StanLee2066

You should be able to change (within the camera settings) the LUX level at which the IR filter kicks in. If not, you need to start selling cameras with better design quality or your new business doesn't have a chance of success.

Here is a similar youtube video comparing iPhone video with the Axis Lightfinder. Although of course iPhones have such poor picture/video performance especially in low light that it's almost a silly comparison, but still fun - if not dramatic, to see.

In the shutter drop down window, if you select 'fixed' rather than 'auto' you can select any shutter speed you like and go higher than 1/30th. But it will be for all lighting conditions . That being said even my older m1114 was able to go higher than 1/30th in 'auto' just for low light conditions. The low light performance was so good I had it set to 1/60 with no problems. The p3364 is even better in low light and so it's puzzling why they would remove this option.

Unfortunately I don't have the tools to measure. The room is 364sqf - and I must apologize it is actually a 60w bulb. What impressed me was how the scene lighting on the screen was exactly as I saw in the room. Noise only would begin to appear as I increased the lighting (as seen on my screen) to levels that were higher than actually in the room. Even then, the noise levels were quite acceptable to me and not as horrific like I've seen on some other cams.

Believe me, you would be just as impressed with indoor performance. I've got a pp3364 that was installed in my family room/kitchen for a few weeks. With only a 40w incandescing bulb lit up, the whole area was very well captured with no noise that I could see on my 24" monitor. Only when I increased the gain to 'unnatural' levels did noise begin to appear ... but then it lit up areas that were dark and not even visible to my own eyes sitting in the room! Their combination of lens design together with the 'Lightfinder' system makes for some excellent use of technology that in my opinion is well worth the extra cost. From what I've read, the p3367 even with it's higher pixels is equally impressive. I believe it uses a larger sensor to compensate.

The powerline adapters others have recommended are a great idea. Have you considered moving the router to the 1st floor as an option?

What you are suggesting is technically possible, but in my opinion you might have bandwidth issues running four cameras and internet via wireless network. Would not be a problem with a wired setup.

If you're planning on running a PC 24/7 to record video, then no an NVR is not required. Even without a PC, you still don't really need an NVR however. Most IP cameras (if not all) can record to NAS - or even onboard SD. The PC is then just needed to view/manage the recordings. As for you other question. If your cameras are PoE, you can get a switch with PoE capabilities to connect each of your cameras and then connect that switch to your router. Or you can PoE injectors for each camera then connect each camera to your router. Ideally, your router/switch is located in an area in your home that you could find a way to run the Ethernet cables from each camera.

Which analytics have u decide to use with camera (Axis) ? Thx I can't vouch for it since I haven't tried it on my own Axis cameras but there 'apps' available for these cameras. I'm curious myself how well they work. http://www.axis.com/products/video/compatible_applications/index.php Scroll down to: eLPR - Embeded License Plate Recognition

Just a warning though. The longer the DC run, the more dependent the DC output at the other end will be with regards to total current draw. You'll be fine as long as both cameras are both powered together. If you connect/disconnect one at a time or one craps out on you, just know the remaining camera will see a 2Vdc voltage change. Most devices are designed to handle such fluctuations... but you never know. PoE applications don't worry about this because there is one cable run per camera. Play with this calculator. Enter your data, then see what happens to the voltage when it drops from 1A (both cameras) to 0.5A (one camera). You'll also notice that as the run becomes shorter, the voltage change become less significant. http://www.calculator.net/voltage-drop-calculator.html

2Vdc voltage drop for a single camera tells me it actually only uses about 0.5amps - hence the 1A camera requirement (you can measure that too). You could probably get away with 2A supply after all and even a 16Vdc supply since it looks like you'll be dropping about 4v total. Ideally, you would select a DC power supply at the source that would provide the ~12Vdc at the required 2-camera load so no special conversions needed.

You're right in expecting a larger voltage drop. I suspect you made the measurements without the load? (cameras powered @ 1A each). Attach both cameras and measure again. You'll probably find you need an 18-24DC power supply to get that 12Vdc at the other end. Also, if both cameras require 2A, best to go with at least 3A. A supply with at least 4A or more is better.

You will not incur any ISP bandwidth charges if you stream/record the video inside your private network (LAN). You don't even need an ISP account to do this. if you have no more ports available you simple need to add a switch.

btw luckyfella, your original post was fun and interesting to see. Thanks for that.

No! There is absolutely no risk that your whole IP camera system could be compromised. Congratulate yourself for being so clever and sleep well tonight. But remember, if you open the ports on just a single camera ... you are SCREWED!

luckyfella, I totally agree with you. One of the great advantages of IP cameras is that you can remotely configure/stream with total control and ease. The ports can be opened for just that reason! Its the how and why IP systems are designed. I for one will also continue to take full advantage of what they have to offer .... or why even bother at all. Risks? Sure, I take them everyday the minute I walk out the door. Obviously care/caution needs to be taken, and as a responsible installer I'm sure you do just that. We've both seen many installers and homeowners do a lot worst! The stories I could tell .... Cheers!

The 1357 has a larger sensor which should allow it to do better in low light and have better low noise performance. You're right that there isn't much else. I believe the 1347 may also be a discontinued model?

I'm surprised your client recommended a large hole to be made to fit the electrical box. I wouldn't want my nice stone/brick damaged to such an extent. In my opinion, the camera should be mounted directly on the wall without the box. You could drill a cavity in the brick/stone just large enough to fit the connectors. Would this be possible in your situation? Ideally the cables coming thru the wall already have the appropriate connectors to allow direct connection to inside the camera, but with some cameras this is not possible. If you really want to keep the box idea, could you not find a different one with a shallower profile so it's not sticking out so much?

I believe most cameras have a lithium type battery to keep the time during power resets (at least all the IP cameras I've owned). However I wouldn't imagine a system reset/reboot that maintains continues power causing any problems, but you never know. Maybe you could try replacing the battery on an affected unit to see what happens?

Even the light pole is no good because it won't capture action in front of the building (usually a critical area). I think your only real option is to get a second camera, then install at opposite corners of the building.

Also to add, some cameras like my p33 series Axis allow the option to use either Line-level or Mic-level signals to the audio input.

As someone else mentioned the audio signals do in fact get sent via CAT cables. The microphone should be 'plug and play', but you will almost certainly need some type of powered amp for the speaker. I doubt this would be included in camera but it's possible. Just check the owners/installation manual.

The 30AWG has about 5x more resistance per foot than 23-24AWG. However any slight increase in heat should be safely be distributed over the full length of the cable. Most cable jackets have a max temp rating printed on. If you're that concerned hook it up and see for yourself. You should do a test hookup anyways as the larger voltage drop could prevent the camera from working at all.

If your PC is not doing video motion detect/recording, it will really help to keep the CPU usage down. Are you streaming all the cameras at once? But you can do some quick checks on your own to see what an impact adding those cameras might have by running Task Manager and checking the actual CPU usage . I just checked my own PC. The CPU is at 1-2% on idle. The IP cameras on my network are self contained computers and do all the work. I also record to NAS/local camera SD. When I stream just one camera at 640x480 @ 15fps it goes to 5-6%. You can experiment and see for yourself what might happen if you add those cameras.

The reason I asked about monitor sizes, is because I've experienced many situations where users watch media on a 21" CRT, then are disappointed when the picture looks worst on a 32" or higher LCD/LED. it just won't look as sharp and clear. That's completely normal and what you might expect hooking up the cameras directly to the TVs. If you are comparing with identical TV sizes, then you shouldn't notice much of a difference unless you are using a really old LCD (original LCD TVs had growing pains, especially when it came to contrast). There are exceptions. Many DVD players for example are capable of up-converting an SD signal to a higher level (HD) when using HDMI. It's not as nice as an original source HD signal, but does make a noticeable difference. The question is, does your DVR up-convert the digitized PAL (576p) to a higher resolution before sending the signal to HDMI? If not, it could also explain why you see no difference in picture quality. Although just occurred to me that the higher analogue resolution of these cameras (compared to regular CCTV) when digitized by DVR and sent to LCD/LED should actually help with the general larger display size of these monitors. Could it be this feature is turned off in the camera? It can probably be disabled so an image could be sent directly to a regular analogue PAL CRT.