Cooperman

Seems like a good idea - one question though, will it be restricted access

Anytime, but you'll have to be gentle with it Thomas, it's an antique Tektronix.

I agree the master reset should clear down the 'LOCK' function, but I would certainly think twice about sticking a metal paperclip into any hole, unless I knew for sure it was the right one It may clear the problem, or it may just blow 7kMI's socks off! Best to stick to using something insulated

Good advice AV A couple of thoughts to add. Whilst the line lock / phasing issue may be a contributory factor, I'm not convinced that more fundamental problems may not be to blame. DVR Expert, perhaps if you try a few tests just to get a better feel for what's going on. Firstly, I'm assuming that all monitors are displaying the same signal, so if the distributors are not amplified, any signal degredation through cable runs, signal splitting etc., will become progressively worse as a result. Is the problem more obvious on the furthest monitors (longest cable runs), or are they all doing the same thing at the same time? If you can use a decent test monitor in place of one (or more) of the 'rolling' monitors, see if you have the same problem. If so, take the test monitor back to the output from the distributor and check again. Perhaps isolate one distributor, and see if the 7 remaining monitors are working o.k. (or better). Check the switched output from the Divar - it should be spot on (if you'll pardon the pun). If it is, try connecting one of the furthest rolling monitors directly to the switched output and see if the problem disappears. If you can lay your hands on a dual beam oscilloscope, you could actually see what is going in and coming out of the distributor (if you want to borrow mine ). Anyway, if it was a simple 'line lock' variance, I would expect a quick roll in the picture before the monitor locks on to the signal. If it is rolling a number of times, this may suggest either a heavily attenuated signal (either through length or quality of cable runs, or lack of amplification in the Video Distributor) or possibly even a monitor in need of an internal tweak on the vertical hold. My best guess at the moment is either they need a couple of decent VDA's, or the monitors are not playing the game.

Hey DVR Expert, good to have you back! Do we detect a very slight , erm, modification to your views on the PC / Standalone debate The thing I've noticed in these parts, is that low cost PC DVR's are sometimes sold to the customer on facilities, but in practice it's simply to achieve a better profit margin for the installer; or the customer is recommended to purchase a 'state of the art Digital' Standalone, which is often total c**p carrying a hefty mark up. I'm not convinced that buying a half decent DVR needs to cost an arm and a leg, but I'm also aware that many units are sold on brand, rather than features, performance or reliability. In fact reliability appears to be a key problem because of many end users perception that if something is 'digital' it must by implication be totally reliable. Too many installers are happy to fit it and scram, which doesn't really do the industry much good in the long run I've often thought that Bosch as a global brand, are in a rather 'interesting' position, and on balance their portfolio of products are well up in the premier division. So DVR Expert, one month on has the Bosch experience so far, altered the way you look at some of the other CCTV manufacturers? Just curious

The light gathering ability of any lens is fixed by it's optical construction, so it does not change with an alternative format. f1.2 on a 1/2", will still be f1.2 on a 1/3rd. One thing to think about though. In general terms, the size of the front lens element dictates how much light can be gathered, and it's this size in relation to the focal length which gives the maximum aperture (f number). If you have a zoom or varifocal lens, then as the focal length is increased, the effective maximum aperture actually reduces. Whenever you see an 'f' number quoted for a lens, this is the maximum achievable, and in the case of a variable focal length design, not necessarily what the lens is actually working at.

I thought I was the only one having problems with the Bosch website. They send out a newsletter from time to time, and then the links to the website bring up pages with no information on it

I'm guessing, the cameras going to be less than a year old so any chance of a warranty replacement? For what it's worth, I doubt that the issue is with the CCD, damage or otherwise, as it would be unlikely to work o.k. for a few hours and then start playing up (possible but not very likely). My best guess is a signal processing issue (heat related), either down to a poor board connection, dry solder joint or component failure. As the camera warms up over a period of hours, whatever is causing the problem is kicking in. Try switching off anything you can (AGC, BLC, White Balance to manual, LL to internal) and leave the camera with AES switched on, lens removed (and unplugged if it's auto iris). Run the camera under low room lighting for a few hours and see if the problem is obvious on your test monitor (don't worry about the lack of 'picture'). If the problem appears, pick the camera up and gently move it around to see if the 'bleeding' becomes worse. Try pointing the camera towards a bright light source and see if it intensifies. With the problem on screen, gently tap around the camera with your hand (upright and inverted - the camera that is, not your hand!) to see if the problem gets better or worse. If it's a dry joint or poor connection, this will often become apparent with the 'tap' test. If it's a component failure, then unless you are feeling very brave and have a shed load of surface mount maintenance gear lying around, then the camera will probably have to go back. Incidentally, if it is a component issue, then an engineers freezer spray will help identify the problem part, but as to how you replace it, it's probably a hugely expensive board replacement exercise for a 2 cent part

Very well done rory, smart looking site! Is their no end to your talents ...? I'm a bit depressed though, can't believe how cheap the properties are

The RBS cable I mentioned is actually used for direct burial. The U.K. manufacturer Raydex have some info on their site:- http://www.cdt-uk.co.uk if you look up Television / Distribution Cables. The CT 125 RBS is 9.6mm diameter, has 1.1db (5MHz) attenuation / 100 metres (328 feet), and weighs 82Kgs. (180 pounds). The Foamed FE would be preferable to the air spaced. Incidentally the picture on the website spec. page doesn't show the plastic armoured version. Interesting that fibre is becoming 'de rigeur' for underwater work. I would imagine that in mission critical / military applications, it would be the cable of choice, particularly where cost is not an issue. Maybe Rory can get hold of some cheap left over bits from the US fibre link to the Bahamas

Hey CCTVINSTALLER The silence is deafening. Maybe our fellow Brit installers are a wee bit shy

herminshs, Does it do it with just one camera connected, or only when you load extra channels? Off the top of my head, it might be a problem with cross talk possibly termination related?

hey loop, I've just done a quick check on current cable types and whilst CT 100 is still readily available (in its basic form it is widely used for satellite work), there is a variant called WF 100 which uses a solid foam dielectric to prevent the possibility of internal water problems. I don't know whether this is available in 'RBS' plastic armouring, but the CT 100 and CT 125 are both available with the extra outer protective layer. Incidentally, the number corresponds to the diameter in mm's for the central conductor, so CT 125 has a 1.25mm copper conductor, and generally very good characteristics for colour video signal transmission over hundreds of metres. Larger diameter versions are also available, but you really wouldn't like the price (or the weight). You'll probably need to contact a few cable suppliers locally, as the only sites I've come across, don't really give any useful technical information (other than the price!). If I can find my cable book (it seems to have gone walkies) I'll get back to you.

I new we'd agree on something in the end It's strange to consider that some of the technology which was embargoed not that many years ago, is now readily available in the market place. In the early '80's, movement tracking was a definite no no, simply because it could be used by the military in other less friendly countries. Now anyone can get their hands on it. Another few years and we'll all be playing with millimetric imaging, but for now, we're just not worthy

First off, make sure the glass is clean both sides; if possible, use an alcohol / organic based solvent to degrease thoroughly. If you can get a suitable rubber lens hood, taking it right up to the window will exclude any light from behind the camera, so reflections should be minimised that side. Any internal reflections inside the glass itself, or indeed if the glass quality is poor, will affect the final image but in general this is rarely a problem. If there's a problem with reflections outside the glass, a polarizer filter may help to reduce them, but it's generally more effective on internal reflections. I've actually set up a camera very recently in a similar situation, but as I was using a 3x telephoto, it was sufficient to move the lens up to the glass, without the need for any hood or filter. If you're using a wide or ultra wide angle lens, then the problems are usually far more obvious.

Sounds like a simple case of market forces; they'll charge what the end users are prepared to pay for the brand. Honeywell are not a big player in the U.K., but if I get a chance next week I'll dig out the price list; you've got me curious now!

Interesting problem you have there loop. I've custom built underwater housings for industrial process monitoring cameras (about 10 metres depth), but I've no experience of having 220 / 380v cables being used in such close proximity. On the last project, we actually used a somewhat 'unconventional' co-ax, CT 100 RBS, which is a co-ax + a 100% copper foil screen sealed in a plastic armoured outer layer. It's quite heavy (except in water ) has a diameter of about 10mm from memory, and is very resistant to snagging or tight bends. I had to use 2 seperated IP68 rated cable glands to minimise the risk of water ingress. Although I actually used a line powered camera for the last project, personally I would avoid using power down the co-ax if you can, and perhaps use a seperate pair of conductors in the multicore, or localised adaptor to convert to 12v DC for the cameras supply. Fibre would certainly solve your interference pick up problem, but most fibre cables are not really suited to constant movement. Lay them down and they'll last a lifetime, but if you start twisting them about, you risk breaking the fibre and then the whole cable has to be junked. The 'loose tube' fibre cable used to be available with heavy plastic armouring and, aluminium foil barrier and kevlar strand reinforcements, but it's certainly not cheap (I've still got a load of it lying around somewhere ) and it's not the easiest stuff to handle. If you can get hold of some heavy duty plastic armoured, foil screened co-ax to try on perhaps a 50 metre length test, I think that might do the job.

Don't know if any of you guys ever do this, but if you have 'thin' wires that need to be held in a terminal block, one trick is to wind or bend the wire back over the insulation (about 1/8th to 1/4" or 3 - 6 mm) and then screw down on the insulation side, so that it compresses the wire onto the terminal block. In most cases, you can secure the conductor with less screw pressure, and as the screw is pressing down on the insulation (rather than the wire), it is less likely to rip off stranded conductors.

Group hugs .... not sure about that one, us Brits are famous for the 'stiff upper lip'. Maybe cyber hand shakes all round might be the way to go

XXX, Your opening post used the words scope and rifle in the first sentence, so you can hardly be surprised if we took your request literally, and in good faith. Perhaps with hindsight, if you'd explained exactly what it is you are trying to do, the correct information could have been forwarded to you by PM. If you talk to anyone in the U.K. (or indeed certain other parts of Europe) about past terrorist attacks, they will tell you that there have been previous incidents where remotely detonated munitions have been used, and fortunately without the benefit of remote target monitoring, were significantly less devastating than they could have been. The military experts on this forum would probably agree that the main difference between a rifle, a mortar or an RPG is how big a bang they make; and yet they (and worse) can all be used remotely, if the will is there. You may not want to remote control anything significant, but others may have different ideas. Having personally worked in the past on sites that have experienced 'unwanted visitations', the sensible thing to do in a publicly viewable forum, is to be economical with information that can be used by some others, in a less than acceptable way. If you think that such an attitude is 'up tight', then being the gentlemen that we are, we will agree to differ. Personally I would have to say I much prefer to be uptight and professional, rather than forthright and regretful.

Hey rory, I somehow doubt the Silent Witness rep will be paying you a visit with new year freebies It's a shame that so many basically sound PCB camera designs are let down by the poor quality lenses. I suppose as with many things, it basically comes down to price rather than professionalism.

Hey guys, Hunting aside (I'll keep my views to myself on that one), the use of a scope mounted camera is actually very easy, if you know how. The problem is, we don't know who is viewing this forum, and with the best will in the world, providing basic imformation which can equally benefit criminals or terrorists, is possibly not the way to go. Sorry XXX, but in this situation I think I'd better keep my optical suggestions, firmly under control.

As a unit the Arctic Hawk looks really interesting; the only slight problem for me, would be what appears to be a range of 'no iris' PCB barrel lenses. If it's relying on electronic iris in high white conditions, the option of closing the lens iris one or even two stops would have been a big advantage for improving the overall picture quality. Neat package though Thomas, I would have thought that most PTZ manufacturers would be able to offer an uprated heater package if that's what is required for operation in extreme low temperatures, unless of course they charge a steep premium for non standard product.

kaysadeya, AVCONSULTING has suggested a very usable Computar optic. In the past, my personal preference has always been for Pentax, Canon, Fujinon in that order, and I rarely if ever consider varifocals, simply because I'm much happier using fixed focal length lenses, and getting the best optical performance from them. I've absolutely nothing against anyone using varifocals if it makes life easier for them, but it's just not the way I tend to do things. If you need the equivalent of a 5mm focal length lens on a 1/3" imager, then it doesn't matter what format the lens is (e.g. 1/3", 1/2" 2/3" etc.), provided it is built for the same or larger format . The larger the format lens, then generally the better the optical quality when used on a smaller format imager ( if you were to consider a fixed lens, the 4.8mm 2/3" lens, or 6mm 1/2" lens would be the nearest fixed focal lengths to what you suggested. From experience, I would have said the 6mm C mount is a better bet, if you can get away with the slightly narrower coverage). Put simply, using a 1" format (C mount) lens on a good 1/3" format camera, will overall give the best optical quality. Should you decide to use a C mount lens, Sanyo normally provide a 5mm spacer ring with their cameras to allow it to work on the CS mount. It's been a bit of a long day, so I hope this all makes sense

joe4, the standard trick would be to either use a rubber lens hood, or a polarising filter to cut down reflections, or a combination of both. You can normally pick these up at a decent photographic store.