Cooperman

Not sure I'd look at Philips as 'a new breed in CCTV' On the subject of creepy, how about .... automatic tracking, with facial recognition .... and millimetric wave surveillance which strips of clothing?

Pan & Tilt or Scanners are very useful in certain situations, in support of fixed cameras. Where they are used instead of fixed cameras, it's often a recipe for disaster. I agree with you Rory, more often than not additional fixed cameras are preferable.

Automatic camera tracking has been around for a while, in fact the US military already use systems for various applications. How about linking a tracking PTZ with a facial recognition system? Now we're talking creepy

Ever thought of a career in 'writing' Thomas? Maybe if Rory posts some pictures, you can do the captions

How could I possibly have forgotten Pelco, when I've only just received the latest edition of 'Pelco Press' magazine? I must be slipping.... Sean, If you want to follow up Rory's suggestion, the UK operation is based in Wokingham, Berks, e-mail to: uksales@pelco.com All this talk about pan and tilts, is making my head spin!

Personally, I wouldn't want to say that any particular manufacturer is the one to go for every time. On balance, I've probably used more Pentax (Cosmicar) lenses than any other, but I wouldn't go so far as to say every lens they make is perfect, because quite obviously they're not. Very solid range, good glass, good coatings, well engineered, but not the cheapest. The general rule is, if you use a good lens on a rubbish camera you'll probably get acceptable pictures. If you use a rubbish lens on a very good camera, you may save a little bit of money, but the results will be dreadful. Years ago, their used to be noticeable variations in performance from some lenses manufactured in the same batch. Nowadays, production methods are much tighter, so consistency is rarely a problem. If you stick to using a few 'tricks', like 1/2" lenses on 1/3" cameras (already mentioned in previous posting), or using Manual Iris optics on Electronic Iris cameras (indoors), you will generally get much better quality pictures.

Hi Sean, In the UK we have a few Pan/Tilt manufacturers such as Conway, Dennard & Shawley to name but three. If you are just after one unit, they won't supply you directly, so you'll have to go to a distributor (of which there are very many!). You could have a look at (as a couple of suggestions):- http://www.videocontrols.com http://www.tecseceurope.co.uk If you are going to order a unit, pay attention to whether the P/T head is indoor or outdoor, and that the weight capacity is adequate for your needs. Their are various options for controlling the head, and hopefully your supplier will take the trouble to make sure you get the one that best suits your needs. If you need any more info, you know where to ask!

Rikky, If you are using Fujinon lenses, then you haven't got a lot to worry about. I think DVR Expert Australia, you've probably got a better feel for the Computar range than I have. I did use some years ago, but I wasn't happy with overall quality across the entire range. Some were very good, others were decidedly average. Pentax and Canon also produce some extremely good optics ( I haven't used them all, but I've rarely had any complaints with those I have used) , albeit that they are slightly more expensive. Personally. I'd rather pay a little bit more for a 'fantastic' response from a client, instead of simply 'yeah, that's ok'. One other point, I think I forgot to mention in previous postings. If you use 'C' mount lenses, they are generally much better corrected than 'CS', but again you have to pay that little bit extra.

Ever heard of flying boats? The clue in the basement reference was (on high ground) !!! Lets just hope the 140's don't arrive, otherwise you may be picking up your e-mails in Florida tomorrow. Good luck.

Hi rikky, The imager size issue is not so much about the technical merits of one size over another, but much to do with the cost of production. In general terms, when 'chips' are manufactured, a small percentage are rejected as faulty, so what tends to happen is that in the case of CCD imagers, the larger the imager, the higher the incidence of rejects arising from faulty pixels. In plain english, if you had 100 1/4" CCD chips, the vast majority would be o.k., but if you had 100 1/2" chips, a significant percentage may have manufacturing flaws and would therefore be junked, so overall they cost that much more to produce. Ideally, if manufacturers could produce very high resolution 1/2" or 2/3" chips, the light gathering and signal / noise benefits would be brilliant, but we couldn't afford to use them! You have to remember that when it comes to supporting larger higher resolution imagers, the supporting processing circuitry is going to occupy more PCB space, and require more power, so the whole camera package gets larger again. The abberations issue is purely related to optical performance in the lens. This is easily tested by setting up two identical cameras side by side and then comparing the picture quality with two equivalent lenses. If you ever try a basic 1/3" 8mm lens against an 8 or 8.5mm 2/3" lens (both fitted onto the same high res. 1/3" cameras, just compare the performance at maximum aperture, and it can be quite a revelation. The 2/3" lens will win hands down every time. Even cheaper poor quality lenses can look acceptable if you use the larger format lens, on a smaller CCD. Many clients spend a small fortune on electronics, stick any old bit of glass on the front of a really good camera, and then end up with rubbish pictures. Then they moan that the cameras not much good! Whenever I can, I try and standardise on really good performance 1/3" cameras, then I've got a brilliant range of lenses available to suit practically any situation. Also there's one other benefit worth thinking about. If for example, you use a standard lens on a 1/3" camera (8mm) and a standard on a 1/2" camera (12mm), the coverage may be exactly the same, but the depth of field (at matching apertures) will always be greater on the shorter 8mm focal length, so a target will remain in focus for more of the area under observation. I'd be interested to know what lenses you guys use, both in terms of manufacturers (I think I can guess the answer), but also how you decide what type to buy.

6th floor ..... windows ..... hurricane...... Rory.... Have you been taking your medication, I'm beginning to worry about you I don't know a lot about hurricanes, other than when it gets a bit windy, things often fly straight through windows! You don't think a nice reinforced concrete basement (on high ground) might be a safer bet?

I've just read a news report that said the storm was currently category 4, possibly upgrading to 5 during today. Apparently there hasn't been 2 hurricanes of this magnitude to hit the States a couple of weeks apart, for around a hundred years. Keep your head down Rory!

One other quick point, A 'Standard' lens:- 6mm on 1/4", 8mm on 1/3", 12mm on 1/2", 16mm on 2/3", 25mm on 1" (and for comparison 50mm on a 35mm photographic camera) are all designed to give the same degree of coverage, which is approximately that of the human eye. So anything with a shorter focal length (on a given format) will be classed as 'Wide Angle', and any lens with a longer focal length is a 'Telephoto'. Hope that answers your question Tim.

Tim, Just to clarify, the focal length of a lens will not automatically imply a degree of coverage, unless you take account of the imager (CCD) size. So with the two lenses you mentioned, 12mm and 6mm, I'll use a pair of almost exact equivalents, to give you a couple of examples. If you used a 12.5mm lens (which is designed for the now defunct 1" format), it would be a normal wide angle on 1", slightly wide on 2/3", standard on 1/2", and a 1.5x Telephoto on 1/3". The 6.5mm (again originally a 1" format lens) would be ultra wide on 1", slightly wider than a normal wide angle on 2/3", wide angle on 1/2", and slightly wider than standard on 1/3". Any work that I do, I always try and use at least one lens series above the imager size I'm working with, so that all the poorer quality (increasing spherical abberations) present towards the edge of the image, are not focussed on the imager. So on 1/3" CCD, I'd go for 1/2" format (or better still 2/3"), 1/2" CCD use 2/3" lenses (or 1"). You get the picture? Sorry, it's too early for puns!

Just thought I'd confuse the issue 12mm on 1/2" and 6mm on 1/4" (who uses them?) are both standard lenses, and would provide roughly the same picture (coverage). 12mm on 1/2" = standard and 6mm on 1/2" = wide angle, easy peasy; Now the question of aspherical lenses, you're pretty much spot on DVR Expert Australia. The front lens element in an aspherical is shaped to an extremely accurate profile so that the rays of light entering at the edge of the lens, are as near as possible brought into sharp focus at a point where the centre axis rays are focussed (which hopefully will be on the front surface of the imager). Standard 'spherical' lenses will always have (more) aberrations which degrade the picture quality, and which increase as you near the edge of the elements (specifically the front element), although in practice, if you try and use a larger format lens, for example a 2/3" on a 1/2" camera, all the rubbishy bits will be out of view of the imager (is this making sense, if not I need some sleep!). The fact that a lens is 'aspherical' in design doesn't necessarily mean that it is optically fantastic, particularly at maximum aperture. All lenses tend to produce their highest optical resolutions, at or around the mid point of their iris range (i.e. around f5.6 ish). I believe their are a few different methods for producing aspherical elements, and quality can vary with the different processes, but the one overall factor is they must be shaped to an extremely high accuracy in order to work well. From experience, I would say that the one topic which causes the most confusion in CCTV circles is....lenses. Not that long ago, I posted a link to an information site which was about as popular here as Christmas for turkeys (come to think of it, that analogy didn't really sound quite right). I have seen a couple of lens charts there but without looking it up, I don't have the address to hand. Let me know if you want it, and I'll see if I can find them.

You'd better get the cat in Rory, and try not to sit in a draught Good luck!

With 'low end' plastic cased monitors and T.V.'s, you can very occasionaly get problems with picture interference (either generated, or received), whereas higher spec. metal cased monitors are generally more stable, and in terms of quality brands, significantly more reliable.

Thomas Have they finished? Is it safe to come out yet....?

Rory, I really don't think this part time job with the Bahamas Tourist Board is going to work out - you'd better stick to what you're good at (and stay safe!) DVR Expert Australia, Thank the lord you're not angry with Rory, otherwise I'd be trying to get the window locks off by now. There's more than enough dis-information in the market place; we can't be right about everything all the time, but at least if we can respect others opinions, right or wrong, and spot a load of old marketing hype when we see it, then hopefully tomorrow will be a better day. May the sun shine (gently) on us all!

Strewth!!! I try and get a few hours sleep and look what happens! Isn't it amazing how a simple thread about identifying a DVR, can rapidly descend into an intercontinental incident. To the best of my knowledge, provided a product has a certain percentage of home manufactured components incorporated into the design, the manufacturer can claim it's built in a particular country, even if to most casual observers it just looks like a final assembly job. After all, that's why many of the Far Eastern manufacturers ended up building hugh assembly plants within the European Union (avoiding import duties, receiving subsidies etc. etc.). If the worst we have to worry about is whether a product is 'manufactured' or 'assembled' in a particular country, then hey, what's the problem? On the issue of standalones v. PC's, their are rubbish standalones on the market, and some very poorly built PC's. Any disagreement on that? The CCTV industry (globally) has grown at a breathtaking rate in recent years, and inevitably their are a great many people struggling to come to terms with the technology, who rely on experienced 'experts' to help them out when the need arises; that after all is what makes this site so enormously valuable. So maybe, on the odd occasion when highly knowledgable (and respected) individuals have a strong difference of opinion, they should perhaps choose their moment and simply agree to differ. Thomas, ever considered a career change? perhaps a professional referee? I'm with you on this one.

O.k., alright, I do know who GE are, but what I was trying to get across is that they do not have a significant presence in the U.K. CCTV market I didn't include Samsung in my brief collection of 'Premiership Division' players, because quite frankly, they aren't. As I said before, those that may be big name players in one country, can be virtually unknown in another. Now I wonder ... do GE make ..... Picture in Picture units?

If you connect one camera to a monitor, does it work okay? If it doesn't, try another Power Supply Unit. Are all three driven from the one PSU? What size is the power supply (actually what voltage are you on - output that is). What is the total current drain with all three cameras connected (you should find the figure in the tech. specs section of the manual). How long are the power supply (and video ) cables? You may find there's voltage drop over the cable run, so if you've got a test meter, measure the output at the PSU, and then the voltage at the camera ends. Fingers crossed

GE who? I know they brand as Kalatel, but a household name in this neck of the woods, I don't think so. Okay so Hitachi only do VHS and Super VHS (DVD doesn't count eh, even though it sounds like DVR), which of course shouldn't be mentioned in a digital forum, but hey, I forgot Mitsubishi as well, so they'll probably also take me off their Christmas card list this year! There does appear to be a huge pricing differential between entry level 'Taiw-ean' and branded Japanese DVR's on this side of the pond, but as they say, you pays yer money .... I've just had a call from someone wanting the cheapest DVR available; I think he was a bit disappointed when I said he'd have to go to Seoul to collect it. I think Thomas you may well be right in that service support should be an attitude, and not simply an optional add on.

Hi Peter First thoughts are lens! Turn off the camera and remove the lens, switch the camera on, and move it from dark to light areas and see if the blank image on screen changes in density. If it does, and then remains constant for a few minutes when left pointing at a neutral 'grey', the chances are it's a lens 'iris' related problem; As a final test, plug the lens back in (I'm assuming it's auto iris) but leave it off the camera (i.e. in your hand). As you point the working end of the camera at either a light or dark area, you should see the iris open or close accordingly. If it is not working correctly, check the wiring, lens iris settings, and possibly also the power output if you are using an unknown power supply. If that doesn't work, you're onto stage 2!!

I say gentlemen ... steady on! At this stage of the 'discussion', it would appear that support is very variable, reliability is somewhat variable, and availability is extremely variable, depending on which bit of the globe we're sitting on. There are certainly manufacturers mentioned that have no significant presence (if at all) here in the UK, and one would imagine, other parts of Europe; a massive number of manufacturers products being marketed in the Far East, and a small but significant number of trusted brands, covering each individual home market. But how do the major, major brands sit in all of this. Companies like Sony, JVC, Panasonic, Sanyo, Hitachi, Philips (now Bosch), etc. etc (apologies to any I missed out). Is it a case that they are way too expensive for general use, so only the large corporate clients buy their products, or are they 'struggling' in the face of serious underpricing from the Korean / Taiwanese manufacturers? Any thoughts?