dalepres

This really doesn't sound like something that can be solved without the courts. I definitely recommend that your friend not engage in more tit-for-tat. Don't harass or interfere with the cameras with lasers or lights. Doing so would violate the neighbor's space in the same way as the neighbor is violating your friend's space. I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on the Internet but my recommendation is that your friend go to court and seek a court order requiring them to mask the cameras to not show areas of your friend's property where they would normally expect privacy - beyond a fence, for instance - and that the neighbor be required to provide your friend access to view the cameras through the Internet a limited number of times per month to verify that the camera settings are not changed.

Recognizing faces far away isn't going to be about megapixels as much as it is going to be about lenses. Actually, it will be a pricing balance between the two. If money is no object, and I mean Bill Gates kind of no-object, you can do it with megapixels: http://www.wired.com/2012/06/gigapixel-camera/ For the rest of us, there are a lot of 2 to 3 MP PTZ cameras with 20 to 30X zoom for 500 to 2000 dollars. But you mentioned needing to recognize faces at a distance but you didn't say that there are multiple places where you need that recognition. There is the option of using a box camera in an outdoor housing and a c-mount zoom lens. This could save you money.

I haven't used the QNAP system though it was on my wishlist for a long time. I ended up with a Synology to do the same thing. My reasoning for the first Synology (or QNAP had I purchased that instead) was to use it as iSCSI from my PC so that the PC can record using whatever software I choose but I can put the storage remote from the PC. If a burglar comes in, they'll likely take the PC; I don't want them to take the video of them taking the PC along with them. I have a second Synology that I use with Synology's Surveillance Station software and it does pretty well for motion detection while the first Synology records 24/7. All of my cameras are recorded on at least two different NVRs and those NVRs are not in the same part of the house as each other or the camera. I've been idle on this forum for a while but I was researching mini-NVRs and that research brought me back here to the very awesome 39-page (as of now) mini-NVR thread. As I install clusters of 2 to 3 cameras further from the main living areas on the properties, such as backyard house corners, outbuildings, poles in the yard, I want to bring just one Ethernet cable to any of these camera clusters rather than a cable per camera - because camera counts change and then you find you need more cable than you ran. I am setting up local ethernet switches with a mini-NVR at each camera cluster. That NVR will record the cluster and record at least one or more cameras from another cluster. For DYI, I don't suggest buying anyone's "kit" system. They generally come with low-quality cameras and wide angle lenses - 4MM or wider. A good surveillance system will have more close up lenses on choke points and entry points. Since you know a burglar must pass a certain point, that is the place where you want to get a closeup of the face. Use a more narrow lens. Kits don't account for this. Even if you choose to single-source from Dahua consider buying one piece at a time rather than a kit so you can customize your system to your own needs. My system looks funny with so many different camera styles in it so far, and probably even more strange looking ones to come, but each camera was chosen to best fit the requirements where it is used. And I love shopping on Aliexpress looking at all the different camera housing styles you can buy.

Also, let me make a suggestion about your point of putting the NVR on the second floor if you can use the existing LAN. You don't want to use your data and business LAN for video. Create a completely isolated LAN for your video system. YOu don't want cameras interfering with your business and you don't want business interfering with security. You can use a router to join the two networks for viewing online but if this is a business and critical you could consider a second Internet connection just for the video. If you're only looking at or storing a camera or two at a time online then the router joining the two networks would work well. I you're doing business online and looking at or storing 16 cameras on line you need to have a pretty healthy Internet pipe.

Unfortunately, all of the POE solutions I have tried have had issues except the individual TP-Link POE injectors, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001PS9E5I. I have several of these and they work reliably but they take a lot of space and a wall wart for each port. I do have an 8-port POE switch I am using that I replaced another POE switch that failed. The new POE switch has been working for 6 months but I am only powering 3 devices off of it. When I power more than 4 devices it can't keep up. I don't have it in service yet but I have all the pieces and I'm in the middle of putting it together to make my own solution. I purchased this 48v power supply http://www.amazon.com/Meanwell-NES-350-48-Power-Supply-OlympianLED/dp/B00L1GZIHW that I will use to power a couple of these passive injectors: http://www.amazon.com/WS-POE-8-ENC-Multi-Passive-Injector-devices/dp/B0075F7F2O. I'm mounting the whole thing in an electrical box similar to what the 12v camera power supplies come in. This will easily power 16 POE cameras with power to spare.

Unix1992, I've really enjoyed reading a bunch of your posts here today. But I have to say that building a security system without trying for 100 per cent uptime doesn't make sense. We won't always get it - in fact we'll never achieve it - but it is always the goal. I do agree about buying from aliexpress if the OP is going to do a do-it-yourself system. I've had great results ordering 75 dollar to 125 dollar cameras from Aliexpress. Just watch the ratings and you should be fine - at least I watched the ratings and I have been fine. I've been buying from a seller named Aote. I've also bought cameras from Amazon and other China-based operations shipping from the US and have generally had great results. For the OP, you might consider buying two new cameras of the same brand. Most cameras, whether Dahua, Hikvision, or other, will come with NVR software you could run on your old laptop. The software provided by the camera manufacturer will be more efficient than general purpose ONVIF software and may very well run fine on an old laptop with two or three cameras. Using UC software with cameras that support it I can record 3 cameras on my old Core-2 Duo computer at about 25% CPU utilization. If the Dahua software is as efficient then you may only need to buy another camera and you're good to go for a basic system. Over time, think about redundancy, backup power, Internet or FTP file storage, etc. but your laptop and a couple of like-branded cameras running on the factory software should be OK.

Loria, I recommend you go to a local, reputable, computer repair place and have your PC swept for malicious software and cleaned. That would eliminate the access your neighbors have, if they have access, or would prove that they do not. Take your keyboard and mouse with you when you take it in. There are key loggers that can be installed in the keyboard, in the keyboard line, or in the PC. Perhaps you'll spend a hundred bucks but you'll come away with peace of mind or evidence. Then you would either have a legal and police issue to deal with or, as others here have said, simply work on learning your system. I haven't read the whole thread but reading the first couple pages and the last, it sounds like you haven't fully resolved the issues yet. As for the lasers tampering, well, there is nothing really you can do about that except have a really good IR camera pointing in a direction to catch them while they're tampering and then go to the police with that video evidence.

I hate to be the first one - maybe I'm not; I haven't looked at page 2 yet - to recommend not buying Hikvision or Dahua but I'm going to make that recommendation anyway. Those companies advertise better warranties but the warranty is not serviced by Hikvision or Dahua directly; neither company will honor the warranty from you. You must go through your reseller and the reseller must be an authorized reseller in order to get any warranty at all. Yes, you might get 3 years of warranty but you might not get any warranty at all. Another downside of Dahua and Hikvision is that they do not support using their products in other NVR systems other than their own. They'd like to lock you in to their systems, once you choose one or the other. Both of these issues aren't necessarily bad - buy from a reputable dealer and commit to single-sourcing your system. The only problem is that you're going to pay more for your system. On the other hand, the prices for Hikvision and Dahua have both dropped significantly recently and they're not nearly as out of line from other vendors as they once were. But when you consider the downsides of Dahua or Hikvision compared to buying from other reliable vendors, the value is not as clear as it might seem. I've had very good luck with cameras that use UC software - those are camera boards that I think are actually built by tpsee.com and packaged/configured/sold by many other vendors. I think a bigger question than choosing between Dahua, Hikvision, or other vendor is to choose between doing it yourself versus paying a reputable company to put the system in. What I found in having put together my own system is that support is mixed from most online vendors and you will find yourself being your own primary support team. You'll spend a lot of time on Google and here in these forums searching and looking for help. When something is not working then you have either a limited or possibly no surveillance system until you can find answers in a forum or order in a replacement part - and hope it fixes the problem. If you call a local company they will likely have expert level experience in a small number of camera brands. They may not have the brand you think you want but they'll be experts at configuring the brands they have. They'll have spare parts on hand and have time and energy to fix your issues when you may not have any of those things. If your video network switch fails are you stuck ordering from Amazon? Having many customers, they can justify keeping a couple on hand. If a key camera fails you have to wait for someone to ship you one - perhaps on a slow boat from China - as both reality and the saying go. Your local vendor will likely have a few on hand and can get you going in a hurry. I've found that I am spending a ton of time playing with, experimenting with, and working on my surveillance system. Luckily, I love working with electronics and computers so it is fun for me but any time I am doing those things then my security system is not doing what I need it to do; it's providing me entertainment rather than security. I don't work for a security company and I am not trying to sway you from doing it yourself; I'm simply laying out the considerations. If you want a reliable, simple, effortless security system, call a reliable local vendor to come put it in. If you want to play around with it, spend lots of time and money experimenting with things that don't work out - and with other things that do work out - then do it yourself. How does all this tie into the Hikvision/Dahua versus cheap-China-import camera? It is simple: If you're taking on all the responsibility for support yourself or if you want to experiment, what's the value in Hikvision or Dahua? They will just limit your options. If you want the most reliable and dependable system and you think you will get it by purchasing Hikvision or Dahua online from China or the US, you are probably mistaken. The most reliable system will be whatever system your local surveillance companies can put in for you. I'm pretty happy with my do-it-yourself system. I have several different styles of cameras, all chosen to meet the exact requirements where they are used. But was it worth the time and effort? Not from a security perspective.

The diskstation is not a bad solution if you dont need to live monitor..but it is way less customizable..but that is personal preference...Power use on the diskstation will be lower..but you will need another device for live monitoring (additional power consumption and cost for the device)..and there is nothing as reliable as a direct hdmi monitor connection....Note that there is a synology unit that supports hdmi out to be used in conjunction with a synology NAS... Surveillance Station Live View Companion https://www.synology.com/en-global/products/VS240HD However that has even more severe limitations and its over 500 (plus the cost of the nas and licenses) 240 FPS @ 720p (1280x800) 120 FPS @ 1080p (1920×1080) 40 FPS @ 3M (2048x1536) 40 FPS @ 5M (2591x1944) .... As an aside i would do a complete reinstall of blue iris...there is no way that an update made a difference that significant...there may be something else causing this...are you using the server headless? with remote login? The Synology is just 369 dollars; I just ordered a second one. I am using Blue Iris on my home server with a monitor on it; I use it for other things as well so no, not headless. But even with the service running and the front end not running I get 100% CPU utilization. Thanks, Boogieman, for the suggestion; I'd love to fix my BI if I could. I've downloaded and re-installed several new versions of BI. As a software developer, I can tell you that patches often cause the kind of problem I am having. Fixing one bug or making some small, seemingly insignificant, change can trigger some other unexpected bug. This problem absolutely began instantly upon upgrading. I had been using it very happily up to then... well, not very happily; it does have a bit of a cumbersome UI, but I had learned to live with it. One day it offered an upgrade and I accepted and the rest was history. I understand that the creator of BI may never be able to fix it and may never even be able to reproduce the problem in his dev environment. If ever it works for me again then I will tell stories of troubled beginnings and ultimate success but for now I can only tell of troubled beginnings. But I get 120 frames - up to 12 cameras at 10FPS on the Synology. So far, it isn't even breaking a sweat with my 4 cameras at 15 FPS. The only reason I ordered a second is that I will have recording in multiple devices in different areas so bad guys will hopefully not, in what time they feel safe to rummage around in my home, find and steal all of the recordings of their misdeeds.

You're right my Xeon is old and slow but that doesn't change the fact that BI is a processor hog. I credit some of that to doing ONVIF rather than direct camera APIs but that's not all of it. The much less powerful CPUs in the Synology DiskStations handle many more frames per second than BI does. I'm not anti-Blue Iris. I wanted it to work for me. In fact, it worked well through my trial period and I purchased a license afterwards. It worked licensed for a couple months until I got an update a few months back that killed it. I still try it every month or two to see if it is working any better yet. I would really like to have a reliable ONVIF system that allows me to use cameras from more than one manufacturer. I recognize that many people have had great success with Blue Iris. I don't question the success or failure of others; I simply share my own experience: it just hasn't worked for me. Even though it is more expensive, the answer for me seems to lie in the Synology DiskStation.

UC is the canned software that came with the first IP cameras I bought. It isn't fancy but it works for me. I have 5 cameras on it now but I'm considering changing to Hikvision or Dahua just because of the poor support from the original vendor. I have found some other cameras that use the UC software on Aliexpress so there's hope of saving what I have already.

Boogieman, have you tried the cameras from aliexpress? I need several more cameras and those are some pretty amazing prices. To keep compatibility with what I have already I am looking for cameras that run on UC software but those are available on aliexpress, too. I've just never bought anything from them but I'd like to try it out.

I put in an analog surveillance system a couple years ago and found it very lacking. If you get high resolution cameras - especially anything above 520 lines, you have to be sure to get a high resolution DVR as well - a full D1 or even a 960 line DVR is available but they won't be the cheapest. Otherwise you can also spend a thousand dollars on a quality DVR card for a PC. In either case, I found that the cost of an analog system approached the cost of an IP camera system pretty quickly. Inexpensive IP cameras can be found for just over a hundred dollars that perform pretty well up to 3MP and beyond. If you consider 50 dollars a camera for an analog camera plus 50 dollars in DVR or PC DVR port, you're pretty close to the price of an inexpensive IP camera. And the difference in video quality between even 700 lines and 1080P is amazing. If, for any reason, you (or future readers of this thread) choose to go analog anyway, as a start, I suggest running CAT5e cable or better for your cameras and using baluns or cheap adapters where they work to run even your analog cameras. I am in the middle of ripping open walls and replacing analog cameras with IP cameras; I'm about 1/2 done. Of course you could go coax and then buy SDI cameras (serial digital interface) later since they will run on the coax but SDI cameras and DVRs are more expensive than comparable IP camera parts.

Blue Iris is a processor hog. Folks with really powerful PCs tend to like it but that power costs money and costs electricity to run. You have to calculate that into the equation. Of course now it is winter and I might want the extra heat. I'm currently recording 4 cameras at 3MP each using Synology DiskStations. They handle up to 12 cameras at 10FPS each using ONVIF with ARM processors (think mobile phone processor) that are about 25 per cent as powerful as an I5. I also record using the software that came with the cameras on an old xeon box using about 4 to 5 per cent utilization (as measured right now) recording at 3MP 10 FPS per camera. Part of the reason that the software that came with the cameras perform so much better is that the software connects to the camera APIs using TCP rather than HTTP. This is important because ONVIF uses HTTP so, all other things being equal, ONVIF will always perform worse and take more CPU. On the other hand, BI was unusable with direct to disk recording and the software that came with the cameras is doing in-software motion detection so that means decoding and re-encoding the video and still hugely less CPU requirements than BI doing just http-to-file-system work. With Blue Iris, recording just two cameras, my Xeon runs at a full 100 per cent utilization and I can't even tweak settings on BI because it is so slow. So a person could spend $560 on a new PC to get something BI will run on, buy a Synology Disk Station (DS214+) for half the price of a new PC and easily handle twice the number of cameras still as Blue Iris will handle, or save the money and use virtually any PC with the software that comes with your cameras. The only down side is that you'll be limited to a single brand of cameras - and that's probably a good thing anyway. It's not that any of those three solutions won't work - they can all work. It's a matter of understanding the real costs and making an intelligent choice based on the cost model that works best for you.

I am expanding my home video surveillance system and want to make sure I have the best quality cameras I can afford so I am going with 1080p megapixel cameras where possible and especially where critical. One concern is how to prevent thieves from taking the recording along with the other goods they might steal so I am considering a Synology or QNAP network storage unit so I can put the storage in an undisclosed location. The options I have with either include using them as iSCSI drives for PC based recording (I have GeoVision in place now) or I can use a Synology or QNAP device directly as an NVR. Has anyone used these types of network storage in either model: iSCSI storage or as NVRs? What was your experience with them? Any thoughts or opinions on which solution is best? Dale

I finally found the where-to-buy link on Milestone's site. I'm interested but not enough to go through one of the local dealers to install it in my home; I'm more the self-service type. The free version won't work for me. 5 days max storage means never taking a week long trip.

I hope it's ok to dredge up my old thread here but this is follow on to this. I've been using Blue Iris and found it unsatisfactory. On my dual quad-core Xeon, 16 GB RAM, Windows 7 home server I am at 30 per cent CPU utilization with only 2 cameras. That's better than the 100 percent I experienced the first time I ran it on this box last night and the 100 percent utilization I had on a dual-core Core 2 Duo box. At this point, Blue Iris is at least working. But I am not really happy with it. I looked into Milestone but don't see a way to buy it online. Where can I get it? I'm still considering going back the Synology idea. My Synology device is working great as an iSCSI drive and with all my video programs and encoders but I'm considering upgrading to a Synology 214+ and putting my 8 HD IP cams on it. I'm a PC kind of guy and I want a PC solution but I need an affordable but professional quality application with at least some level of professional support available. For me, and your mileage may vary depending on your own needs, Blue Iris isn't meeting my requirements. So, I guess my second question (where to get Milestone was #1) is has anyone used a DS214+ for recording 200+ FPS at 1080p? It's rated at 480 FPS so, if it can really deliver, my system should be a piece of cake.

I've been using Blue Iris for a month but the last update from them brought my PC down and I had to uninstall it. It uses 98% CPU utilization, 500 MB of RAM and crashes within a couple minutes. The software that came with my cameras uses about 10% utilization and 150 MB of RAM for the same two cameras. I would just stick with that except that I'd like to mix camera vendors and all the software that comes with the cameras I have only work with their own brand of cameras. One option I am considering is using Synology or QNAS NVR software. I have a Synology that I use for storage with Blue Iris (or did, at least). I could just pay for the additional licenses for the included NVR software. I would prefer to have a PC based system and use the Synology (ies) for storage. Can anyone recommend a good, multi-vendor, NVR application for a WIndows PC?

If you figure about 8Mb per second from each camera, you're at about 32Mb (edited to fix the math for 4 cameras instead of 3). Considering that's a steady stream of data , and if you're on a 100Mb network, you're going to have a lot of collisions which disproportionately impact network performance and you're going to start having noticeable problems. On a good quality gigabit network, you should hardly notice. What I did for mine was to use dual NICs in my PC and have my video on a separate gigabit network from my Internet network. That way neither one has an impact on the other.

SMS is pretty unreliable, or at least it can be. And I might not be in a position to look at my phone for an SMS. I might be driving, in a meeting, or a hundred other scenarios. The alarm company is always there. Maybe I am just being paranoid but I like the redundancy.

I am planning on setting up my IP cameras on their own physical network(s). I figure 8 cameras per switch. The ideal switch for this, it seems to me, would be 8 ports, all POE capable, at 100MB with one or two backbone ports at gigabit speed. Manufacturing costs and supporting older technology being what it is, having all 8 ports being gigabit instead of 100MB would be ok, too, but, ideally would still have separate backbone (or uplink) port(s). I could feed the output of each of these into a separate NVR, either the Synology or PC-based. This divides up my network load, NVR load, and data storage, as I have discussed in other threads. I just can't decide on the right switch. Most I look at have only half of the ports POE capable. This means I am paying money for port and switching capacity I don't need and I'm taking up space I do need for other things in my network closet. I find two switches that mostly meet the requirements, one Netgear and one Cisco, that have all the right specs but, being managed switches, are about $350. I can get a 16 port switch with 8 POE capable ports for $150 but no gigabit backbone. I can get a 24 port switch with 12 POE capable ports for $250 including two gigabit backbone ports. Perfect except that I'm paying for and taking up space for 12 ports I don't need or want. I can get a 120 watt POE injector for about $75 and, one last option: while typing this post, I finally found one on Amazon that does seem to match but there are no reviews. There's one that's 8-port, all POE and all 1000 MB. Only downside, is there's no separate uplink or backbone port so one of 8 gets used for that, leaving 7 ports for video. So, summary of options with approximate prices (Amazon changes them even during a browsing session): Cisco or Netgear 8-port managed (I have no preference on brands), $350 16-port, 8 POE unmanaged, no backbone port, $150 24-port, 12 POE unmanaged, 2 ea. gigabit backbone port, $250 8-port, 120W POE injector $75, combined with inexpensive unmanaged switch with backbone port, total $150 8-port, 130W POE switch, unmanaged, no backbone, $175. As I looked around on Amazon, I did find a couple more switches in all of the categories but no game changers so the options are still roughly the same. Originally, as I started writing this, I had not succeeded in finding any inexpensive switches or solutions (the 150 to 175 solutions) so I started writing this with the intention of asking for help. The more I dug in researching what to ask, the more I came across and I think I answered my own question. I really don't want to spend the money on the Cisco or Netgear managed switches but anything else I did would end up being a temporary solution and I'd have to dump it later. In the end, I think I'm best off with option 1. I'm really tired of hemorrhaging cash into this project so I think I'll get one of the Ciscos to start and then wait until I get to IP Camera #9 before I get a second Cisco... Or Netgear... So, just to make it a question and a discussion, what are your thoughts on the analysis and plan? What's good or bad about the options? Any real world experience with any options that make them good or bad? Thanks, Dale

I am putting in a closed loop wire into each camera cabling that will tie back to the alarm system. If the camera cables get cut the alarm system will trigger immediate burglary. Same thing on all the alarm sirens, speakers, and strobes. If any wires are cut, it triggers the alarm. I will have SMS or mobile alerting; it's built into all the devices I have. I haven't spoken to the alarm company about monitoring video alerts yet but my hope is that it is affordable so they can do all the monitoring. If I am in a meeting at work, I can't always stop and look at my phone. Or if I am flying or otherwise don't have access. For all the last three responses, I don't want hidden cameras. I want them as a deterrent. I suppose there is some advantage in hidden - you might fool a thief into not feeling the need to wear a mask so you can catch him after the fact - and I could depend on the visible alarm sirens etc for deterrence.

No kidding. It has its moments, that's for sure. We bought property next to them years ago and eventually moved onto it. But the only problem is there's a gravel road between us so hardwired is not an easy solution. Since I actually own the property the road is on and there was never a right-of-way granted - it was a driveway and the schoolbus started using it to get to another road behind us that was accessible from another route - I could always fight for my right to dig a ditch on my own property. I should have never let that first schoolbus turn down my property. Now the county assumes it is their property. They even rejected my request to name the road after my granddaughter and put their own name on it. Or I could pay for a boring machine. My son does cable laying and boring but he works for a jerk who would never let him use the equipment for a personal job. So, especially considering the low price of the Ubiquiti units, wireless seems like the best solution.

I'm looking for an inexpensive solution for sending the surveillance camera signals from my house and property to my in-laws next door when we're out of town or away from home. My in-laws are not tech savvy at all. They can't operate the caller ID on their phone, let alone a computer or the Internet so I'm looking for something relatively simple. I may just put in a big TV with 4 cameras showing all the time and leave it at that for the user interface. THe part I'm missing is how to get the video from my house to theirs. I used to work in the business years ago, up to around 1993, and was very competent at designing digital and analog microwave video, data, and telephone systems, both the RF and data parts of the systems. But that was then and this is now. And those systems required licensing that was complex with engineering documents, etc, and they were very expensive - let alone big. The point is, I am pretty familiar with the concepts but I'm 20-years out of the loop on what's available and for how much. System design requirements are: 400 foot range, clear line of sight 1080p bandwidth. I could live with 720p if I had to. PTZ/camera selection from the remote end back to my house. With today's cheap, commoditized, wireless systems, I was wondering if there is anyone making inexpensive wireless point-to-point systems suitable for reliable consumer or SOHO use? Though I'd prefer a system for under a dollar, I would be willing to pay up to several hundred dollars for the RF part of the system if I had to.

Thanks for the tips; I'll remember to take those steps. The amazing thing to me is that I saw on their site where folks are setting up ISP products using these inexpensive devices. If a person could find reasonably priced tower or roof-top space, setting up a wireless ISP would not be too hard. I'm definitely running this through the central processing unit right now since I live in a rural area where only satellite Internet service is available but there are probably a few hundred lake homes within a mile of me... Well, enough dreaming... I better focus on one project at a time.