Soundy

That's a big, "it depends". How long will they be run together? How close together? How much current is the mains carrying? Is it loomex, or BX type cable? Worst case, the interference causes network dropouts... fairly easy to diagnose.

Yeah, a laptop that sources PoE would be a pretty rare find, but there are plenty of ways around it. Carrying a simple PoE injector in your laptop bag would work, for example. I've used the wireless method before as well - just plug a cheap wireless router into the same switch as the cameras and away you go. Or the camera can also be plugged directly into the router at is location, allowing the laptop to link to it wirelessly (you'd need a switch with PoE though, or some other power source). My solution for this was to attach a small board regulator to my 12V gel-cel test battery, and adjust the regulator for the 5VDC the router requires; the battery can then power the router and the camera, and the whole setup can be temporarily placed at or near the camera for setup and testing.

I don't know what format they actually are (since a lot of times, these things are a more common video format under a different name), but you could try installing VLC Player along with a codec pack like K-Lite Mega Pack, and see if VLC will play them... if so, that should tell you what codec they're actually using, and that should then be usable in a number of different conversion apps.

That smacks of the switch having problems with the traffic, to me. What model switch is this? Just so you know, that won't affect the traffic issues at all. If something else is causing the PoE to drop off some cameras, that will bypass that little issue, but that's about all.

Using PoE in a number of sites now, haven't noticed any dropouts. One site, the move was "encouraged" after problems with the initial 18/2 power wiring was frying cameras (we never did figure out why; electricians did all the wiring before we even got there). It's possible these two problems are related. As we've seen in numerous other threads, cheap "home-office" switches will often have problems with the amount of traffic megapixel cams throw at them, leading to delays, dropouts, and latency problems. It's possible your cameras aren't actually losing power, but are simply dropping out (thereby leading the PoE source/switch to think that they've been disconnected and turning off the power to that port). What are you using for your PoE and switches? I've used the LinkSys SFE1000P on several sites (eight 10/100 PoE ports, two fiber/GbE ports) and found it very solid; another site, we're running thirteen 1.3MP cameras on a LinkSys SRW2024P 24-port 10/100/1000 PoE switch with nary a hiccup.

I wouldn't call it a "replacement" really - the pixel IS the proper unit of measurement for an electronic (CCD or CMOS) image sensor, after all. "TV Lines" is a throwback to when tubes were used for imaging and didn't have individual pixels. Unless they're non-square pixels, how do you figure? This is true with any type of cameras, though - there are too many other factors that come into play that are often overlooked, even with standard analog CCTV. Pixel size plays a huge part in the sensor's ability to gather light, and thus in its low-light performance. Lens optical quality is regularly discussed and debated in photography circles, but generally taken for granted with CCTV (one of Avigilon's advantages, in addition to a larger sensor, is the ability to use high-quality photographic lenses). Why is it a loss? It's a limited, inaccurate term. It will tell you the vertical resolution of a sensor, but not the horizontal resolution. Trying to carry over analog terms into an all-digital world is just folly; the sellers may like the ability to snow buyers with meaningless "specs" but it certainly doesn't benefit the end user. Might as well advertise a car by touting its ability to fire up in only three turns of the crank handle.

Could probably sell off the Pelco DVR for a pretty penny and just plop in another Axis, for that matter... those things are incredibly over-priced!

D-oh!

Well, if both systems have a webserver, you can easily view both in the same browser (either on separate tabs, or side-by-side windows). If your IP cameras use a streaming standard like RTSP, you might be able to use something like VLC to view a combination of them (though that might require each camera in its own VLC window).

If by "HTVL" you mean terms like 720p and 1080p... there is no valid reason to use them other than for marketing. Technically, even "MP" designations are often only approximate - for example, 1280x1024 is typically sold as "1.3MP" even though it's technically 1.25MP. The only truly accurate measure IS the listed HxV resolution.

Found lense here, not that expensive http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&Q=&IC=CA6004LISEF&A=RetrieveSku There is even 800m version: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&A=RetrieveSku&IC=CA80056LISEF&Q= Nice stuff That's not the same lens... looks like it has focus AND zoom rings. Canon doesn't show anything even similar to that on their site... in fact, if I didn't know better, I'd say that looks like a Nikon lens (which can be used on an EF mount with an adapter, although you lose AF capability). Hmm, bingo! This looks like the one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381605-REG/Sigma_595101_Zoom_Super_Telephoto_300_800mm.html Looks like a tele-extender on it as well, probably this 2X model: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/390169-USA/Sigma_876101_2x_EX_DG_APO.html So that's got an effective zoom of 600-1600mm at f/11. Veeeeery tasty! (BTW, was at an airshow on the weekend, got to play with a buddy's EF 400 f/2.8L IS USM[/url], on my 40D... now THAT is a nice toy!)

Oddly enough, I can't find the thread discussing the "plug and play" cameras on here... but I'm sure ak357 can point you to some more info on them.

Put simply, the power is carried over the network cable, rather than a separate power cable. Power is supplied by a PoE-capable switch or separate "injector" unit instead of a typical CCTV power supply. Not really. PoE uses two pairs of the four in a standard network cable: with 10/100, these pairs are not used; for gigabit, the spec has extra provisions for providing "phantom" power riding on the signal lines. PoE normally runs at 48VDC, rather than the 12VDC or 24VAC more commonly used for separate power supplies. This allows for lower current requirements and less line loss as well.

There are loads of solutions for this - four-channel DVR cards with software abound on eBay and other such sites. There are also plenty of more "professional" grade solutions available from the vendors on this site, from "standalone" DVRs (basically, a digital replacement for your VCR and switcher/multiplexor) to higher-quality cards and software to put in your computer. Check some of the above banner ads for suggestions...

^i dont worry about the voltage drops and ampere rating issues. i know it. im an electrician. i just dont know it well when it comes to electronics. whats the effect (if there is) of using electronic types or switching types on videos. Not a lot, really. A "basic" transformer-type adapter uses a simple stepdown transformer (10:1 for 120VAC, 20:1 for 240VAC), a bridge rectifier, and a filter cap or two. If you figure the secondary of the transformer is giving you 12VAC RMS, that gives you just under 17VAC P-P (all these numbers are nominal, of course, assuming as solid 120 or 240 VAC RMS to the primary - real-world, the line voltage will usually vary by a few percentage points). Rectify that, filter the ripple a bit, and you end up with around 16-17VDC out. As you know, you WILL get voltage drop over your camera run - how much will depend on the length of the run, the size of the wire, and the current draw of the load (camera, IR LEDs, heaters, etc.). With a non-regulated supply, you have a little more leeway, because it would take a hulluva long run of very thin wire to give you a 4-5V drop. A typical regulated supply takes the output of that transformer, then, and regulates it to a very steady 12VDC (give or take a couple percent, depending on the tolerance of the components used). Rather than reinvent the wheel here, I'll link you to a good article on switching supplies; how they work, and some of their benefits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched-mode_power_supply The only real "problem" with switching and regulated supplies is that while they maintain a constant output voltage *at the supply*, the drop over a long run may cause enough voltage loss for the camera to simply stop working. I'm not a guitarist, but as an audio engineer, I was always given to understand that the prference for tubes was that they produced a "smoother" sound than silicon, the reason being that when overdriven (ie. pushed to the point where the output signal is clipped), tubes generate "more musical" even-order harmonics (second, fourth, eighth, etc.), whereas transistors create odd-order harmonics that tend to sound harsher or "more mechanical". Of course, which is "better" is really a matter of preference; some guys like that harsher, shredded sound...

It is the HDMI specification they upgrade. There is now support for for 4K x 2K resolution. I Don't have any say in that I'm afraid Does the new spec also extend the effective length of HDMI cables beyond 60 ft.? Once again, CCTV has different goals than HDTV. HDMI is impractical for the majority of CCTV applications. Pretty sure they do, actually... you still need three times the encoding power to process component video, if that's how you're getting the analog signal to your DVR. Those requirements are not likely to be very attractive to developers. As I already said, I see the disadvantage of running 3 coax cable. I don't however see the problem of camera's outputting a higher resolution and sending that through 1 coax (apart from cost that is). I kind of ranted on about the rest above:) Already addressed that: there is currently no analog HD standard that supports this, and developing one at this point would be meaningless with the other options alread available. You'd never be able to recoup the costs, even IF you could get manufacturers *and users* onboard. What you are saying is that few manufacturers combine the good from the analogue cams with the convenience from IP cams? Some like Panny do. Would indeed make a great cam if they can beef up the res. I expect it's been mainly an issue of priorities. You already have analog cams ranging from cheap, low-TVL, poor-low-lux, to high-TVL, super-dynamic, starlight-illumination, infrared and thermal cameras, in a correspondingly wide range of prices. The only real barrier was the resolution limitations of NTSC/PAL video. So the next step was to select a transmission method for higher-resolution cameras. HDTV standards had barely been ratified and accepted by the industry, and adapting existing systems and designs to that would have been expensive. Meantime, 100Mbit ethernet was dirt-cheap and GBe prices were dropping fast. Hubs had already become obsolete and switches were cheap. IP was a natural choice if for no other reason than the timing of it. You still have your camera sensor, and your video digitizer... but instead of using a low-resolution analog transmission medium to tie them together over a distance, you just build the two together, and use a digital distance-transmission method instead. 60 fps is where is maxes out when it comes to unique frames. The rest is 'intelligent' frame creation by the TV circuitry or repeat frame. Thanks for all the insights. I did have a motive for asking all this. As I value your pro input, in your opinion, is the analogue res. enough to recognise the face of the burglar/vandal if using a quality analogue cam, good IR-lighting and the right lens? The only answer to that question is, "it depends". With a tight shot on the area of concern (say, a 36"-wide door, or other access bottleneck), you can easily get recognizable faces out of an analog camera. Megapixel simply gives you the option to cover a wider area with the same detail, or pull higher detail out of the same area. Look at it mathematically: if your analog capture card samples at 640x480, and your 1.3MP camera outputs 1280x1024, you have double the horizontal and vertical resolution; for that given coverage area, the detail you get out of one 1.3MP camera would require *four* NTSC cameras to achieve the same level of detail. Again, "it depends". If you're just talking about one or two cameras, going with a system that uses an 8- or 16-input card is probably overkill and you're paying for a lot of additional capacity you don't need. If lighting isn't a problem, an MP cam will provide you far better detail; if lighting is an issue, well, you can get MP cams with good low-lux performance, but they'll be a lot pricier. You have to remember to separate "IP" from "megapixel" to some degree here, because any standard analog camera can be run over IP with the use of a video-encoder box. If an analog camera is sufficient (or required by other factors), and you have networking already in place, this can save you substantially on installation costs over having to pull new coax and paying extra for unneeded capacity. What you want to do with the video can also be a factor, since if you don't need to record the video locally, an IP-based camera will generally have the ability for you to view it remotely via network, as well as to email or ftp images and video clips to you or a remote server - thats even more savings without having a dedicated local recorder and the ability to simply plug the camera into any handy network port. Try THAT with HDMI

...and I'm sure the cheque is in the mail!

So, do we get a kickback, or what? Hehehe, congrats on a job well done!

Yes... and it's digitizing the video internally and transmitting it over USB. No, but again, it will require an entirely new video standard. You'd then need to get both the camera and the DVR manufacturers onboard to develop that standard and design hardware to support it. They'll only do that if, as Scorpion suggests, you provide them lots and lots of development money, or if they see a substantial enough market for it. At this point, you're moving into a market that's already addressed by megapixel IP cameras. Given the rate at which that market is growing, with prices dropping accordingly (economy of scale!), and the fact that it would take years to bring such a new standard to market, I don't think you'll find anyone interested in building it. Oh, BTW, there is a method already to get that high-res video over a single coax: http://www.veracityusa.com/products/products.php Those also use connectors that are unsuitable for CCTV installations - S-video connectors in particular are prone to falling out on their own.

1080p translates to 1920x1080 resolution... that's barely 2MP in terms of IP cameras. 3 and 5MP IP cameras are common now, and that limit will only go up... analog HD has already hit a ceiling there. Unless you come up with a new HD standard, that's something of a dead end. It's very simple: they use standard NTSC or PAL video technology. The camera AND capture technology is readily available and cheap. And more to the point, the standard has been around for 50 years, whereas analog HD standards have only been settled on relatively recently, and even at the consumer level, the recording systems are still relatively rare and expensive. Again, cost-benefit. Single-input analog-HD record devices are rare and expensive at the consumer level... they'd be even more so for multi-input devices. You'd also have to convince manufacturers to incorporate that technology into their cameras, something that's not likely to show a cost-benefit for them. And you'd have to convince installers to run three times the cable, or use UTP with RGB baluns, which are also prohibitively expensive and fairly limited in quality and resolution supported. Only partially true. The problem is not IP cameras specifically, but the fact that *megapixel* technology is still new and going through growing pains. Whether it's IP has no bearing on the camera's light-sensing capabilities; as an example, Panasonic makes an IP version of their very excellent WV-CW484 Super-Dynamic III dome camera. It's essentially the same high-quality camera, with the video digitizer and network interface built-in. The camera is designed for NTSC/PAL output, however, so even over IP, the output resolution is only 640x480 (rumor is Panasonic will be releasing megapixel versions of their new SD5 cameras). In the end, remember that the GOAL of surveillance is not the same as for TV and movies. The GOAL is not super-quality video for people to sit back and immerse themselves in, it's to record activity on a number of fronts, essentially for record-keeping, and usually to store that for a long period of time. Remember that HDTV also operates at 30, 60, or even 120fps, whereas most surveillance is recording at 5fps or less. Once again, cost-benefit: in most instances, full-motion video is not as important as reduced storage requirements.

Component generally uses coax as well, it just uses three of them for one signal. Y/C cables are generally either twin-ax or have two coax pairs internally. What you're really asking is, why composite video? Simple answer: cost and simplicity. Same reason 95% of home A/V components have until recently only had composite video. For surveillance especially, there's not a huge benefit to Y/C or RGB, certainly not enough to offset the additional cost. As well, there's no suitable capture equipment (that I'm aware of) to record it. Y/C input is SOMEWHAT common on single-channel consumer capture devices, but even now, RGB input is rare until you get into HD equipment, and even for SD capture, it's pretty pricey... extend that to 4, 8, 16 or 32 channels and the price becomes extremely prohibitive - IP at that point is far easier and cheaper. Factor in as well, the cost of the actual cable - Cat5e is the same price or cheaper these days than coax, so why run three wires when you only need one? I could go on about other issues that just pop to mind (imagine a component-in DVR with 48 BNCs for 16 component inputs?! Cameras with three BNCs for output??) but again, the main reason is cost-benefit. Given the relative (to TV/movie production cameras) low quality of most CCTV cameras, they wouldn't really gain anything from the added cable anyway.

Well, I'm not familiar enough with the GV software to tell you where to look specifically... but you did mention a "threshold" function, which is a common setting on a gate - it's where you set the level at which it "cuts out". However, for your situation, I think an investment in a compressor would be a better idea - besides working around your gating problem, it will also even out the audio for later playback. Think of it this way: as it is, you're probably riding the volume control during playback anyway - turning it up and down to match the varying speech levels? A compressor essentially automates that process. If you're recording three mics normally, a quad-channel unit would probably be best. Something along these lines: http://www.dbxpro.com/1046/1046.php (it's a little more on the spendy side, but it's pro gear and would serve you well, probably for decades... and it's cheaper than four individual units). Run the mics into one of these, then out from there to your MOTU or even straight into the GV inputs. I found dozens of suitable devices out there - look up names like Rane, Behringer, Alesis, BSS, or even SSL.

Won't solve the problem. The problem is that I'm on a private network, I can't access the outmost routers to configure them, they're NATting, clients like me share same public IP addresses.. and DynDns won't work either. But that's exactly what he's talking about. Same as rory said: Exactly, my problem is that I can't find any device which can connect to the outside world... they are all lazy things that sit there with a webserver waiting for somebody to connect TO them... This is what the "plug and play" IP cameras ak357 is talking about do - they initiate an outgoing connection to an outside server... you then surf to that server, and it connects you back to your cameras. They're basically cameras that operate the way you're wanting your DVR to operate.

Same kind of idea as I already suggested... and what he's trying to avoid.

Nothing is "over" - the choice is always dependent on the situation. (Okay, VCRs are pretty much over, but that's as much because nobody's making them anymore). PC-based DVRs have some distinct advantages over standalones (and keep in mind, these are GENERALITIES - some standalones will also have extended capabilities that address some of these items... but most won't): * They're much more expandable, especially in terms of storage. Add more drives internally, plug in external USB drives, add on RAID arrays and NAS. * They're more flexible - you can install additional software to do just about anything you need the system to do. You can add on network tunneling, analytics, video editing, advanced video and image processing, remote desktop access, etc. I've recently set up a system with a text-inserter box that supports web-based configuration, so it's great to be able to remote into the DVR, fire up a web browser, and tweak the TVS from there. * They're often a friendlier interface - people are used to using computers with a mouse and keyboard, not clicking a couple buttons and spinning a job wheel to step through menus. * They're far more upgradeable. Standalones generally have little or no path for upgrading software short of a firmware flash. You mention hybrids - a standalone that doesn't support IP cameras will likely never support IP cameras, whereas a PC-based machine can either have its software upgraded, or have separate software for IP support added on. Naturally, standalones have their own benefits - they're cheaper, more compact, easier to lock away. They CAN be more robust and reliable, IF they're well-built, and can often survive harsher environments. But in answer to your question: no, DVR cards are far from over.