cctv_down_under

I tend to agree with VST, trying to manage a big site and keep up with fast moving action is next to impossible, what you want are sensors that will make the camera point in a direction or zoom when detecting motion alerts, thsi also allows you to wire to a Matrix device and if you use a DVR that supports its own Matrix device, you can make them speak at a high level interface, IE: Door opens...reed switch activates, camera recieves closed circuit and spins to location, then ouputs to Matrix to show display on X monitor and allow control from Joystick, Matrix outputs to DVR to start recording at high frame rate etc etc

Geovision can do both, it can handle two way audio and can handle recording the audio (I think seperately) that would be time stamped to be played back at the same time as the video through Geovisions Log Viewer

If you are after stabiltiy, then yes, if features then no (Unless doing POS), the march is one of the best built DVR's I have seen it is not a mini PC or an embedded syhstem with PC architecture, it is purpose built and has an inbuilt UPS, I like them a lot becasue they do not fail, but the feature set is very weak. To answer your question it is like considering a Toyota and a BMW, both are pretty darn reliable, but one has alot more bells and whistles!

Ok you Geo freaks..here we go. 1/ When doing a back up, I use the "Os System Burn" option and it works fine..excepting some DVD's (but that is a windows direct burn issue) but I am wondering if when you burn in this way, are the files still left in the c: cache, I dont want someone filling up my C: partition with the windows burn temp files? 2/ When you lock down the windows desktop in Geovision you can allow certian paths to folders but you can not see them, IE what do you do when you want your user who is locked out of windows to save a .JPG etc file, they can save it where they like but then they can no longer see it becasue until they boot into an unlocked destop they can not see the folder containing the files, any ideas (I have not played too much with it yet as I assume there must be a solution) I have tried allowing a folder but when locked out and allowed to see that folder you can not seem to see the contents. I did find a way to do it through Nero..which is a lso a breach of the lock down...after all if you allow them to use Nero then they can see all the files and delete them as well even when locked down. 3/ In the Video Log, what does the Montior A/B mean in the corner? 4/ Are there any backplanes that can be bought for Geovision as the fly leads are very thin and messy? 5/ If you wish to program the spot monitor using a DSP (In other words only rotate (switch) cameras 1,5,9and 14, why does it disable the real time display on the DVR box, is there any way around this at all. 6/ Has anyone written any scripts for UPS devices to safely initiate shutdowns of software by individual applications rather than just telling Windows to shutdown and causing corruptions? 7/ Does anyone have any cheat sheets for doing a backup, something easy for the customer to follow, or any video files, if so please PM me if you are willing to share them?

A back Pane, as I should have typed it, is a panel of BNC connectors, like the Standalones have, that can be put on the rack mount box, getting rid of the fly leads. All the UPS shutdown does is close the programs, and abrubtly ..just like the "end program" from task manager, the UPS can be scripted so that it can properly close programs and processes.

I use the March gear, it is very well built and you ae unlinkely to ever have any problems, it is not cheap though and lacks some features compared to other DVR's

I have been using the Antec cases, but I am going to have to steer clear of them now, the reason is that they are too long for most small rack mount holders, however they are a nice case and cheap and strong.

Awww come on you guys, someone must know the answers

Never seen that one, what might help is to find te main .EXE file and look at the properties and version, it may tell you who wrote the software

If I get some time tommorow I will read through this whole article again, however I now feel that this post has become far too argumentative to be constructive, however in summaary I would like to point out some very real and very obvious advantages and disadvatages of both systems and perhaps we can leave it at that. Although I love a good argument, I can not see this post as constructive anymore so by listing the advantages and disadvantages (and to be honest I am going to mention a lot of benefits not mentioned by our learned IP colleague) I hope we can put this thing to bed. Advatages of IP: 1/ IP systems are actually much more affordable (I did not say cheaper, about the same price really) when considering using many cameras over a new network infrastructure, the advantage of running on one network wire as apposed to having to wire each camera individually mean that on very large (and only very large) installs it can be as cost effective to use IP. 2/ IP cameras can do a larger resolution than analogue, although it is rare that on large jobs that you would actually need to do so, nor is it likely that you will be able to use this advantage if you are using an existing network. 3/ A DVR is limited in its location once the wiring is done, an IP camera system can be relocated...even offsite if bandwidth allows, this means that relocations and renovations are easier with IP cams. 4/ IP cameras generally have the ability to adjust more settings than analogue cameras, and although those settings can usally be almost matched by DVR systems, there are a few settings such as dual streaming etc that can be set up on an IP camera that DVR does not support. 5/ Compatability issues, IE mainboards, Northbridge etc is not required with an NVR, therefore upgrades are easier for a NVR compared to a DVR. 6/ When considering a business that has one major site and many small ones, IE a head office of an Ice Cream Business that has many sites that only require one or two cameras, can be installed much cheaper as there is no need to worry about a recording device at each site IE if you had a head office with 20 or so cameras and 30 small shops you do not have to buy 30 DVR's you could use 30 IP cameras and one NVR so long as you have the adequate bandwidth. 7/ Some good IP camera systems allow for transmition of MPEG4 with settings allowing for adjustments like I Frames etc, allowing you to adjust the streaming parameters of each camera. 8/ IP cameras are indeed easier to upgrade than MOST analogue cameras. 9/ IP cameras do not have interlace problems, this is because they are not limited in the capture resolution that MOST (and I say MOST very loosely) DVR systems are limited to due to PCI Bus limitations. 10/ As video analytics evolves we will need much more processing power at the actual camera, this may depend on advancements in actuall PC devices, but if the development of video analitics continues at the rate is currently growing at then a camera with a CPU onboard (most likely an IP camera) will for a short while be able to handle a lot more than the single processor that is in a singe CPU that the DVR requires. 11/ In the world of PTZ cameras, IP has the advantage of transporting protocols over a network in an easier manner than MOST (once again I use the word MOST loosely) analogue systems, this means that there is less of a need for cabling and makes IP PTZ almost as affordable as analogue PTZ but much easier to configure and upgrade. 12/ There is no distance limitation that effects quality for IP camera systems, although it is rare that distance is an issue with some analogue cameras (once again..choosing the right analogue camera is imperative, I tend to use Bosch because they support coax up to 3/4 of a Mile which is fairly rare to require such a distance, and most of their devices have the option to switch to network balun increasing this distance, however there is no need to do this with an IP system. 13/ With an IP system the conversion from Digital to Analogue only occurs once, with Analogue it is convereted to digital for processing then back to analogue for transportation then back to Digital for recording, this is not necessary for IP systems. 14/ Viewing statistics are more readily accesable through an IP sytem than an analuge system. Advatages of DVR systems: 1/ DVR systems do offer very similar networking ability (good ones do) compared to IP Systems, and although IP systems are more flexible, it is rare....other than on large corporate systems that these benefits would actually be utilized, DVR systems can be a PC so there is little that DVR software can not offer that IP can not. 2/ Not every location (Keep in mind we are talking globally, not just Asia and US) has the abiltiy to provide the bandwidth to take advantage of what IP can truly offer, it is important to note that in the majority of the world it would be difficult to stream more than a few cameras in upspeed without exceeding your total upspeed of your connection, therefore the myth of having many cameras without a NVR onsite is not accurate. 3/ DVR's provide MORE redundancy than IP, ISP's can go down, Virus's do occur and networks do crash, there is NO redundancy on MOST IP based DVR systems, having a hard wired solution not only allows you the majority of features found in IP streaming, but offers a redundancy that MOST IP systems can not offer. 4/ There are no compatability issues with Analogue cameras, there are many with IP cameras, the same limitations with PTZ protocols occur and there is NO need for the additional cost of a web server. 5/ All the storage and back up facilities that are offered by NVR's are also available to analogue systems. 6/ DVR's are easy to integrate, they also are easy to retrofit, the replacement of a totally anolgue system to DVR offers the majority of benefits that would be associated with having an IP system at a fraction of the cost. 7/ DVR systems are CONSIDERABLY, let me say that again.....CONSIDERABLY cheaper than IP systems, this is only because IP is new and this will surely change over time, but to install 32 cameras on IP compared to a DVR with analogue cameras is uncomparable. 8/ IP systems are harder to configure than your average DVR system, they do require a network knowledge and they require a systems administrator to support them, this is often not available in many countries 9/ The maintenance and support of a analogue DVR system is limted compared to that of a full IP system. 10/ There are more failure points in a network system then there are with a DVR syetem and a DVR system is much less likely to be affected by outside elements than an IP system. 11/ Analogue HYBRID systems that incorporate the best of both systems are easier to retrofit than a total IP system. 12/ It is much easier to mix and match cameras on a DVR system compared to IP systems especially due to the factor that there are simply a wider variety of cameras that work with every Analogue system compared to compatability issues of IP systems. 13/ IP cameras require considerably more bandwidth than analogue cameras. 14/ Although IP cameras are experiencing massive growth, the lions share of the market is still with DVR this ensures that developments in DVR will match that of IP cameras for the next few years. The value proposition based on the advantages of IP is not yet there and as prices drop for IP systems it will become more prevalant to use IP products but for now the benefits for most situations is not with IP systems as the majority or market share is only in the low to mid end. 15/ When using wireless IP cameras you need to consider the BAND of frequencies available to the IP camera 2.4GHz spectrum can make a difference on how your system works. There’s also the “newerâ€

Then why advertise that it can be done..this is my argument. I hate the statement "With Ip cams you can have unlimeted cameras" and I have heard it too many times! Correct but DVR's offer this I mentioned Geovisions "Twin Server", you must rmemeber after the video is recorded a DVr can BE a NVR and do the same things over a network! No need for a controller, all Bosch PTZ's can be controlled over the coax and through software and updated through coax as well as ugrades etc, this functionality is called Bilinx! I think you have misunderstood me, what I was saying was that with a hard wired system, the bandwisth is not a concern, becasue it is not ON the network, it can have whatever the DVR can handle becasue it is hard wired cable, with wireless and "network only" IP cams, you have to be concerned with the amount of data transfer, with a hard wired system you do not have to! As for your statement about building a NVR cheaper and with more storage, that is incorrect....My DVR can be a PC and can have the SAME box or storage that you use, so the same limits apply to me as do for you, my DVR can also record at the same frame rates, i can not comment on price, but I DOUBT your solution of NVR and buying software as well as having to use IP cams is cheaper than a DVR using analogue and in the same PC box as yours! this is a pointless argument, your NVR can be standalone, so can mine, yours can be PC so can mine...we are succeptable to the same risks, I was not saying yours was more succeptable to crashing, it wsa you that stated yours was more stable, they are exactly the same and YES I can build mine on Windows Server if I wanted to..your point was that yours offered better redundancy becasue my DVR was fallable and that if it stopped working I loose my recordings, but so do you and the NVR and DVR can both be standalone or PC so your argument is pointless. Perhaps...but I can build a PC DVR with the same components as your NVR so where is the difference, I think it is silly for you to argue this point because anything you can build as an NVR I can build as a DVR! I do agree though about the CPU load but my DVR can use hardware compression as well, so there is no difference ...well that is not correct..but the difference is in my advantage, because I do not have to have IP cams doing the compression that are more expensive! In short....My CPU load can be the same as yours so I see no advantage! Your original Point has changed here...the facts are 1/ If we both have an cam on an oil rig, they both get damaged! 2/ We can both stream to a raid system, but my control room software is free. 3/ The advantage I have is if your wireless system stops working I still record on the RIG and you do not! 4/ No matter how you argue, there is nothing a NVR can do in streaming that a DVR can not do as well, the only differnce is I can record at site and also OFFSITE You did not mention the brand you are using? You can say what you like but the facts are that I can use any camera, you can too but you have to buy a webserver and I do not, every analogue cam works on my DVR and not every IP cam works on yours! INCORRECT!!!!!!!!

Incorrect, many of the DVRs that we use can be controlled and monitored from one master unit, including roll outs, updates, alive pings, health montioring and much much more. I am not sure and perhaps Thomas will explain..I have not read his post yet...but there can NOT be limited connections, even windows itself has a limit to this and your bandwisth is not going to support an unlimited number of connections all pulling traffic in different directions, you need to realize that you can not have 40 people reviewing and 20 people viewing etc, the bandwidth is SIMPLY not there to do so! This is why things like Twin server was designed for Geovision and why VCS and many other IP products recommend only a certain amount of connections. The PTZ cameras that I use have this facility, thre are many models that also support this, ALL BOSCH and Panasonic and even I think PELCO PTZ's support this and none of these are considered "Lower Spec" I will conceded that ONLY on wireless is there advantage to PTZ becasue of the lack of a need for cable, to argue that an IP camera PTZ requires less cable is wrong becasue I could use a balun and the same cable you use cat5 to get the same result, I do recall stating that there is an advantage to IP PTZ's for transporting long distance protocol and have used many a WEB SERVER to achieve this (especially to avoid digging up airports or roadways etc) It isn't...I am not saying you do.....but...most IP CCTV sales guys sprout the advantage of IP is to use the existing infrastructure of the network to save on cabling and most times that is not possible, the cost saving is lost if you have to put in more routers, switches etc etc compared to using what is existing there already. Better is debatable, but I am not going to argue that, nor have I ever said IP was not better....but what you said was that it can be as cost effective (I can not scroll back so if I am wrong I am sorry) but I seem to remmeber you saying it was sa cost effective and that was the point I was trying to make. I can not speak for Pelco and granted the IP cam has the ability of having more software on it than your standard Analogue cam but the difference is that the software is in the cam not aT the dvr and that is the main difference...to answer your question though. I recently upgraded all my Bosch Cams to the latest firmware for several reasons and yes one of them had a lot to do with bandwidth...not that it is a concern to a HARD WIRED SYSTEM you do not need to adjust bandwidth for a hard wired system!!!! it was for a feature that reads each frame and looks for the frame with the least noise and then sends the approriate frame reducing the need for noisy recordings...but once agin, the DVR can have the features you are talking about and there is no concern here because I do not have to reduce the bandwidth in the first place for DVR and it can be adjusted at the DVR. I am sorry but I think it is..I agree on the sabotage point but my DVR and your NVR are both PC's however my DVR can be a standalone, they both can crash and if they both crash you do loose all cameras, to say you only can loose one camera is wrong...if your NVR crashes (oooh hang on, you have prolly never seen Windows crash either ) then you are in the same boat, granted yours MAY not be working as hard as your average DVR so there can be less risk but the DVR will operate if the network goes down and hardware compression alleviates the load anyhow. No it would not be lost, there are things like Geovisions Control room software that can always be streaming, much like your IP setup, you can argue all you want but DVR will give you two points of redundancy, hard wired and ethernet, you only have one with IP and that can still be used by DVR ...Ethernet, if there was an accident your IP cam would also be affected surely? Then you are lucky because it is an issue with most products, please list the product you use and the brands it also supports especially in H264 and MPEG4 as you suggested it can do, I would like to show you some IP cams that will not work on your system, after that can you please show me an Analogue cam that will not work on mine! Actually yes I can with most DVR's I have to say it is harder with Standalone's but my DVR can be a PC so anything you can do it can do, it just takes either third party software or the some software that is designed fro the DVR, Geovision (One of the cheapoest PC DVR's) has this facility too I think in its backup scheduling, regardless intelligent SAN box's can do it as well..I do not agree with this point but grant you that not using third party and having it as part of your software is intelligent but some of the DVR's I use do it anyhow! No it is not...I would never use a Mac but I do use IP cams, have never even said IP was not better, just blowing a few holes in points... PS I will be buying an IPHONE though (Mac Product) have you seen this beast Thomas it is amazing! Although this thread is argumentative, I think you should keep it open, people will learn from it, I personally see IP as the major way forward and we will ALL be using it very shortly, I just hate that in order to sell a more expensive products, Myths are made up to justify costs....the three things remain for me! 1/ There is very little that an IP cam can do that is that important other than Resolution. 2/ Networks do fail and having two points of redundancy is ALWAYS better than one. 3/ Once the network cams have storage (Flash Storage) onboard that is large enough and affordable enough they will surpass DVR's because of the redundancy...but wont they then be a DVR with a built in camera?

I disagree again, there are still Display, Data Bandwidth and even storing the compressed images to consider, Unlimited is never likely, this is a myth...I have designed many IP systems and I have ahd to include several NVR's amd Several NVW's becasue there is indeed a limit to what can be processed, viewed, stored and transfered on one machine....the product I used ahd the unlimited tag..but there is indeed a limit. I could prove my argument by way of a poll but there is no point..it is ludicrous to suggest networks do not fail ever, that is pure rubbish and if you are indeed working in the IT industry as possibly a netwrok admin, you must have had a very boring job if you never had to fix anything..I am sure there are statistics, but I cant be arsed finding them...i think others have and you must just have been lucky! Ummm not all ptz cameras require coms cables!! the ones i use can be controlled up the Coax! Your phone may be able to do that resolution and I dont recall arguing about resolution, but what IP sales people talk about is using IP cams on an existing network to save money...well you HAVE to lower the resolution with IP, but you dont HAVE to with a DVR, the bandwidth does not come into play with a hard wired DVR...keep in mind IP has to be compressed first, so you have to record at the bandwidth available..this is not the case for DVR. Wow...you use a router per camera..thats gotta be expensive and its not like the cams arent expensive in the first place..sheesh 32 wireless routers, changing to gigabit lan, changing network equipment and all network cards....before even starting with cameras...cant see how that is so much cheaper sorry! Ummm yes it does!!! Ummm doesnt the same thing happen if your NVR stops working..ok i admit you can haev redundancy but so can you with DVR, this is a silly point and I am surprised you made it considering that a network failure makes your system redundant, unplugging one netwrok cable at the NVR kills all cameras..not just one!!! nope heaps of ways..I cuold even put it into a dvr on the rig and use the same connection you would, only difference is that if that link every broke...I WOULD STILL BE RECORDING...DVR makes it an ethernet connection and to be honest HOW OFTEN aare you installing on OIL RIGS..be realistic here! I am well versed with the use of webservers encoders and decoders and I dont beleive I ever eluded to them not existing however it is EASIER to pick any cam you want rather than having to DEVELOP SOFTWARE for the one you want! Most DVR's these days actually can record to a network drive, SAN or NAS so I do not get your point, I have been mapping even standalone DVR's to SANS and NAS for some time, there is no difference, a good DVR can do D1 so I fail to see your point....the argument you should have made is that you can send even larger resolutions, the point is ONLY if you have the bandwidth. Agreed, I never said DVR was Better!!! I like IP solutions, i just hate that becasue they are new they are expensive...so they are harder to sell...harder things to sell means you have to find better ways to sell them...and I just hate IP sales garbage, I have used both MANY times, I have no preference because it comes down to the particular project and suitability of both, there is no point in IP installs if there is not systme admin and no point to put in DVR if you only have a few cameras per site and network redundancy...both have their places and I am happy with both of them..I just like debunking things....and I love eating popcorn I agree and disagree with this post, can you please tell me what in particular can be done by IP that can not be done with a DVR i ahve done both and I can make both secure, redundant and excellent montioring...I know you can mention some points, i can think of them myself...I am surprised they were not mentioned....things like..Resolution, the ability to move your recording device etc etc

I find this an idiotic statement, if a person wants to disable a security system they most certainly can, what I was trying to say originally is that you can have a DVR hard wired and still use it on the network, however the hard wired part is not as likely to have a problem becasue it is indeed hard wired and not succeptable to a netwrok crash, I find it insulting to my intelligence if you are going to pretend that a network will never crash as it is highly possible at some point and unrealistic to assume it will never happen. Once again I disagree, I was talking about the actual camera device and NVR software compared to an analogue camera and a DVR unit, I will admit though that IF and I do say "IF" you can use an existing network then it is obviously cheaper but it is RARE that you can and achieve full resolution and limited compression of numerous cameras, there is also a point that must be considered....Imagine doing a shopping centre...well there would be hundreds of cameras, the labour alone to run hundreds of cables is extreemly expensive and having one fibre ring can realy reap savings benefits so I was wrong when discussing IP with large numbers of cameras. To clarify, the Network IP cam consisits of a the same things found in a DVR the only difference is that they are in the camera...the dvr does the compression or the camera does there is no real difference except the ones that you rightly pointed out...larger resolution, less processing load and the ability to use PTZ through ethernet..but that can be achieved in DVR's as well...however transporting the signal a long way is easier with IP cams. I do not recall ever saying they could not be! A simple webserver can be used on any video feed (almost any). This is true, but most of the time that wiring is in the roof and a lot harder to get at than a data port...my point is not about the fallability of cutting wires because it affects both...my point is that a network failure or one bad hub etc can stop the recording, ...by making it ONLY IP you remove the redundancy or hard wired cables and you casue the system to haev many more parts (hubs,switches etc) and therefore more risk of failure I certainly hope so...but in order to do so I would have to be at the back of the DVR or on a ladder, Once again, if you wish to bring down a CCTV system then both are fallable and I was not saying you could not do it to a DVR system, I was just pointing out that they are both easy to tamper with. Perhaps "Crash" is a better term then...for gods sake if you have never seen a netwrok crash then i would find it hard to beleive you have seen many networks or ever worked for business that has one! This is true but......if your pipe is only so big, then you QOS your butt off and i am sure it will be MORE stable but will you have the space to get the reult in resolution and compression, the fact is if sharing a network and especially an older one, the chances of you streaming many cameras onto their network at full resolution would require you to QOS until their normal other network needs had no room or visa versa, too little room for the video...video = bandwidth! I wouldn't !!!!!! I would rather have one long run...for the simple reason that it has less points of weakness and I might add that if you were mounting a camera 3 feet from a router are you only ever going to put cams in network rooms, becasue I would assume most cameras would be more than three feet from the nearest router! You are a long way off here: A/ All the cameras I use can be firmware upgraded up the Coax Cable and this has been true for quite some time. B/ Upgrading a webserver will not change the compression chip inside it (I could be wrong here) C/ Think about this...if you had two 16 cam Geovision DVR's and a new compression chip was invented..chances are you could remove two Geo cards and presto all 32 cams now record in the new compression because of the new chips on the cards..to do this for IP cams means changing 32 expensive cameras a massive difference in prices. Agreed but why buy two compenents when you only need one, you have to admit there is not the same range of cameras for IP that there are for analogue. I agree with you, but ANY analogue cam can work on a DVR system and not EVERY IP cam can work on a NVR, try mixing a few MPEG varieties in and find this out...I will admit that JPEG is more standardised I agree about the streaming in dual codecs etc...about the compressions, I tend to disagree, they are at equal stages because the companies developing them are doing it for both markets, anything inside an IP cam can be replicated into the DVR? I must say thugh that there is an advantage to being able to do massive resolutions (if you have the bandwidth) that a DVR can not handle due to PCI bus. A network admin should not have to remedy a fualty security system and very few companies here have them "on staff" they tend to contract them in, I assume this may be different in other countries. Look...you make some good points but the one thing in the back of my head is that if the netwok fails...bye bye recordings...now I know about webservers with HDD's that can replicate...but isnt that a glorified DVR anyhow?

CCTVMAN: labour on a job can consist of many things, to clarify we charge 2.5 hours per cable run, including for a spot monitor, we then charge 1.5 hours to fit off focus and adjust the camera angles for each camera and that tends to be safe. A LOT of people do not charge this much but you should unless you are not doing the following: Lets Break it down you had to. 1/ Cary the cable from the vehicle 5mins 2/ Unravell the wrap around the cable 3mins 3/ Measure the cable run including avoidances (lighting, power etc)10mins 4/ Uncoil the length of cable 5mins 5/ Lable the cable ends 2mins 6/ Study the roof for obstacles like power ensuring right angle crossings, work out were catinary wire will go 7 mins 7/ Erect the ladder and move it 5mins 8/ Run the cable 45mins 9/ Terminate two ends of the cable 15mins 10/ Strip power in the cable 7mins 11/ Lable power end and place in power supply 7mins 12/ Measure on a riserbond impedance etc 10mins 13/ Name the camera on the dvr software 5mins 14/ Assemble the camera and lens 5mins 15/ Erect the ladder 5mins 16/ Mount the camera and bracket 15mins 17/ Perform back focus 10mins 18/ Adjust BLC and any other settings 10mins 19/ Show customer (find him first and then let him change his mind again and again...obviously after all cameras are done). 15mins 20/ Document the camera and download the camera settings to laptop 5mins 21/ Mark the camera cable schedule 5mins 22/ Have the customer sign off on the view 5mins This is all assuming that it was an easy run...look you can squible at my figures I just plucked them out of my head and it is simpler and easier and sometimes even harder but what remains is that it is closer to 3hrs especially when you add in things like setting up the dvr frmae rates etc that the customer wants that you didnt charge for etc etc. Not charging for that extra spot monitor or having to run another cable becasue of interference...you need to cover yourself!

We also use subbies and our own team, we try to use the subbies for the local work, most time consuming way but safest is to estimate it and ask the subbie to do it for that price, he can then not go over the price and it is not your risk..however I am very safe on install as I charge 2.5hrs per camera run and 1.5hrs per camera fit off focus, I doubt anyone REALY does an indoor cam in an hour, it takes at least 30 mins to get it out of the box and back focus, 5-10mins to fit it off and adjust angles and at least 45 mins to run a long cable, then you have to name it on the dvr and lable the cable, not to mention zip tie and catinery, so i tend to be very safe indeed, I often rebate if the jb went through smoothly and admit the hours...safest way as mentioned above is to get the installer to quote...hell we do it for free why should they not...ask them how many hours and then hold them to that price.

That is a huge post and I really do not have time to go through it all but there are a lot of things that could be debunked and Analogue could make several lists themselves..here are just a few that are not mentioned by your average IP cam sales person. 1/ Hard wired cameras are always more reliable. 2/ Hard wired cameras are considerably cheaper. 3/ The same capture technology is in each camera that is in a DVR, it is only resolution that differs. 4/ Progressive wscan is available in Analogue cameras. 5/ When a network goes down the recording stops ...PRETTY CRITICAL POINT..this means a simple virus can effect the entire network 6/ Have you ever unplugged a network socket..pretty simple way to disable a system. 7/ Even if the network dies a analogue system is still recording. 8/ The cost savings will only work for new business without large core infracture to begin with...keep in mind that the ONLY time network becomes cheaper is when a large number of cameras are used and unfortunately this usually means you CAN NOT use existing infrastructure and therefore you need a seperate network. 9/ Networked systems run through many points giving many points of weakness, you will still need to cable to the camera becasue it is unlikely that you will ever put a camera only looking at a hub or switch! 10/ To upgrade a 64ch DVR system to later technolgy compression requires the replacement of 2 DVRS as apposed to replacing 64 cameras as the compression is on the camera. 11/ It is easier to find a larger variety of performing types of cameras in analogue compared to IP, I am yet to see a specialised explosion proof or freezer camera? 12/ It is easier to add several brands of analogue cameras to a system than it is of IP cameras. 13/ More bandwidth is required from IP cameras than that of a DVR because you can stream and record differently on a DVR unit. 14/ IP cameras are much harder to trouble shoot, for example a firewall etc? Personally I like IP cameras and I use them a lot, I think the resolution will see IP cams take over...but ONLY when storage and bandwidth are available for it (wont be long) the ONE thing that stops me using them is the fact that if the network goes down THERE IS NO RECORDING (ON MOST MODELS) this is TOO important to ignore!

Quote: 5/ Lack of CPU stress due to the IP cam doing the compression This is often cited but untrue. On the server end the software is still going to have to recode the stream to be stored. There is no CPU savings. _________________ True...but this is only true if you are not using encoder/decoder box's, becasue I like analogue cameras better I tend to use a combination of both...can I ask thomas, does decoding the video take as much resource as compressing it?

1x 2.5gb picture Bring on the bandwidth and we will truly have big brother http://triton.tpd.tno.nl/gigazoom/delft2.htm http://www.metacafe.com/watch/340438/2_5_gigapixel_digital_picture_largest_digital_picture_in_the/

Yes, if only we had the data storage and bandwidth to use it...Imagine 25fps of that size file ..wooooweee

I tend to agree, it is actually harder to get into an IP system, becasue most of the time you are just dealing with the client PC not the server and let me tell you that bank servers are for the most case very secure...as for loss of network connection ..you may have picked a bad industry to use an example because this is indeed a real issue in every other industry, but in banking they usually have disaster recovery and redundant network options. You also need to usnderstand that not ALL IP cams are the same especially web servers, the ones I use have the option of local recording on network failure...for example is if the network goes down at all then the check message being sent does not retur to the camera/webserver and this then makes the system record to either in built HDD, Flash Storage or Local Network Computer, the NVR offsite knows exactly when the last video was sent and will replenish the missing data when the network returns.

Nortons is bloatware so do not use it...I agree with Rory, but you should have a virus scan on it if it is going to be on the network that goes to the internet, I suggest a network version of the virus scan, something that can be used to REMOTELY scan the computers on the network but does not reside on the machine...files change on a DVR all the time, having a LIVE SCAN can be detrimental to performance...If you can handle your machine ever gong down to a virus for a few hours then just make a ghost of your initial image of the OS and then you can simply reload it.

Gotta agree with Colin, although Ip has several advantages. 1/ Distance limitations can be overcome 2/ Additng additional cameras can be quite simple 3/ You can move the NVR you can not move or relocate a hard wired DVR. 4/ Dual streaming 5/ Lack of CPU stress due to the IP cam doing the compression 6/ Better network throttling 7/ A site that has 16 cams hard wired can add a simple 1 camera site to the system. I am still unsold on IP yet, but once the quality gets there I am all for it, the biggest bug bear at the moment is the bandwidth and redundancy...but once this exists, say goodbye to analogue and hello to Megapixel cams.

It is pretty obvious what they are probably doing....same as the world cup soccer in Germany this year....I magine pre selling 1million tiskets at even 30 or $40 each, almost six months before the event, can you imagine the interest on 40 Million over 6 months, I assume that knowing there will be a LOT of PS3 sales guaranteed, to hold those funds would give a massive amount of interest to them

I modded my old xbox and put a media centre (without using a chip) on it, it is what I use to watch all the movies from my pc, it is simply on my network...do any of the new ones let you play files from your PC?