated benefits of HD.

Fine, I'm sold. So, recommend me some HDcctv cameras I can go buy right now. And a capture device. No? Hmm. Comparing vaporware is pointless.

Sometimes it seems 90% of our business comes from "after an event". Like insurance, surveillance is something a lot of people don't think they need... until AFTER they need it! I'm not familiar with either of those specifically, although I've been starting to work with some Arecont AV3155DN cameras and have been fairly impressed with their low-light performance. Don't know about how they'd deal with your potential backlight situation. You might need to look into Panasonic's SuperDynamic line to handle that. What are the specs on the PC? Anything P4-class or higher should be more than sufficient for your demo; even a fast PIII or Athlon should do the job of demonstrating the difference between analog and 3MP. If you're going to be dealing more with IP cams, though, you might want to think about picking up a laptop or even a "netbook" (one of those little 10-11" devices) as it will be handy not just for demoing the cameras, but for installing and configuring them as well. More than enough for doing your demo. If he goes with the camera(s), you can look at upgrading his network capability later *if necessary* - will really depend on how many cameras you're adding and how much traffic his network is seeing already. For now, just plug the camera into his existing network, fire up the browser on his existing PC, and show him the difference in video quality.

Or at least wait until IP manufacturers get their ducks in a row - fixing the issues with latency, Varies widely with the cameras and only REALLY an issue in a few niche uses. Overrated - very few CCTV uses *need* anything over 10fps. Irrelevant - low-light performance is a function of the camera, not the transmission method. RTSP? More and more IP cams are supporting it... maybe more DVR manufacturers should get onboard with that? Uh, 802.3? Only if you build a ****ty network. Bad infrastructure design will hurt ANY cctv setup, analog OR digital. Come on suvtech, surely you can come up with better red herrings than this?

More to the point, the 100m UTP limit is for 10/100/1000 ethernet... other types of networks can go even further. We used to deal with a customer who used token-ring and had runs approaching 200m on Cat3!

Not really. "The D-Link 8-Port Desktop Switch with 4 PoE Ports (DES-1008PA) enables both home and office users to easily connect and supply power to Power over Ethernet (PoE) devices such as wireless Access Points (APs), IP cameras, and IP phones while adding more Ethernet devices like computers, printers, and Network Attached Storage (NAS) onto a network." Retail price: $150. Factor in the savings of NOT needing a separate power supply, plus NOT needing to run a separate power wire to the camera. How so? The 100m maximum for ethernet itself is far more limiting than the power capacity. Yup... done it on several sites now. Works like a charm. Still pull a separate power wire to run the enclosure heater, but the cameras are quite happy with PoE.

You're right, I don't want to deal with all that stuff... I'll just sit back and not deal with anything over D1 until HDcctv comes along... Real Soon Now...

The software and the card is what I needed, not the technical support, So you've already figured out why the software crashes if you go over CIF resolutions, and fixed the problem? A lot of products use the pay-for-support model as well (see posts elsewhere on Linux-based, open-source solutions). I suspect most vendors of CCTV applications have found that model doesn't work for them or their customers. That's great, but you're a rarity in this business. I've been in IT support for close to 20 years, I find 95% of others I deal with in the CCTV industry are clueless when it comes to computers and are of the "I just want to click a button and have it work" ilk. System developers don't get paid catering to those of us in the 5% have-a-clue bracket, they have to cater to the other 95%. Someone still has to update it regularly, to keep up with changing markets... issue patches to support newer hardware... drivers to support new/other platforms... if you're a software developer who expects to just release a single version of your application and then get rich collecting royalties on it for the rest of your life, you're going to find yourself hungry pretty darn quick.

I hope they succeds, because also IP needs to meet competition outside the IP market so that everything will be even better in the future! While that's a possible advantage to this, I suspect even the threat of it is already causing price drops for IP cctv... and that alone may help kill HDcctv before it ever comes to market. The rate IP prices are falling, HD won't be able to compete when OR IF it ever actually hits the shelves. That's that HighWires are for - run a half-dozen megapixel cameras over a single RG-59 if you want.

I'm not closed to the concept, but having seen similar types of promising technologies arise and then vanish over the years, in all manner of different market segments, I'm not jumping on the HDcctv-as-savior-of-the-industry bandwagon. Don't overlook the numerous issues involved in bringing a new technology like this to market - I still haven't heard anyone address the issue of all-new capture/input hardware that would be required on the recorder end to support these cameras, or the cost thereof, for example. I've seen others argue against megapixel in general because of the storage costs involved - where are they on HDcctv, which will have the same storage requirements, if not more as people go ga-ga for 30fps on everything? As someone said long ago, being open-minded is fine... as long as your brain doesn't fall out.

Well, I listed the two I'm familiar with... most here will tend to do the same. As you've found though, you really get what you pay for, and when you're looking for a certain combination of features AND quality, you're generally going to end up in a certain price range. As I already pointed out, a good portion of this cost goes to after-sales support - updates, technical support, etc. - it's not JUST the hardware and software costs.

Why? Would a 5MP camera be able to see the shoplifter in the next aisle? No... can these HD cams see THROUGH bags of chips? Same question - is x-ray vision a feature of HDcctv? Kinda depends on the lens, doesn't it? Kinda depends on the specific camera as well. None of these questions are relevant to the comparison. Twice the resolution is still twice the resolution, isn't it?

Thing is, a lot of people get hung up on framerates and *think* they want/need 30fps for everything, when 15 or even 10fps is practically indistinguishable to most people in most circumstances, requiring a fraction of the bandwidth and storage. I think in most cases, I'd find a 5MP (2560x1920) resolution at 10fps (IQEye 700-series) more useful than 1920x1080 at 30fps...