Thomas

Unless they did a massive amount of overengineering on the chip itself, I'm still calling bull****. Analitics require alot of cpu time and power. For a true embeded app you aren't going to have that much extra cpu power laying around unused.

*coughs* I normally try not to knock other sales people, but the moron who told you they would have have any kind of analysis at the compression chip is smoking something.

I haven't played with it, or any of thier DVR's but I know Toshiba has one too.

Chipsets generally include the PCI bus Bridge. Any kind of capture card is doing things the people who wrote the PCI spec never pondered. As such, this can make some cards more cranky then others depending on how close to the spec the PCI-Bridge is.

Have you tried contacting who you purchased the cards from, or are they black market?

It's an issue of smaller pixel size. CCD based digital cameras have the same issue. You can get around it by playing with lens and a few other tricks but you have accept larger camera sizes. As storage takes off, I suspect we'll move away from MPEG based recording all together and move back to MJPEG and MJPEG2000 simply because you can clean those images up alot more. The knocks against them simply are that you have to accept lossy images to get decent file size. But when I have 8 terabytes of storage that costs $100 a terabyte and gives me 60 days...it doesn't matter as much.

They are using a wireless network...but using dynamic IPs? Are they using PPPoE for connection or just DCHP?

I don't post more because most of my understand of CCTV is theory based rather then practical experience. I have never once set up a camera in the field. I have set them up in testing environments but that's different. When it comes down to it, people like Cooperman know alot more then I do. When it comes to Mega pixel cameras, they can do some of this, but you still have restrictions. I've used Covi, so I can pick on them. I set up the camera and I get a 640 x 480 signal from them. And then I get two more signals at 640 x 480 that are zoomed in. But I still need the zoomed in areas to be in the right position for that to be useful. The limits of any kind of enhancement comes from what ever the lowest resolution is. It's why a monitor always makes a camera look better then a time lapse. The monitors resolution is almost always greater then 240 lines that the tape uses. This limit is why I can't take the first signal from the megapixel camera and do magic with it. Becuase my stream is 640 x 480, I can't make information appear that simply isn't there. Now you can do some limited forensics work with cleaning up an image. But I'm not going to do much to add detail. I won't magicly see that the thief has a beauty mark if I didn't see that before.

That can be tricky and an exact answer is tough without seeing the site but some numbers to ponder. If the lens is at max zoom (9 mm) and focused at 15 ft gives you a field of view 8 ft by 6 ft. That gives a 2D volume of 48 sq ft. The human head varies but we'll assume that it fills a volume of 1 ft by 1 ft or 1 sq ft. That works out to 2% of the image. Now we get to the fuzzy part. So with that 2% of the image...if my boss walks by, I can ID him. (I'm using more clues then just face; i'm using body type, mannerisms, etc.) If it's someone I don't know...then I lose some of the guess factor. But if your question is: Can I use CSI style digital zoom to make that 2% useful? The answer is no. No magic tech in the world makes digital zoom worth a damn at the moment. And how does light play into this: So depending on day/night or IR, you have to take shadows into account. What other light sources are there? Will the light be behind the person? Will the light hit the left or right side of the face or will it be frontal. I don't mean this to be a smart ass answer, just pointing out that it's not a yes/no question.

We do Analog and IP either on seperate boxes or on the same box.

For number 2....what is the distance he wants to do it at?

The issue with wireless is interferance. And generally you have to wire it a little bit anyway (for power). Depending on the lights, that would make me avoid IR since it sounds like there is light focused on the area already. The budget question simply allows people to focus on how much for the camera, how much for the card etc. Camera ->cable (RG-59 or something else) -> DVR card.

Eh, I'd file us under PC DVR or Hybrid DVR.

Go wired over wireless. But some questions that might help: How much light is there by the car? If you have a light source near by then IR is just going to make it look washed out. Is the 150 pounds your total budget or camera budget?

Contact your ISP and get a static IP.

Erm...most browsers will work with any port. There are some ports in which browsers expect to get data but that is going to vary by protocol. But many will let you mix and match.

NMAP for port scaning.

There are some sources that have legitmate MS downloads. But the only valid sources for this are schools. A requirement of those downloads is you have to be a student. Rory, you may have to just import it.

Did you contact the people you purchased it from?

That doesn't sound like a defensive mechcanism but simply a hung process. I don't know the OS but the effect seems that the networking thread is causing 100% cpu usage. But is that something you see in a port scan or only if you telenet in?

The most common tool for port scanning is NMAP. The hard part of what you are proposing is identifing bad port scans (Looking for vunerablity) from harmless port scans (bot nets looking for other bots) from good scans (tech support checking your firewall). Port scanning is a valuable tool. I find it the most effective method of searching for modern viruses and worms on my home network. If a machine responds on a port it shouldn't, I should investigate. It's not fool proof but I find it less intrusive then virus scans. I combine it with spyware searches and online virus scanners. Add in a firewall and we're good to go. If anyone is curious what you see, this is my work box, with certain info xxxx out: # nmap 3.75 scan initiated Tue Apr 18 16:21:35 2006 as: nmap.exe -sT -sV -v -v -oN log.txt -O -P0 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx Insufficient responses for TCP sequencing (0), OS detection may be less accurate Insufficient responses for TCP sequencing (0), OS detection may be less accurate Insufficient responses for TCP sequencing (0), OS detection may be less accurate Interesting ports on sales-tom.xxxxxxx-xxxxxxx-xxx (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx): (The 1656 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed) PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 135/tcp open msrpc Microsoft Windows msrpc 139/tcp open netbios-ssn 445/tcp open microsoft-ds Microsoft Windows XP microsoft-ds 1025/tcp open msrpc Microsoft Windows msrpc 5000/tcp open upnp Microsoft Windows UPnP 6969/tcp open acmsoda? [My note, this is a VNC instance -Tom] 8082/tcp open blackice-alerts? [Cassandra Web Server -Tom] 2 services unrecognized despite returning data. If you know the service/version, please submit the following fingerprints at http://www.insecure.org/cgi-bin/servicefp-submit.cgi : [Note, information removed due to the fact that it's huge and not needed for this. -Tom] MAC Address: xx:xx:xx:xx:xx (Dell Pcba Test) Too many fingerprints match this host to give specific OS details TCP/IP fingerprint: SInfo(V=3.75%P=i686-pc-windows-windows%D=4/18%Tm=42333433%O=135%C=1%M=000A56) T1(Resp=N) T2(Resp=N) T3(Resp=N) T4(Resp=N) T5(Resp=N) T6(Resp=N) T7(Resp=N) PU(Resp=N) # Nmap run completed at Tue Apr 18 16:34:11 2006 -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 756.164 seconds So what does this tell me. You will see referances to i686-pc-windows because Windows will give this out. This info is changable. My linux box reports to the world that it is a dreamcast.

Use the PC for survallence only. It's not going to matter who you are using if you browse the web and pick up a nasty piece of spyware.

Nope. Did you promise the ability to read a licence plate at that distance with that lens? Did you tell them that the change of lens would not allow you acomplish that goal?

Please keep your replies all in one thread.

I belive I've seen the answer to this before. Do you have the cameras set to PAL or NTSC? (And please note that all caps is hard on the eyes.)