Soundy

Speaking of good deals, our local (Vancouver) ADI/Burtek has twin-packs of GVC passive baluns on for $13 (yes, that's TWO baluns for $13!). Dunno if others have the same, but it's worth dropping a quarter to find out! These are a bulkier model, fairly large transformer portion with screw terminals, and then the BNC on a 4" tail, but still a pretty unbeatable deal!

Even $12 for a 25-pack is pretty good!

Holy crap, I better check this out! I've never seen RG59 BNC compression fittings at the HDs in Canada, only the F-style ones, but I suppose it's worth another look!

Get a MUX with that display option, is about the ONLY way. You could do it with a TV that does PiP, but you'd need to connect each camera to its own input on the TV then.

The basic guts of the cameras wouldn't be difficult, as there are sensors and support components already on the market for 1080P HD cameras. What jacks the price is the addition of the SDI interface... and while the cost of the cameras may only be 10-15% more, you still have to get the signal into the recorder somehow. SDI itself is relatively niche-market and always has been, used mainly in the broadcast segment.

$180. BTW, 1080P is only 1920x1080 pixels... barely 2MP. The same as LOW-END megapixel cameras. Megapixel CCTV cameras are currently available in 3MP, 5MP, and even higher.

Amen, brother!

Casinos aren't "most situations".

I've been hearing "soon" from proponents here for probably the last year... when is "soon"? I don't see it really catching on beyond a niche market. As with any new technology, it's bound to be expensive initially - not just the cameras, but the need for new capture devices. It will take even more time for the price to be able to compete with current MP/IP technology, and that market isn't standing still. What I've seen/heard so far is still limited to HDTV spec, which is 1080p maximum - that equates to 2MP resolution at best (1920x1080). The ability to use existing wiring is a good selling point for upgrading existing systems, but for new/retrofit installs, going "back" to point-to-point, home-run topology is a drawback IMO... hub/branch layouts are possible, of course, but that's even more cost that's sure to be expensive for the first while. The biggest knock I hear on IP is the lack of support for full 30fps at higher resolution... by the time HD-CCTV/SDI costs drop enough to be competitive, I don't expect that will be an issue anymore. Plus, 30fps is really overrated for most situations - we're not making movies and TV shows, people.

Once again, these cards don't do hardware encoding, so the record format is dependent on the software. Vigil and Video Insight systems actually both use the same ComArt-based cards, and while the VI software is locked to VI-supplied cards (or was the last time I tried it), the Vigil software is not - in fact, I once had a Vigil DVR where the card died, so I dropped in an equivalent VI card, and it just worked, no updates or drivers required. Nice. In any case, with Vigil, they use AZTECH by default, which does require its own codec, but the installer for that codec IS included. It also provides the option for MPEG-4/H.263 recording, but AZTECH works exceptionally well so I've never bothered switching. Most Video Insight systems I've installed, I've found WMV9 works best all-around, so I've been using that... completely standard, playable on any Windows Media Player 9 or later. Same chipsets... not necessarily the same cards. Supporting components, construction quality, additional functionality, may all be different. But in most cases, I suspect, you're paying mostly for the software. The stuff you get with most of the eBay cards is pretty limited in functionality, often clunky in operation, poor in design and layout, and pretty damn thin on documentation (and what there is, is probably written in really bad Engrish). And forget about any kind of technical support with most of them for that price. With the likes of Video Insight and Vigil, you're getting solid, advanced software that's under constant development, is well-documented, and has excellent support backing it up. You have a toll-free number you can call at any time to get help where you can talk to real, knowledgeable techs without having to decode a thick accent. You have people who will respond to your emails and even accept suggestions for future features. Those kinds of things aren't cheap for the vendors to provide... and that's where a some of the money is going when you buy a good package from a reputable vendor. Edit: case in point! http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=105624#105624

Did you try simply renaming the files to *.MPG or *.AVI? Often the file, video, or compression formats themselves are standard, the software just tacks on its own extension rather than one Windows will recognize (side rant: when will Microsloth ever get a better way to identify files than with a lame three-character extension?? OS/2 was doing it far better with Extended Attributes, 15 years ago). Proprietary isn't necessarily a bad thing, if the vendor properly supports it. Vigil systems, for example, use a proprietary AZTECH variation on M-JPEG... but when you export video in that format, you can have it include an installer for the codec and player (once the codec is installed, the video will play back in just about any video player). We have customers give those discs to the police all the time and have rarely had an issue with it (just once, that I can recall, was there a problem running it on a machine with locked-down permissions). Similarly, Capture DVRs export in a proprietary "Minibank" storage format, where the exported video is encapsulated in an executable file with its own standalone player... so in essence, you just "run" the video. Well, that's one of the risks in buying from eBay, isn't it? Buy from a reputable manufacturer/vendor and avoid those kinds of issues. Nothing like buying something from a supplier halfway across the world, finding out the thing doesn't work as advertised, and finding the shipping to return it is more than you paid for the thing in the first place! Not hard to do. Vigil is represented here (3xLogic Systems); you can use their cards, or their software will work with a variety of third-party cards. Video Insight is here as well, their software will record in M-JPEG, MPEG-4, WMV, and possibly others now (I haven't really looked at it since v3.0). Those are the two I'm familiar with - several other manufacturer and vendors are represented here as well - AverMedia, GeoVision, etc. The catch with all of these is that you'll pay substantially more than you would for those cheap eBay cards... but hey, you get what you pay for, and that includes software features and after-sales support (both VI and 3xLogic have excellent technical support). www.3xlogic.com www.video-insight.com

3389 is the default port for Windows Remote Desktop Protocol; it's not required for Geovision client connections (and frankly, I'd strongly recommend NOT using RDP/TSC for remote control of Windows DVRs - if you have live windows up, the refreshes will completely kill your performance. Use UltraVNC with the mirror driver instead, or Remote Administrator 3.0, both of which deal with live video cleanly). In answer to the original question: in most instances, the remote software does not communicate with the DVR card at all; it communicates with the server application. Standalone DVRs are no different; most are basically a stripped-down PC-type computer with some customized hardware, and embedded operating system and server software; the remote client then talks to that server application.

Most of these cheap cards don't do hardware encoding (part of why they're so cheap); thus, the video format is not a function of the card, but of the software and/or codec used. Simple solution: try different software, or look for a setting in the software you have to tell it to use a different compression format.

Hmmm, another reason to expedite the upgrades: the ability to lock the avatar dimensions to a maximum size...

^What's with the f'king massive avatar??

Spot output will be composite video, not RF. To get it into a TV, you need to either use an A/V input (usually a yellow RCA jack), or you need to use a modulator to feed it to an RF (cable/antenna) input. I wouldn't expect it to be an "either/or", since the whole point of a spot monitor is to give a video output separate of the main display.

Have you found that certain drives actually DON'T work, or are you curious as to why manufacturers only list specific drives as being supported? I can't think of any reason these days why any drive with the appropriate specs shouldn't work in any DVR (or computer, for that matter). Back in the day, when IDE was new, there were assorted compatibility problems, most often arising from single/master/slave configurations, but that shouldn't be the case today. Sometimes a manufacturer will test specific brands and models of drives in their systems and list them as "supported", then note that any other drives aren't "supported"... all that means is, if you have drive problems, they won't "support" it; it doesn't automatically mean they won't work.

Actually, I have a location with both 1.3MP and analog cameras running from about the same position... The MACE analog minidome in a liquor store: And the IQ511 1.3MP mounted a few inches above it (you can see the MACE dome in the view): (Note: The MP cam is a little soft because at the time I installed it, they wanted a wider view than the 3.5-10mm lens I brought with it, and all I had on-hand was an old non-MP 2.8mm lens... it looks much better today with a proper 2.8mm on it).

Yeah, Shoreview's got some good tips too. One other thing I like to use to test: I keep a 75-ohm BNC terminator handy, that I can put on the far end of the line, and then meter across the other end, the way he suggests. That should then get a reading of around 75 ohms; anything significantly higher or lower indicates problems.

While it SHOULDN'T be an issue with such a short run, check the power at the far end *with the camera connected*. It's possible that the voltage is dropping too much under load and causing the camera to shut off. If that's the case, check for an iffy splice on the power run. Also, try connecting the camera at the other end, then run the DVR end of the wire into an A/V video input on your TV, and see if you get picture.

Man, I should be getting a commission from these guys

UTP is pretty versatile - you can run up to four cameras over a single cable; you can run one camera with video, power and control (serial); you can run VGA using VGA baluns; you can run KVM with the appropriate extenders; and of course, it gives you the future ability to easily upgrade to IP cameras. The only REAL drawback is cost - the cable itself will cost about the same as coax with a power run (18/2 or station wire), but the baluns add a fair bit to the total price (around here, passive baluns start around $20-$25 each, meaning $40-$50 extra - or more - per camera). It helps balance out the cost if you can run four cameras on one cable, instead of needing four coax, but the cost savings will depend largely on the length of the run. Sometimes the versatility can save your skin, too... like the site we did recently where the electricians put in a single 1" conduit... for us to run 9 camera feeds through. The ONLY way we could make it happen was to use UTP - one per camera, for video and power.

Find me a a megapixel camera manufacture that would recommend/support this and I will send you $1 . The whole idea behind megapixel cameras is better image quality so after spending extra money on a megapixel why would you save a couple of bucks on the lens which is the weakest link in a megapixel camera? Buy the best lens you can afford. I was talking about using a 1/3" lens on a 1/2" camera... which at the shorter focal lengths will give a wider view, even if it is distorted. There may be instances where the extra FOV would be a plus despite the distortion. I do things all the time that manufacturers don't recommend or support... sometimes you need to come up with solutions that they simply haven't thought of.

^unless that's an appropriate view for the particular install.

Sure it will... it will just give a more distorted view. I guess i should have gone into more detail on why it would not use a 1/3 lens on a 1/2 imager. I've done it before, when testing an IQ701 when all I had handy was a 1/3" lens. Actually, at longer focal lengths, there was no noticeable difference. At wider views, though, the image became "rounded off", because the lens projects an area smaller than the sensor. Actually, I didn't get to test it, but I suspect adding a C/CS adapter to space the lens out a bit might at least partially compensate for this phenomenon...