Cooperman

I've got the pictures, just no access to the Running a Security Business folder. I didn't realise that was now restricted access. As they say in these parts, 'if your names not down, you ain't commin in...'

I agree with AVCONSULTING. Personally for a 600' run I'd have stuck with RG59B/U co-ax and been more than happy with the result; unless of course there's another good reason for considering CAT 5 (spare pair etc.)

Agreed .... Just to clarify 313-313, where AC powered cameras are grounded there will always be a possibility of earth loop hum being induced. Generally speaking because of the design for a DC cameras power supply circuitry (and the fact that many low voltage adaptors are plastic cased, double insulated, and don't have an earth conductor), as such they are not 'grounded' to earth, unless they are metal cased and bolted to some conducting metal work. Bottom line is although earth loop is relatively rare (perhaps less than 2% of installations), the vast majority of cases involve AC cameras, whereas DC cameras are virtually (but not totally) immune. Hey Thomas, There's a lot to be said for being a desk jockey; mind you I can't say I'd rush to go back to doing installs ... the novelty wears off after the first 25 years

Thomas and jisaacmagee, Both your answers are credible bits of the puzzle, but just to clarify for others who may be getting confused... If you were using a 12v DC "floating" camera that was isolated from any contact with metal, then the likelyhood of any earth loop being generated is virtually / practically nil. Now where a 24v, 110v or 230/240v AC camera is used, and the power supply to the camera is grounded (as would be required by wiring regs. in the U.K.), then if the monitor / DVR is grounded at the monitoring end some significant distance away, then the likelyhood is that the power supply's would be earthed at different points, therefore offering a very high probability of earth loop hum being induced. This would be the case whether the AC camera were "floating" or not. Even in a situation where a relatively short length of co-ax is being used, and both camera and monitor / DVR power supply's are being sourced from the same power distribution board; whilst there should be little chance of an earth loop, if the camera is then bolted to part of a buildings metalwork, that can then set up a secondary earthing path, which can itself induce hum. Although isolation transformers will solve most earth loops, it's usually better to identify risks and design out any potential (pun not intended) problems.

Hi cctvsussex, and welcome. To be strictly accurate, when it comes to CCTV, not all businesses need to register under the Data Protection Act. The requirement for notification and compliance is based on the way in which a system is used. Apparently, following a court direction about eighteen months ago, it was decided that where a system is being used 'passively', with nobody actively monitoring the activities of individual "Data Subjects", then it is exempt from the requirement to notify. I wonder why the words 'joke' and 'absolute' suddenly spring to mind

50 SQUID .... thats outrageous! Surely you don't need the whole manual, just the pin information? I'll have a think if there's anywhere else you can get the info. If so, I'll post back.

Great for customers ... if only they'd listen to us!

In answer to your original question Willie, as the bandwidth is somewhere around the 5MHz ish figure, that would be the attenuation figure that an engineer would look at if trying to calculate the signal loss. That said, whilst you could use a decent quality RG 6 / RG 11 / CT 100 type coaxial cable over that distance, RG 59B/U would require a launch amplifier, and as the other guys have already suggested, you may well be better off in any case, using UTP with an active balun component. Incidentally, if it was a monochrome camera, you could probably have got away with using RG 59B/U but with some slight image degredation. Over that distance there wouldn't be any chrominance signal left at the back end.

Hey jisaacmagee, Useful indeed, but a little bit naughty of Panasonic not to credit the original source As far as I can remember, the diagrams and measurements were first developed by the PSDB (Police Scientific Development Branch), which is part of the UK Governments Home Office research dept. The material was first published some time around the mid 1990's, and has been widely reproduced by many agency's particularly in Law Enforcement. Incidentally the Rotakin test chart was also developed by them as part of their CCTV system evaluation work.

Silly question here, but any reason why you haven't contacted Tecton for the information ....?

Apart from what has already been suggested, it sounds like there may possibly be a suppression problem with the P/T drive motors. Does the "striations" show up the same for both pan and tilt? As rory said, any signal imperfection present, may look fine on a test monitor, but it can be significantly magnified when fed through a DVR. If it is the motors, you'll need to look at placing some type of smoothing capacitor or R/C suppressor across the motor terminals. Ideally, when you have access to the camera, if you can drive the motors locally using a low voltage supply (but not using the controller), it would be interesting to see if the same problem shows up. If you have a decent VDA available, it would be worth placing that immediately before the input to the DVR, and see if that has any effect on your problem.

Hi ****ney and welcome, The short answer to your question is .... the computer says no! The BNC connectors on your LJD DVR are intended to take composite video inputs from conventional CCTV cameras, and these are not compatible with a normal webcam. I'm not really familier with the model you listed, but I'll see if I can look it up tomorrow, and if there's any more promising news, I'll post back.

Hi kensplace, On some older pan / tilts, they didn't use connectors but were hard wired straight into the head through a compression gland. Given the low current requirements, you can use 6 x 16/0.2 conductor cable (or heavier), which is widely available as a grey 'screened' version; that actually makes the cable more durable, but less flexible!. There are also unscreened versions available which should do the job fine. It is a problem sourcing short lengths, but the cables used to be readily available from RS, Farnell etc. As for Relay Interface Units, I'm guessing that Dennard probably built their last one about twenty years ago, so if you're going to build your own, you may just be starting a renaissance ( I've custom built loads in the past, just not recently )

tekbwoy, In their own inimitable styles, all the guys have given you some very good advice. Wireless in a warehouse environment is never a great ide, or to put it another way, it may be a great idea, until you try and make it work In the UK, 900MHz is not a licence exempt frequency for video transmission; so if you did try anything other than 1.2GHz, 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz, you could end up in seriously deep do do's. The power output quoted on some of the gear you referred to may well prove problematic, and as there are only four licence exempt channels available on 2.4GHz, you may possibly risk picking up somebody elses signal, or more likely scramble their's, in which case you may well find yourself struck off their christmas card list. As has already been suggested, hardwiring would be the most appropriate trouble free technique, and you would save yourself a small fortune by not having to buy bucket loads of aspirins.

b21playa It's definately not an IP camera. It looks like a fairly average 1/3" 350 line colour camera. If you're anywhere near the U.K., the model is listed in Gardiner Security's catalogue. http://www.gardinersecurity.co.uk Maybe give their technical department a ring or drop them an e-mail and see if they can provide a technical manual, or .pdf which might point you in the right direction

ak357, You're right about the getting too technical bit As you probably worked out from normicgander's posting, the resolution (lines) quoted for a camera, relate specifically to lines (or in practice points) that can be resolved along a horizontal scanned line. So the 525 / 625 line (EIAJ / CCIR) scanning system does restrict the maximum available vertical resolution (most cameras are usually in practice around 400 lines vertical), but the horizontal resolution can far exceed this, and in practical terms can be easily tested using a standard test chart and a half decent monitor. Unfortunately in the real world, too often very good quality cameras are fitted with less than ideal lenses, so what may start off as a 540 line box camera, can quickly end up as a 400 ish line c**p camera. Such is life

I'd agree with jisaacmagee, The auto tracking function looks quite impressive in theory, but in practice, it can be problematic (tracking multiple targets being a pretty obvious challenge). Given the size of the parking lot, I'd have preferred to use fixed cameras for coverage, with the option of a PTZ as a bolt on if the client were that way inclined (and if it was actually going to be used!). At the moment, I'm working on a car park (lot) as part of a larger project, and we're only using fixed cameras for a general overview and plate recognition.

Hi Lloyd, It doesn't sound very good at the moment, but you need to tickle the circuits to see if there is any life in the tube. At this stage, don't worry too much about the horizontal band. Make sure that the lens iris is open; if you can manually open it to maximum (with the iris plug disconnected from the camera) do so, or at least leave it at around 50% open (only test in a room with normal room lighting). When you power up the camera, wait approx. 1 minute, then very slowly adjust the "Beam" trimmer pot., and see if the screen changes in intensity. DO NOT TOUCH ANY PART OF THE CIRCUIT BOARDS whilst the camera is powered up (I know you won't!). You may see a 'solarised' part positive part negative image appear which will rapidly correct to a full positive image if you continue to turn the trimmer a few more degrees. If you start to see an image appearing, but it is very soft or still part negative, then try a very slight adjustment on the "Set Up" pot. Try not to move too far off the current setting. Ideally you would want to adjust the "Target" setting, but I can't see a trimmer on the photo. If you manage to achieve something approximating an out of focus image, you will need to adjust the optical focus (again by hand), and then if necessary, gently adjust the electronic "Focus" pot until the image is sharp across the screen. If the camera were on the desk in front of me, I could probably tell within 60 seconds whether you are going to be able to revive it, but at this distance, remote control will inevitably be a little slower! Incidentally, if you want to check the function of the lens motors, you can always remove the retaining screws and detach the motors for testing, so that you can see if they will turn without a load. If none of this works, you may need to remove the tube to check the condition of the faceplate (target) contact, but that is not something to do just yet!

I've had a quick browse and everything looks pretty good so far rory. Mac + Explorer (not sure what version, but I think it might be IE 5.5 - I'll double check). I've also got Netscape so when I have a moment, I'll give that a go. I noticed that on the realty site, it mentions your IT expertise, but nothing said about your security knowledge. Trying to keep your talents covert? ....

Sorry I missed your posting frosted, I'll be going to the show at some point, but with my luck it will probably be friday (the show finishes thursday ) Anyone else going ...?

This thread is actually throwing up some very interesting points. In no particular order, cctvgeeknz mentioned that megapixel CMOS sensors are less sensitive, but the suggestion is often that it's due to CMOS fabrication methods rather than for example CCD construction. My understanding on the theory of imager construction (which is most definitely not my specialist subject), is that the lack of sensitivity is a physical limitation relating to the significant reduction in pixel size - i.e. to cram more pixels onto a chip, you have to make them smaller, so they individually cannot gather as much light. There is no doubt that performance will improve over the next few years, but at the moment, high end CCD's do perform better under lowlight conditions, and that's probably what alexis will need for his particular application. The analogy of watching a jockey is also quite interesting, because it demonstrates a very simple principle for identifying the ideal position for locating a camera. If you are watching the horses coming around a bend with the jockey facing straight towards you, it's relatively easy to keep the face 'in camera' using a narrow telephoto type lens. If however you were trying to watch the jockey racing past from left to right (at ninety degrees to the direction of viewing), you would have to use a wide angle lens, just to have sufficient images available to see what was going on. A clear example of how important it is to establish the optimum location for any CCTV camera. Thomas, you mentioned about theory and practice. There are people out there working as exo biologists who are highly unlikely to ever meet a little green man from another planet, but they are still experts in their field. You consistantly demonstrate a degree of actual expertise in your chosen field, which most of us could only dream of. One point which you touched on, which is rarely if ever mentioned relates to image enhancement. I have it on good authority that one of the biggest problems for image enhancement experts, is trying to recover detail from a recording, when that detail has already been compressed into oblivion by the DVR / NVR / Server. Although smaller file sizes such as those derived from MPEG-4 devices are an advantage in terms of storage economies, I suppose the old adage about there being no such thing as a free lunch, immediately spring to mind. alexis, apologies for the waffle; coming back to your problem, have a proper think about where is the best place to locate the cameras, using the narrowist angle lenses you can get away with. Then consider how you are going to light the area. Without knowing where you are, and what if any limitations there are on using visible lighting, I would have suggested you use (within your budget) a decent 'Day / Night' high res. box type camera, and seperate strategically placed illuminators to get the desired degree of coverage. If there were any way you could post either some images, or a half decent plan of the area, then I'm sure we could come up with some more practical suggestions.

It's getting a bit late here, so it will have to be my last post for tonight (better make that this morning!). In no particular order, to get any usable pictures you are going to have to consider some form of lighting, and if the equipment is primarily being used for animal welfare, then very discreet IR illuminators will be required to produce clear Black and White images, under virtual 'black' lighting. To answer your point about ambient lighting at night, depending on the proximity to a large well lit city, the chances are that only an image intensifier camera would produce anything useful at night without additional lighting, and you really don't want to go that route (cost wise, and quality wise). The lighting techniques will depend on the layout of the buildings, whether you can reflect IR light off structures for a diffuse effect, whether you can use a number of small IR lamps rather than two or three larger illuminators. If calving were to become a consideration, then they may segregate the expectant mum from the other four for a number of reasons. That would make calving under CCTV a far more straightforward exercise, but they may decide to use low level maintained visible lighting just in the calving area. Animal recognition for the keepers would be relatively straightforward, but as a tool during calving, there are a few more things to consider (life's never easy for a zoo keeper .... or a CCTV installer ). Depending on their budget, it may be worth considering two (or three) fixed cameras, and possibly a remote control camera which can either be left set to cover a given area, or be used by a keeper either on site, or remotely to allow more detailed examination of an individual animal, particularly if the animal were unwell, and in need of regular or routine monitoring (which of course is far more effective using CCTV). For safety reasons, if the cameras are located near to or within the enclosure, try and use models that are powered by 12v DC. One final silly point to consider. Whatever cameras you install, make sure they are very, very water resistant (minimum of IP 66 standard). A favourite trick of elephants is to suck up gallons of water, and then pressure wash whatever amuses them .... within range! You've been warned

alexis, Everything Thomas says makes absolute sense, and that's without allowing for the fact that with cameras working 13' in the air, and almost certainly with the 'Gain' working overtime at night, I doubt that you'd be able to recognise anyone on screen at 25 - 30' distance. You'll need to have a think about ideal camera positions, alternative lenses, and possible supplementary lighting if you're going to have any chance at all of producing good quality useable images.

Hi thinkandbuild, Welcome to the forum, Interesting job you have there. You will probably need to clarify a few points before anyone can give you any useful advice. First off, if the area is roughly 100 x 200 metres, then that would be about 300+ x 600+ feet .... not yards. Is the area being monitored for security reasons, animal welfare, site management or perhaps a combination of all three?. Do you need to relay pictures to other parts of the site for public viewing (e.g. a live feed to perhaps a cafeteria?). Ideally, it may be technically easier to locate cameras within the area of the compound, but in practical terms, it becomes much harder to prevent the wee beasties from destroying the equipment, and also can be problematic if the equipment has to be accessed for servicing / maintenance. Incidentally, how many elephants, and is this just an exercise area, or are they permanently resident within this space?. You mentioned about "no existing nightime illumination", but did you mean no visible night time illumination, which is of course a different thing?. Is there any requirement for cameras to be used for calving? Based on a bit more information, it would be relatively straightforward for members to make suggestions of suitable equipment. The only thing I would suggest at this stage is that the cameras will need to be high resolution, and if you are going to use 830 - 850nM Infra Red illumination, the lighting will need to be planned very carefully so as not to have problems viewing the animals themselves.

Lloyd, For initial testing, it's worth putting the cover back on the camera, but if you don't fix it on properly at this stage, you may get some slight 'crosshatch' interference on the picture (nothing to worry about though!). If the picture doesn't appear correctly after 60 seconds, then it will need to be adjusted with the cover removed. Best to switch it off first though. The lens Iris plug can only be left out, if the iris is already part or fully open. If it's closed, then obviously you won't see anything anyway. The video output would have been 1v p-p same as most cameras, and yes you can connect it to the AV input on a television. One quick tip for you - if you connect the camera to the TV, don't power up the camera unless you are watching the screen. You should see a momentary glitch as you power up (which confirms that the camera is receiving juice), then you may see some wavy horizontal lines that quickly settle into a blank screen (raster), followed (ideally) about 15 seconds later by a soft negative image that rapidly converts to a well exposed picture (we hope!). Don't expect it to be in focus though ... that would be asking a lot. If you want to pop in for a coffee, you can borrow one of my PL259 (UHF): BNC adaptors ... now where did I put them ?