shockwave199

Correct. Take a look at the ptz menu page in the dvr. The drop down should include pelco D and P. My ptz is pelco D and has no problems at all. So just make sure the camera includes pelco D/P support and all should be fine. Good luck.

It's a question of the camera being compatable with the dvr. If it is, than the web browser will control it as well. Be sure your ptz's support pelco D or P, and you should be fine. If you haven't yet, you should also hit qsee and download the remote client app for your dvr. I find the ptz controller in the remote client app much better than the one in the web based app. Good luck.

Why do you think this happening? Is this happening during the day right under your noses, or mostly during off hours when the facility is empty? Is your facility properly lighted at night? Do you have security cameras in line that aren't helping you? Do you have a full alarm system installed, monitored by a central station, which will help provide fast police response? Has the points of entry been addressed to help keep people out? Do you have security personnel on premise- the very people that will be working and monitoring any camera system you install? Just spending large bucks on a camera system that sends you emails- hundreds of false event emails- isn't really the answer. The only somewhat automated system that can help is a full alarm system monitored by a reputable central station. It does work. Central station will dispatch police faster than you receiving a motion event email EVER will. Shoring up your perimeter, an alarm system, a camera system, and security personnel to monitor that system, not to mention just be a presence deterrent can help. As far as what dvr and cameras you install, that's important- when you get to that step of the process. Don't jump ahead to that until you have considered and fixed everything else. Otherwise you'll keep getting robbed. One of the hundreds of motion emails will try and tell you that, but you're very likely to miss it- and most certainly miss actually catching them. Good luck.

When's the last time you cleaned the lens? It looks like you brought up the brightness at the expense of definition. If you bring up the brightness, you have to bring up the contrast accordingly. You have a tough shot there. The brightness of the door, and the even tougher brightness of the light fixture much closer. I'm guessing the light fixture is skewing the shot more than anything. It's probably making the hallway appear darker from the cameras perspective than it actually is, as well. New gear can help. You have old equipment for sure. But it need not cost a fortune. You need not spend 500 bucks per camera and a fortune on a dvr. Well placed newer cameras will help right off the bat. And a well set dvr will help as well. Even modest gear can get the job done these days. Good luck.

Not sure what you mean. If your dvr has 485, connect it to the ptz and control the camera with the dvr. Am I missing what you mean?

It's a function of the motion settings menu in the ptz, at least in mine. If your ptz doesn't support scheduling, than I don't know how you would do it or if you could do it. The ptz either supports scheduling or it doesn't. In mine, I choose a preset and then schedule the time it goes to it and the time it ends. If your ptz doesn't support scheduling, turn off or choose 'none' in the idle settings, and then manually move the camera at the times you need it. Then it will stay where you put it until you move it manually again.

Unless q-see customer service confirmed that it would be fully recognized, I wouldn't waste the extra scratch on a guess. And my unofficial guess is that it wouldn't recognize a larger HD than it's spec'd for.

Please save time and typing by telling us your budget.

Well all looks better than it did. Good for you!

You've left out the dvr and the specs that are set for this channel- all channels really. What is the resolution set at? How many FPS is it? If you're going to rely on IR, I think it's a good idea to be sure your cameras have smart IR, every one of them, and consider it as important as any other spec you want in there. When you get close the camera like in your second shot, it will adjust itself so it won't white out. But here's the biggest thing about this particular channel, imo. You're asking too much of one camera and I think you're chasing good resolution shots by just adding more light- not necessarily the winning strategy here. You can't expect to be in focus everywhere within one field of view from one camera. A varifocal camera is great for giving you the flexibility to dial in exactly where you want the best ID shot within the fov. It doesn't mean everywhere you put yourself in the shot will be in focus. What you'd be better off doing is having one camera set at a properly zoomed fov for the far shot by the gate, and another with a proper fov for the near shot at the cars. More cameras with proper fov's set for each location is better than trying cover a wide area with only one camera. And you're doing the exact right thing by doing this exercise with a person in the shot. So often cameras are pointed, everything is in the frame you want to see, and you think you're done. So, if possible delegate specific cameras for each important location. Seriously consider smart IR cameras. Make sure your dvr channels are set max everything to help give you a good shot. That's gonna help big time right there. Good luck.

If your system is working perfectly, and unless you have a major serious reason to change the whole thing- don't fix what ain't broke. It works against you every time. Leave well enough alone. My 2 cents worth.

You mention two different series- QS and QT. Each has their own multi client software that will do what you need to do. But there is no software that will pipe in both QS and QT, for example. At least not that I know of. Each has it's own MCS. http://qsee.custhelp.com/app/guide/g_id/11/session/L3RpbWUvMTM0NzkzNDY1OC9zaWQvQXp5TnF3Nmw%3D Plug in what series dvr you have, and follow the yellow brick road...

Thanks for your reply anyways I guess I will rename this "My analog camera vs.." notice I also said budget ip camera. I guessing your analog camera that blows mine away probably cost twice as much as mine if not more then my ip camera. Im open for a better ip camera then what I got for under $185. Thanks for your concern though. Aside from my analog ptz which is superb at night and is more expensive, all my analog cameras are under 100 bucks- most around 60-70 bucks. Same budget, but not the same results. I can't speak to IP or MP cameras for suggestions. Your night shots of the camera, coupled with lots of troubled night shots I see along the way, is why I have no problem sticking with analog. And whether IP/MP or analog, personally I would steer clear of dome cameras with IR inside. Too much risk of IR reflection issues ruining the picture.

Glad you're happier. I did notice the full size IP image isn't great- almost approaching analog. I have analog cameras that blow away your analog camera in day and night, so not a great representation of analog there to begin with. But, glad you're happier with the IP cam.

Keep trying q-see support and/or live chat, or even facebook. That should be an RMA if still under warranty.

Yes I realize that. A joke. But it's good the color is accurate. All cameras look very good in fact. Nice! Seriously, my home install totals approx 1,600. The system at work is at 15k and climbing with nothing but problems. And I'm not thrilled with the camera choices or the backed up footage. You do NOT need to spend fortune to get excellent quality if you choose right and install well- as evidenced by your picture.

The wall color is actually pretty hideous.

Now you're confused? The qvis pdf you link to is not a varifocal camera, which you say you want, and nowhere does it specify TDN with IR cut. And it's well over a hundred bucks when all is said and done. Most won't know the gadspot- I don't even have it. I'm sure it would be a good choice to consider, that's all. Good features and less expensive. Frankly, I think you should be considering an inexpensive TDN IR cut camera with no osd- everything auto. You put it up, aim it, and there you have it. If you don't know much about settings, a camera with menu options will be difficult for you to dial in. And worst of all, you're pointing an IR camera down at the grass right beneath it. That's most of the problem with the camera you have there at the moment. Point it up and out and you'll help avoid the IR hot spot in the grass.

Meh. Too much money for a so-so camera. It doesn't even say it's a TDN with a cut filter. I mention that because your day shot looks washed out like that camera doesn't have it either. Any camera you consider should have that included. I know I recommend gadspots a lot, but consider a GS830SM. It has smart IR and should help reduce that hot spot of white in the middle of your shot. I think you have a pretty extreme angle set and you have the fov tight to the ground. You might want to try keeping the camera set at it's widest, pointing it up a bit more to get the road [driveway?] more in the shot as well. A wider more gradual angle might help ease the IR blast on the lawn.

It can be done and it doesn't have to be a super expensive camera to do it. This camera is a gadspot with no osd- everything is auto. BLC, WDR in there. This shot is 3pm, not quite as bright as 12pm. But there is still of a good deal bright/contrast that it has to digest. I don't think it's as extreme as the OP's pic, but without a decent camera making it look acceptable it would be way out of balance and I would be in pretty dark shade right there- probably no ID to the shot. This was a nice camera for 70 bucks last year, but they sold out. You might consider a GS830SM from them as a good camera under 100 bucks. The second pic is something you may want to consider, which is the approach to your front door. That's the approach to my front door from my driveway. Two cameras is sometimes better than one not handling anything in the shot very well. Good luck.

Anyone ever see this happen? This is a camera at work and it seems to flip randomly into this in the afternoon. It's a watchdog dome with twilight, which model I don't exactly know. It gets hit with a good deal of sun so I figure that has something to do with it. I haven't adjusted any brightness/contrast settings yet but I'm not even sure it would help. I only have access to the dvr, not the cameras themselves at this point- which is where I think something in the OSD will need to be tweaked to solve it.

I don't think it's heat related now that it isn't pointing into the sun and still does it. The camera is malfunctioning. A new one will be installed.

Well along those lines, I have a landscaper vid too. It was part of early testing of the settings. It's not perfect and it will keep the camera moving. All things to consider. And, it may annoy the landscapers 3nZY4LPlsJo

I think it's a symptom of bad installers, generally speaking. Take the company I work for. They have an installer come in. They recommend so-so gear, probably because they can pad the cost of it all to increase profit. That little gem is wrapped up in the little white lie that the added cost is worth it because of the customer service from the manufacturer. I've yet to seen truly great customer service from gear manufacturers. Then you have to rely on the installer actually doing a good, proper install. One which will stay solid for the long haul. Will they actually spend the time and aim the cameras just so? Will they take the time to try and set the cameras per location for the best settings beyond defaults? Do they even really know the cameras they're hanging? Will they put importance on night images, arguably the most important and trickiest settings to get right, per location? Will they be interested in servicing your location in the long run, when cameras may fail, dvr's may choke, or wires and connections may fail? Or will they suddenly stop coming to the rescue. When the multi thousands are spent and perhaps 15 months or so goes by and things aren't aimed right, set right, and start to fail, and service takes weeks or longer, you start hitting up forums for answers. If it's bad enough, you take matters into your own hands. Or you put an employee in charge of the system, if you're lucky enough to have one that can do it, or cares to do it. That would be me, in our case. Coincidentally, I monitor the whole system as my job. I've already saved the company thousands in service calls just to aim and tweak cameras that were essentially a hang and run. And I'll be purchasing and installing further cameras as well. Necessity, not just because. If you provide exceptional service, it won't matter what's happening on forums- which by the way is a very, very small world compared. Don't concern yourself with this minutia here. Concern yourself with superb service. That's the best insurance policy for your business. Otherwise you can be sure, we'll do it ourselves one way or another.

Thank you for watching, first off. i know you will defend your ptz. BUT your night video is not a true example of auto tracking. it lost you 3 times in a short video............... it is only because you have your laptop with you that you could reactivate the auto tracker you had to walk back into its neutral point. Yes it did lose me a few times. Auto tracking is not perfect. It is SUPPORT for static cameras. the part when your at your door...... you knock then start to walk away your camera returns to neutral. say if that was a intruder knocking to see if anyone is in. steps back to look at windows your auto tracker would do the same return to neutral. leaving the intruder to do what ever he need to get in your front door............. you will only pick him back up on his way to the road. without your laptop you video would have only lasted seconds. At the door, no matter what or where the camera ended up, the fact is it gave a helpful ID shot at the moment- in fact lots of very good frames worth. I also have a static camera on the doors and windows and I also have a static camera on the driveway by the cars. The tracking ptz simply supported them with more views and angles. All pictures combined from all three cameras would make very strong footage. auto tracking has been around for 8 years or so and it never works.... alarm inputs do work they make the PTZ do its job and no one needs to be in field of view (which is the main problem with auto tracking subject NEEDS to be in field or view) I'm not defending my camera Tom. I left all the times when tracking lost me in that footage so someone like you could comment as you have. I left it unedited to demonstrate when it works and when it doesn't, so people can make a better decision if it's something they want. That was my intention all along, since there wasn't much footage at all extensively covering it. I have lots of demos with the camera tracking, for better or worse. There are TONS of frames in all those videos where ID could have been helpful and POSITIVE. But you can't admit that. You'd rather argue that auto tracking can lose you- a point that I agree with with. No need to argue. If tracking helps provide a single frame of footage to aid in positive ID, it was worth the price of admission. It can do that. And it can fail miserably, which is why I say it's SUPPORT for an otherwise well implemented network of static cameras. And if you have that you can argue you don't NEED tracking at that point. My opinion, you can never have enough coverage. If you have a professional installer suggesting you get it, or insisting it's not worth it, or you're doing your own install and wondering what an auto tracking camera can and can't do, it's all there to see in my vids for this type of camera. I hope they help. I can't say anymore about it. I agree with the arguments and I also still appreciate having a camera that includes tracking, along with everything else it can do.