Thomas

Please be aware that the gain from such software is extremely limited. You will never achieve what you see on CSI. Generally the software does one of two things. It applies a sharpening filter. It's a way of tricking the eye to make it easier to discriminate among objects. The other method is to compare pixels and attempt to use small differences in pixels to create a slightly better image. The downside to this method is that it doesn't work with MPEG-4 codecs at all.

Please be aware that while mega pixel cameras will help, facial recognition is really a factor of camera placement. Second, you'll want to really check the specs on low light ability. Most mega pixels have trouble with low light.

1. Yes. It's not cheap and doesn't accept standard cameras. Also the pricing I saw for such systems put it in an extremely high price range. When something makes putting megapixel cameras in look cheap....that's pricey. I've never seen an HDTV surveillance-type capture card... could you provide a link (just for morbid curiosity)? I don't recall the name. I just remember them having a big booth at ISC West a few years ago.

1. Yes. It's not cheap and doesn't accept standard cameras. Also the pricing I saw for such systems put it in an extremely high price range. When something makes putting megapixel cameras in look cheap....that's pricey. 2. There is always some loss of clarity when doing an analog to digital conversion and when encoding video.

I compete with them so understand that I'm going to be somewhat limited in what I say. Their software is extremely customizable but again, you're talking top 5% of customers in terms of budget. If you do really high end government work, airports, customers with extremely deep pockets then they will fit in fine. If your more of a smaller to mid-size integrator, you may find your customers less willing to pay their prices.

Hey Thomas, For one, I never thought of that . Second I believe that a desktop PC wouldn't be suitable for a racing car. Firewire... ... ok, this souinds like a good idea... You dump them onto the PC afterwards. It stays on a nice safe stable desk.

Pros: Extremely flexible system, powerful features. Cons: The cost. It's one of the highest end options on the market and their pricing reflects it.

Is there some reason 4 camcorders with firewire connections and a desktop PC wouldn't be a better option?

Raid 1 isn't a downgrade from 5. Raid 1 is mirroring which takes your drives and has half of them be an exact copy of the other half. If you have four drives in Raid 1 then two drives worth of space will show up. With Raid 5 and four drives, three would show up and the fourth acts as backup.

3.5 should improve that. Unfortunately the release date I have is....soon. Any idea what the upgrade path is going to be? For 3.5? Analog 3.1 -> 3.5. It should be a straight forward update. Most of the changes are client side rather then server side.

3.5 should improve that. Unfortunately the release date I have is....soon.

Some of them have multi-monitor support or allow multiple instances of a remote client. That would allow for what you're looking for.

There are some, but they tend to be fairly rare. Video Insight's analog system does support the Mozilla family and Safari but might be out of your budget range if you're looking at a 9 camera system. I do work for them, so feel free to take my words with a grain of salt.

Pen DVR comes 2 types first and second generations if u know which one do u have ? The second generation, thanks. How many are you looking to sell?

Is this a security project or something like recording for broadcast?

I missed this. 10 is the magic number.

It may be a future trend, but we're not really seeing it now at our level. The only time we run into common standards is when we run into common OEM's. So while I can see it as a possible future, I don't see any evidence of it now. I mean getting cameras out of them, or even up on the web to test against is a PITA. Most of the time they want you to buy the camera. Even just asking them to put it up on the web is like pulling teeth. And the manufacturer support needs to go well beyond that. There are reasons beyond market leadership that Axis is supported by every NVR. They are the only manufacturer that gives us tools like their virtual server. It's trivial to simulate 100, 200, 2000 cameras on a network. It gives a much, much better idea what happens with software at the extreme ends of the spectrum and allows us to create something much closer to field conditions. The small manufacturers have a long way to go in terms of basic support for their equipment before they can get to the advanced stuff like an actual open standard.

He didn't even do a good job at that. 4chan seemed to know who did it well before the feds did.

I see Axis and a few others pushing for it, but when I'm at trade shows the camera reps just seem to treat it with a wink and a nudge. And while those of us on the NVR side would love it, I just don't see the camera manufacturers adopting it. It becomes hard for them to claim exclusive features within a strict set of APIs. Or you end up with an MS style embrace and extend...which leaves us with the status quo.

I suspect that it is going to be a hindrance to market growth. I've run into way too many cases in which people have bought cameras and been frustrated that no one supports it. D-Link customers in particular suffer from this problem.

It's not new. There wasn't a lot of interesting stuff in there except that she uses a personal e-mail account for some official business.

I'm really of two minds about your article. First is that you are right, price is going to kill Axis. Why would an installer sell it if they can't make any margin on it. But at the same time, I'm not sure anyone company is going to be able to overcome the hurdle of support. It's hard to find a company who's cameras are as widely supported. So while Axis may get dethroned, I'm not sure we'll see another king in it's place.

Which PC system or better yet, which capture card based system are you referring to? Any of them, you simply install third party software to do it.

A fact I'm well aware of. I'm asking why you would add a layer of complexity by changing that port for no security value. I could understand if you were going to use something like port knocking to open it, but simply moving it to 5002 doesn't help. It's either going to show up as a known or unknown web server to a port scan. That's true Thomas but some routers (netgear's in particular) I've seen block port 80 as well as a couple netopia's, so I could see the reasoning behind moving it to another port. As far as the original posters question I would say you will need to port forward all 3 of the ports on TCP and UDP to the dvr's IP address. If you need more help let us all know. Good luck, Thanks, John They locked those ports and didn't allow unlocking them? You'll understand that I am extremely skeptical of that. 80 is a fairly common port for forwarding, and there is nothing gained by that kind of crippling.