Thomas

At this time we do not support other cards.

Like I have time to check to duplicate threads. Honestly 99.9% of the moderating here is pricing. The other .1% is pirated cards. There aren't alot of flamewars, and almost all of the users are professional. This place doesn't need alot of moderating and I don't see that changing very much.

IRQ's won't be an issue. Sata controllers almost always have a dedicated IRQ assigned to them.

Er, sorry then.

The maker of the PC parts is Dell's suppliers. Generally it's Intel for the chips and motherboards, Western Digital for the drives, etc. It can vary a little bit by model. We are a Dell VAR so the Dell warranty transfers. Our card and software has a one year warranty. Upgrades vary. We generally aim for once a quarter for updates. The support a number of PTZ protocols, from Pelco D/P, to Panasonic to some of the smaller ones out of Korea that I won't attempt to spell. Adding support for most cameras isn't hard. We do offer support for the card and software.

In simple terms? Power lines are bad. The shielding on coax stops random RF/stray noise but it's not rated to stop the kind of field that 110v AC power puts out. How close are the cables to the power?

How much seperation is there between the 110 lines and the cable? Are they running in parallel?

Some things that might help clairfy: Is that six cables going 110 ft total or six cables that go 110 ft each? Is there something like high voltage wiring along the path of the long cable? Is the camera getting the proper power?

I think he means a daughter card to add more inputs.

You can look back over alot of threads and I'm pretty sure the ebay threads will run more negitively then positive. 1. There are alot of pirated cards on EBay. You don't know what you're getting. 2. They will not support you. If you have a problem we can help here unless you got hit by 1. Then you will be SOL. My advice? Pay the money, get someone who will support you.

I can understand a healthy amount of mistrust of the goverment. But at the same time, Berlitz (who first reported it) doesn't cite where he got the information about the radio report. Not even an anonmous source. The only source on the record is the Navy report. The books/rumors/myths fail to meet the standards for pointing out a cover up. The argument is "x planes and boats disappeared, ergo the area is haunted/filled with aliens/methane gas/Bob Saget performing satanic ruituals." but what you have there is a leap of logic. I can get the same effect by saying "it's magic" to something I don't know. Because you can't explain it doesn't mean that an explaination doesn't exist. I don't deny the exisitance of ETs. I suspect that given the size of the universe we are not alone. Does that mean we will encounter ETs in a thousand generations? Nope. The universe is a big place.

There are many things on Earth that we haven't discovered. We know very little about the deep ocean. We know very little about our neighbors in the solar system. We still have alot to learn about how biological processes work. Quantum Mechicanics still baffles us. Gravity still has some mystery. Medicine has tons of mysteries. I know there are plenty of things left to discover. What I dislike is when people build an industry on b*llsh*t. The people who whip together books on UFO's and the Triangle don't do any research. The airplane incident is a prime example. The Navy did the best examination of the incident as they could. They came to the conclusion that they had a bunch of trainees who didn't have navigation gear, who were doing a long range training flight in aircraft that were flying gas tanks that don't do water landings was perhaps a bad idea. You never see that there were issues in the plane design, or that they didn't have navigation gear or long range radios. Why? Because that doesn't sell books.

Actully if you call Pelco, they will give you the protcol. It's looking for 2400 baud, half duplex ascii text. (if you use Pelco D.)

I'd rather not edit it. I would perfer that general statements be modifed by the writer to be more clear and not look like the poster above him is engaging in piracy unless he has some clear evidence they are. I suspect that upon reflection the writer might find a better way to word it.

It's still a focus issue. If you move the monitors apart far enough then he's moving his head back and forth. If they are close then all you have done is put a bigger monitor in place. It's not a resolution issue, it's a data overload issue. It's not hard to test if you go to a client. Sit in front of their machine and watch in a 32 camera view. Keep scanning and keeping an eye out. It's really, really tiring and hard to keep going for more then 15 min.

It works if remote monitoring is someone doing a spot check. But for control center software, why would you make it work against guards that are monitoring?

It's not a can it be done, we can do a sixty-four camera layout with ease in our software. The problem is the Mk. 1 Eyeball and Mk.1 Brain that most people have. The eye is like any lens, your best sight is in the center and the brain is wired to look for motion to focus the best sight you have on a target. When you have alot of views, the brain simply has trouble processing it. Even if you make it larger the problem is still information overload. Now you can do some things to ease this. One way we do it is by setting up a second window that simply flips to what what cameras are seeing motion. Another way to have it is more guards. I'm sure when Cooperman gets here, he'll recall the studies on it but there are alot of things that are differant when you switch from passive recording to active monitoring.

Second monitors and even quad set ups work but I recall reading in Damjanovski's book that most guards can't handle more then 3x3 without loss of focus.

It's harder to find a LCD with good color responce. The LCD I use here for instance works fine for work stuff (e-mail, etc) but it's color responce is simply too poor for it to be used as a DVR monitor (ie, why it sits on a salesman's desk) and when I do view cameras on it, they can make cameras look washed out. It's a problem with the cheaper IR bullets in particular during the day. (Which makes sense since they are washed out to begin with.) But the Plasmas are just freaking great.

I still perfer the Video out to TV with broken VCR/blank tape trick.

I can safely say it's not true. Don't feel bad though, the Onion gets a few newspapers a year who pick up on thier fake stories.

A few facts: That area is one of the most heavily traveled sealanes in the world. Same for aircraft. Depending on which theory you look at, the size of that area and it ranges from 500,000 square miles to several million square miles. This is an area large enough to drop Texas into twice even if you go with the small size. The Navy report on that flight never mentioned any radio calls in. It did mention that only the lead pilot had working Naviagtion gear. The whole area is noted for unstable weather. Not just hurricanes but small but powerful storms. The triangle is a myth and the people who write about it just cite previous writers without checking thier facts.

Dude, while the RIAA are clearly not good people and if a big rock from the sky took them out I doubt there would be much weeping....did you look closely at the source you got that story from? Perhaps you should check the Onion's front page, or thier back issuses.

The problem with 16+ cameras in one view is the human factor. We just don't see well above 9 cameras. I've seen 64 camera views on a single screen (large plasma, I didn't measure it) and it's just tough to understand all of it.

I deleted it.