howardino

Thanks for the pointers guys, some solid advice there. I was concerned about the cable run length if I took it all the way to the attic and then brought it back down to the utility room - this room was ideal as its next to my office and can easily access the dvr. However, I take it once its all setup there is little need for physical access to the dvr so it could go in the attic - tho our attic is a dumping ground so it could get knocked about by other family members going up there. Just thought, the utility room is part of the extension to the original house, so there should be a cavity wall forming part of the original outside wall. Not sure if its been filled with insulation. This might be an option. Is there like a best practice on how to bring cables into the house - is it generally through the soffits into the attic and then onwards from there. I was planning on using pre-made cables as I figured fixing the cameras was going to be hard-work as it as, why make life more difficult. But I guess I could make a couple of connectors. Thanks,

Hi guys, Just trying to work out how best to bring cctv camera cables (will be using rg59+power) into the house. Will be looking at around 6 cameras around the house, will be looking to have dvr in the small utility room on the ground floor. That would be 6 thick cables - I would need to drill a large hole to get this cables in. Is this normal? Is there a more easier way of getting the cables inside the house? They system I'm looking to get is from adata, a combination of qvis eye-e37 and eye-e38 (the e38 being more than double the price of e37 - anyone use these, are they worth the extra?) and currently trying to decide which one of their 8ch dvr's to get - they have a large selection with very subtle differences between them. Anything from the i-Zeus HD to the i-apollo pro dc. Many thanks for your help on this.

I wasn't actually advocating physically using a P&S camera as a CCTV camera - I was trying to say the guts of a P&S camera i.e. lens, sensor etc is the same for an IP camera - yet the IP camera can cost 3 or more times. The lens and sensors are mass produced, the exact same lens and sensor are put into a P&S as that into an IP camera - so its not like they are producing lenses and sensors specifically for the CCTV industry. I take your point regarding web servers etc but surely the cost of these doesn't justify the multiple price tag. Plus P&S do equally have just as complicated electronics if not more so all do with photo taking - like my P&S can automatically take shots based on when people smile! I would imagine like a previous poster has mentioned it is probably more to do with economies of scale and getting a decent profit. Just on a slight different note, in the IP world have we got facial or person recognition yet. With my P&S the software that came with it, can trawl through all the photos and recognise faces and tag them. I would very much like to see this in CCTV world. I would love to have my CCTV system, such that when anyone comes up my drive, my CCTV would alert me to say e.g. postman coming up drive, or if unknown to say like 3 unknown visitors coming up drive! The software/technology exists to do this - has anyone done it!?

Hi. yes true but if you only want say 1 or 2 pictures a day or a few minutes of video .... have no networking have no viewing (live) much much more to look into than cost. thats missing the point, its the same sensor, lens being used in a digital camera that is being used in an IP megapixel camera - and you still have to buy an NVR or like to do the recording. I wasn't trying to say use the digital camera as a cctv and use it to do recording - my point was that the digital camera comes with so much more functionality and electronic wizardry wherase the IP megapixel cctv camera provides a barebones camera functionality and yet costs a ridiculous amount of money! yet the same technology is available in the digital camera market for a fraction of the cost - go figure!?

Hi, I'm looking to get CCTV for my property. I've been disappointed by the quality of images from the traditional "state-of-the-art" analogue CCTV cameras which goto 700TVL - people and cars go into blur beyond 5m or so, very difficult to make out make/model of car, or describe type of clothing on a person etc IP/megapixel cameras appear to be quite expensive in comparison, often north of £300 - and this for 1.3 or 2MP camera! Why is this when you can get digital cameras that can also record video and take 10MP images for £45 upwards. The sensor also being 1/3" CCD. Digital cameras have a whole host of digital wizardry to boot - face detection! which would be useful in CCTV. So what justifies the CCTV megapixel cameras being so expensive, especially when you consider they are providing such a basic function compared to digital cameras!