Soundy

Was there a brand, model name or serial number on the DVR itself? You can usually look up the manufacturer, and sometimes the specific model, of such cards by finding the FCC ID number (should be silkscreened on the PCB) and looking it up at http://www.fcc.gov A photo or two of the card might help us identify it as well.

Pretty good article... the only thing that I don't like about it is the term "megapixel lens" in general. It's a misleading, inaccurate, and inappropriate term that unfortunately has come into such common use that even the manufacturers are using it. For one thing, it gives people the incorrect idea that lenses "have pixels"... kind of like in my car-audio days, when I'd regularly hear guys asking how many watts a sub "has", and assuming that speakers with higher wattage ratings would always "hit harder". Second, it gives the idea that "regular" CCTV lenses simply will not work on megapixel cameras, which is also misleading and inaccurate. They may not be the idea choice, as your article details, but the myth needs to be dispelled that megapixel cameras REQUIRE "special" lenses. Part of the problem with marketing terms like this, especially this early in the technology's development, is that it can be too-easily tossed about with no real numbers to back it up. Any manufacturer can claim their lens is a "megapixel lens" with little to back that claim up, and with no distinction whether it's suitable for 1MP, 3MP, 5MP or higher. Sure, the good ones will include spec sheets with that data... but most won't, and most people won't know how to read it anyway, and you end up with issues like in this thread where people can't understand why they went for a higher-resolution camera (5MP in this case) when they can't see any improvement over a cheaper one (3MP)... I mean, it's a "megapixel lens", right? Anyway, that's my rant... other than propagating a bad marketing term, it's a good article It goes hand-in-hand with my other rant, people who refer to megapixel cameras as "High Definition" or "HDTV" cameras, trying to cash in on THAT unrelated marketing term. Not only is a poor attempt to use an incorrect but popular buzzword, but it does the cameras a disservice, as anything over 2MP is far higher resolution than HDTV.

"PoE" = Power over Ethernet... regular analog cameras != Ethernet. Also, while a "quad-balun" may be convenient for four cameras, it's not necessary - with only two cameras, a pair of spring- or screw-terminal baluns (such as these) will work fine and probably cost less.

In addition to the low light hampering autofocus, keep in mind that as the aperture opens up in lower light, the depth of field shortens, so things closer and farther than the point you're focused on will go out of focus.

Definitely sounds like you're getting to much voltage drop. Unless there's something seriously faulty with the power supply, 1A should be way more than enough current (heck 300-500mA is probably enough), so it's not that. I'm guessing this is a regulated supply as well, as an unregulated "12VDC" unit would probably be producing anywhere from 14 to 18V at the output, and the drop over a longer run wouldn't be so problematic. If it's regulated and actually putting out a solid 12V though, it may be dropping to 10V or less by the time it gets to the camera. Again, a multimeter is your friend - check the voltage at the supply and at the camera and see how much you're losing.

See if it's printed on the wire itself - might be 22, 20, 18, etc. What is it sold as - speaker wire, zip wire, etc.? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wire_gauge for more info.

What size (gauge) wire are you using to extend the power? I'm betting it's too small and the voltage is dropping too much by the time it reaches the camera. Try metering the voltage at the camera.

70+VA is a lot of current for running over two pair in a Cat-5 (that's where the real bottleneck is for the current. I'd definitely recommend a separate 18-16ga. power wire for that kind of juice.

That won't change the software. Drivers merely provide "translation" between the hardware and the software (or in most modern cases, the operating system itself). The software that does the actual recording, still has to be able to handle 32 channels of video. If you look at the software, it has options to configure 16 cameras, and to view 16 cameras. Plugging another card in won't (necessarily) make it magically show an extra 16 cameras (disclaimer: some software WILL do this, but as I already said, I'm not familiar with the GeoVision system *specifically*). That I don't know. It may TECHNICALLY work, but there may be licensing issues involved if you want to be LEGAL. I'd suggest waiting until someone responds with a definitive answer whether this will actually work with the GV systems... otherwise you may end up with a card that won't do what you want.

I don't know about the Geovision specifically, but in general, your software has to be able to support >16 cameras as well. Not all software does.

From my experience, 8-channel systems are usually PC-based, while standalone systems tend to go in 4/9/16-channel steps. I can only guess at why, but my suspicious is this: Many (most?) standalone DVR designs appear to be built off multiplexor designs (and why not, since most incorporate mux function as well), where 4, 9 and 16 cameras are "round numbers" for 2x2, 3x3, and 4x4 split-screen grids. So it would make sense to adhere to that design standard. As for PCs, it seems most cards are 4, 8, 16, or 32-channel designs, which may be based on multi-encoder A/D chips used for the capture cards - if you have two or four encoders on a single chip, it makes sense to build cards with multiples of two or four inputs. Right now, for analog we're using mostly Pelco cameras - C3701/3751 models for "box" cameras, IS-90s for indoor domes, and IS-110/ICS-111 outdoor domes. This is due more to those being spec'd by our largest client, but we use them for other sites as well. They have some particularly annoying design aspects that make them more of a pain to install and setup than they should be, but the image quality is good. We've also regularly used a variety of Panasonic, National Electronics, and Capture cameras, and they've all generally been solid performers. There's also a brand of dome we've been using, I can't recall off the top of my head what they are... GNB or something like that, I think... they're low-cost and *fantastic* image quality, in a lot of cases better than name-brand cameras costing twice as much. They're really well designed, easy to install and adjust, full range of adjustments through three axes. If I remember, I'll look them up when I get to work later. For IP cams, all we've used so far is IQEye units, mainly IQ-511s, and the odd IQ-A11 dome where a dome is called for.

Answer: yes. There are plenty of IP-based 4CIF/D1 cameras out there. They're not as "hyped" because adding IP is a fair extra cost that doesn't hold any benefit for the image quality; the main "benefit" of IP isn't the IP medium itself, but the fact that it's needed (at least with current technology) to support resolutions over 720x480, beyond the range of analog video standards. Most (all?) of the IQEye cameras are 1/2", but that's really not much larger than a 1/3" - not enough to significantly improve the light collection capability. To get to that point, you need to get into Avigilon territory (http://www.avigilon.com), whose top 11MP and 16MP cameras have sensors the size of a 35mm film frame.

No, it doesn't. A lens, in this definition, is a series of curved glass or plastic elements that bend light. Along with some supporting structure, and an integral iris to control the amount of light transmitted, that's all there is to it. A lens doesn't know or care what type of camera it's on; all it does is bend light. It works exactly the same whether it's mounted in front of an electronic sensor, or a piece of film, or just a white piece of paper. Cheaper lenses may take advantage of the fact that cheaper, low-res cameras won't show up deficiencies in design and manufacturing, but they work exactly the same as expensive "megapixel" lenses... the higher-resolution cameras are just more likely to make the deficiencies stand out.

There should be no problem with that, the balun doesn't know or care what serial protocol you're using. Also, that camera should work fine with RS-232 and 422 as well as 485, so the converter shouldn't be necessary (although in my experience, RS-485 can be less problematic).

Well, all technology has to progress in steps. Keep in mind that a megapixel IP cameras' sensor is the same size, or only slightly larger, than most low-light analog cameras' sensors, while containing four or more times the number of pixels... that means each pixel must necessarily be about 1/4 the size, and thus able to collect a lot less light. To find a megapixel camera with the same low-light capability, you need one with a much larger sensor... and a correspondingly larger cost. "I canna change the laws o' physics, Cap'n!"

If your DVR supports the HID (Human Interface Device) spec on its USB port, then most wireless mice should work (you can test this by plugging a regular USB mouse in and seeing if that works). For the BT dongle to work, it would have to conform to the HID spec as well, which cheap ones may not do.

Are you trying to forward two separate outside ports to port 80 on the same inside IP? No router will support that.

You're probably okay with that, sure. Concerns might be if you were doing something I/O-intensive, like playing back a BluRay video...

Nothing wrong with discussing it here, but you'll get a lot more people reading it, and thus a lot more input, by putting it in the appropriate forum. As for how the cameras are typically connected, it'll depend entirely on the type of cameras and the recording technology you go with. If you go with all IP cameras, you can use NVR software and forgo additional capture hardware. Ethernet-over-powerline will generally work for this, although AFAIK most systems are somewhat limited - ie. all devices have to be on the same phase of the circuit. There are WiFi-capable network cameras as well, but they naturally are subject to the standard limitations of range, speed, etc.

Welcome, eno45! Feel free to post more specific questions in the appropriate areas as they come up, but a bit of advice right off the top: Recording multiple cameras can be fairly system-intensive, and if you want to use a PC-based solution, you really want to have a machine dedicated to that purpose. More important than the chance of the cameras slowing the system down, there's the chance of other activities affecting the quality or reliability of the recording. And as with everything else in life, you really do get what you pay for - cheap eBay cameras simply won't give the same quality and reliability as good professional-grade cameras. You don't have to break the bank on your cameras, but if your security is important, don't cheap out on them either.

If that was tracking me... I'd run away! Straight up, I'd be afraid it was packing weaponry!

^Damn, that looks real bad-ass!!

100 % agree with Soundy What I done few times NTSC standard signal Gen in place of the camera and Oscilloscope at the DVR then u can have some data to play and analyse Since I use a portable DVD player as my field monitor, I made a DVD with various looped test signals - color bars, alignment grids, grey scales, etc. Don't need to use it very often, and I wouldn't really trust any of them for laboratory-grade signal analysis, but it's handy to carry around. It's easy to look at the player's screen to compare, too. Maybe I should look into a USB/software oscilloscope for my laptop Agree don't use very often my self good old days of service are gone (thanks god) i mean component level repair Don't even get me started... my previous job was tech support at a digital-arts school... the digital-video lab had component monitors, we spent hours with the signal gen and vectorscope getting everything JUST SO. Didn't help that one of the instructors was beyond anal about it, either - "look at that trace, the blue cable must be a quarter-inch longer than the others!" Thanks, but I don't think I could justify the cost of either from a business perspective

Just out of curiosity, HOW do you have baluns wired into the serial run?? Typical baluns are BNC on one side and a pair of spring or screw terminals on the other, I can't picture how they'd even connect to the serial ports.

There's no need to use a baudrate over 2400, or at most 9600 (I've run into a couple older PTZs that are 9600-only) - a lower rate will be less prone to data corruption from interference. Also, ensure the rest of the port settings match (8N1 - 8 data bits, No parity, 1 stop bit, an no flow control).