Soundy

If your camera supports auto-iris, you can use an auto- OR manual-iris lens on it. The only limitation here is that an auto-iris lens won't work on a camera without the auto-iris driver.

There is no legitimate reason you can't use a 1/2" lens on a 1/3" sensor. The mounts are the same, the optics work the same... the only reason you might choose a 1/3" lens is price (the 1/2" one would probably cost more for the same basic specs). By the same token, there's no reason you can't use a "regular" (non-"megapixel") lens on a megapixel camera. In each case, the higher-end lens will generally provide better quality or performance than its cheaper equivalent, but there's nothing that STOPS the cheaper lens from working.

Sure it will... it will just give a more distorted view.

You can get USB cameras at any computer store - they're called "webcams". Why do these need to be USB? What does that accomplish? You say these will be installed to forklifts, what would they be connected to? I think what you're looking for is a camera that will record to a memory card...

The one-big-and-smaller-around display is only suitable for larger (ie. more inputs) devices - I suppose they COULD make a four channel with a one-large/three-small display, but typically, you won't find layouts that require more channels to FILL than are available. What you describe, for example, would take six views to fill, so you wouldn't normally find such an option on a four-channel MUX. I have seen four-channel units that have one main full-screen view and three separate PiP windows in the corners for the other cameras... couldn't tell you what brand that was though, let alone the model. As for a the purpose of a MUX... it does many different things, but the primary purpose is to generate the proper output for recording multiple channels on a time-lapse VCR. I don't know how familiar you are with the way a helical-scan VCR works, but briefly: the video heads are on a spinning drum that rakes the heads across the tape at an angle, which creates multiple short angled tracks along the length of the tape. With regular VHS systems, it's one frame of video per track. What the MUX does, is output a different camera on each frame: one pass records camera 1, next pass records camera 2, and so on. If you hook up a monitor to the VCR OUT terminal, you'll see this as a rapid flipping between cameras. Similarly, if you plug a time-lapse tape into a standard VCR, you'll see the same thing. The second function of the MUX is to take that signal via the VCR IN port, and split it out again into individual, stable camera views so the user can then select individual views, or split-screen views to watch. Beyond all that, it's still good for providing split-screen and sequenced views (and in fact, we regularly re-use old MUXes for just that purpose). Yours might be worth keeping around for that reason, as your DVR seems limited for that functionality. Most MUXes will have properly-loaded, daisy-chained inputs that allow you to run a camera into the input, then chain from the channel's output to your modulator, DVR, etc.

The problem with a two-camera split is that it won't fit the screen properly - you'd end up either with half of each camera, or with the two horribly stretched to fit. The only "normal" way to get two cameras on a screen is with a PiP (Picture-in-Picture) display. Otherwise, it needs to divide the screen up evenly: 2x2 (four channels), 3x3 (9 channels), or variations with one of two large views and several smaller ones (for example, imagine the screen split 3x3, then take the top-left four and combine them into one, leaving five more smaller displays). From the sound of it, the multiplexor you've got isn't even being used (or if it is, it isn't actually needed for the setup you've described). If you're modulating each camera onto a separate channel, do you really NEED to split-screen, or can you live with just flipping between channels? Most devices that give you a split-screen, BTW, will let you select which cameras are viewed on the matrix... so you could have a 2x2 display of, say, entry, front, back, and baby's room, and just skip the billiards room *for that display*. You have six modulated channels available, so you could perhaps, put each of the five cameras on a channel (say, 110-115, for the sake of argument), then on 116 have the 2x2 split-screen. If you want to RECORD all five channels, then you WILL need to upgrade your DVR; however, if there's one you want to display but don't need to record (say, billiards room), you can use the multiplexor to generate your split-screen while having only the four necessary cameras connected to the recorder... Lots of different ways to go here, depending on your needs and priorities.

Web client?

I knew it - Magic Beans Is this guy's name Jack??

You can also use any combination of the following as necessary:

That's no problem, you just need a bunch of these: We did a bunch of sub work for another company a couple years ago, all the sent us for the jobs was RG6, compression F connectors, and F-to-BNC adapters. Thinking they musta got a really good buy on one or the other...

A "video distribution amp" is what you need - try googling that or searching eBay for it. You'll probably find a lot that are for component video, but you only need one that does composite. The problem is, you're splitting your signal in half - each monitor is only getting half the video level. As soon as you connect to the monitor, its input places a load on the signal, whether it's on or off. Professional CCTV monitors are designed to deal with this and not load the signal too much... consumer monitors aren't.

Is that older one a managed switch? If not, that would probably account for the much lower cost...

Like I said, the slider won't work on certain video formats. Something that's I-frame based will be spotty at best, as you'll only get a full update on every I-frame. This will be true with any media player though; it's a function of the encoding used. The codec pack probably won't help this particular issue, either... it's good for supporting other non-standard codecs that some DVRs use, that otherwise might not play back at all.

Umm, thanks for that advertising blurb... not that it's a whole lot of use. To the OP: H.264 is the current "latest and greatest" but different manufacturers use a range of different formats for various reasons, including MPEG-4, MJEPG, and even WMV. Some use their own proprietary variations on standard codecs, and claim even better compression that H.264 *under certain circumstances*. The important thing to remember is that no one codec is THE perfect solution for all instances. Some will work better with color than black-and-white; some are better where there's lots of fast motion while others are better if there's little movement; some will perform better with motion-detection while others are better for constant recording. As for converting, almost all formats can be converted to another, given the proper codec and a suitable converter application. Some require their own special playback mechanism to do it, too (Capture, for example, stores their video in proprietary "bank" formats; native exports are in "minibank" files, which actually embed the player within the video file and export it as a single executeable - to convert it to something else, yo have to "run" the file, and then use the player's own Export function; the benefit to that is that it can use any suitable codec you have installed for your output format). Again, it depends on the particular manufacturer in question and what they've chosen to do with their systems.

While I admire your attempts to satisfy this client, it's sounding more and more like you're just opening yourself up for headaches. He tells you it's "the hottest thing on the market and everyone has it", based solely on what some friend told him... but neither seems able to provide a source of information (trade magazine article??) or even a brand name? And meanwhile, none of the pros here, who work in the industry daily, have heard anything about it? Sounds like the guy wants magic beans, and is convinced he's going to find them... and he's got you running in circles looking for them. I think ultimately, you're going to have to disappoint him... either with the bad news that his magic beans don't exist, or with the sheer cost of custom-developing something. As far as some of your other suggestions... I've actually installed a system with thermal imaging cameras and video analytics for just this purpose, and you're right, it's not cheap: the cameras alone, I believe, were around $25,000 for a FLIR Wide-Eye (180-degree view) and $10,000 each for a pair of FLIR SR-19s (I couldn't tell you if that's our cost, or our selling price to the client, those are just numbers I heard tossed around). The analytics system we used was another $10,000+. Oh yeah, and the cameras were mounted along with a Pelco Esprit PTZ on top of a 50' tower in the middle of a two-square-block yard... So yeah, not cheap... but it does a damn good job. The analytics is great at distinguishing people from vehicles and animals. Setting it up properly took literally days (off and on, tweaking it for different conditions). The FLIRs are amazing - the images change very little between day and night. If cost is a factor, PIRs might be the way to go... good ones will have "Pet Immunity" or similarly-named technology that will help reduce falsing from animals. You can also position them so that they won't "see" things moving low along the ground. If you look, there should be more specialized models better suited to your needs (tighter detection areas, etc.)

Sure, but turning your everyday workstation into a DVR is hardly recommended. A serious DVR should have a *dedicated* PC all to itself. Thus, unless you have an *unused* PC kicking around, you have to factor in the cost of the PC as well.

VLC Player combined with K-Lite Codec Pack will play just about every format known to man. It has the "scrub bar" that will update as you slide it *in most cases*. Keep in mind that this functionality may not work, or work fully, with certain video formats, so it's partially a limitation of the video itself, not necessarily the player.

^Yep, that's the one I used

Depends how many PoE cameras you have, but I've used the LinkSys SFE1000P on a number of sites now, and been really happy with it: eight 10/100 PoE ports, plus two GbE/fiber ports; the GbE ports feed the Vigil hybrid DVR, and an 8x1TB iSCSI RAID array. I also used a 24-port LinkSys gigabit PoE switch (the exact model escapes me at the moment) for a 13-IP-camera job; two ports were also used for the Vigil NVR and the Vigil "HD Viewer" machine (PC with multiple display cards to send IP cams to VGA displays), and two more for a pair of ADAM-6060 network relays. That one's been holding up well for at least a couple years now.

I've never seen a case where a similarly-spec'd standalone was more expensive than a PC-based system. Remember with the PC, you have to factor in the cost of the PC itself - DVR cards can be had cheap-cheap on eBay, sure, but you get what you pay for: they're usually of poor quality, with minimal specs, and come with clunky, limited software. You can easily get into the thousands for *quality* capture cards and software. As far as reliability, neither type really has a corner on the market - more than anything else, it comes down to the quality of the components and the build; you can find both types made with cheap parts, poorly put together, and have all kinds of reliability issues. At least with PC systems, when you do have problems, they're generally easier to repair; standalones, especially cheap ones, are basically disposable - something breaks, you just toss it out and get a new one.

^Is anyone checking on this spam?

If you're going IP, all the signal, control, telemetry, etc. should be carried by the network... if you want to re-use the existing coax for that, you can use Veracity HighWire ethernet-over-coax converters. Just put one at each end of the coax and plug your network cables into those.

The cards themselves don't have IP addresses. They work the same as a TV-tuner card or even your sound card - the take the analog signal in and digitize it; there's just multiple inputs on one card. With the tuner card, you're taking the signal from your cable, or often from the composite-video feed from a cable or satellite receiver. With the DVR card, you're getting the same composite video from your cameras. Remote access in these cases is handled by the software used. Normally the system will run what's know as a "video server" application; remote viewing is typically done by a related client application. Some packages also include a web server, or use a third-party web server like IIS or Apache, and allow you to view the cameras remotely from a web browser. The IP address, then, belong to the PC itself, and remote access is configured the same as you would for remote desktop, web server, or any other server-type application. Port forwarding would be set up on your broadband router (unless the system is plugged directly into your cable or DSL modem, which isn't recommended). BTW, those "standalone" type DVRs are no different, conceptually, from what you're doing. They're generally a "mini PC" of some type, coupled with multiple analog-to-digital inputs, just like on the DVR card, and running an embedded operating system like Linux or some variant thereof, rather than Windows. The DVR software itself is embedded as well, and access by a remote client or web browser in the same fashion.

I've already recommended the camera may need to be replaced, as this has happened once before. More info here: http://www.iqeye.com/megapixel-network-security-camera.html This is my first time dealing with this particular model, so I can't really offer much more than that... IQEye cams in general, though, I've found to be pretty good overall (dealt a LOT with the 501s and 511s, and a number of A11 domes).

Got a call to a site today, something was obscuring most of the view... they'd looked at the front of the glass and didn't see anything, so they called us in to check it out... Get on site... it's an IQ753 day/night in an EH3512 housing... tucked inside the roofing of a side building. Interesting! Looked in the end of the housing... sure enough, nothing in front of the lens. Go back inside, pull up the video footage to see what happened when it went squirrelly... hmmm, just before 6am... was in B&W night mode before... color after, with the obstruction... hey, neat! You can actually see the IR cut filter flip into place... and get stuck halfway there! Quick reboot of the camera (from web admin, of course) and it' back to normal!