Cooperman

Hi Kenneth, The IR corrected bit is something of a red herring. Depending on the lens arrangement, if it is a fixed or 'no iris' lens, with the cameras 'Electronic Iris' controlling the exposure, then focussing in any light level will produce the same result. If however, the lens is an 'auto iris' type (either video or DD), then you need to force the lens to maximum aperture before setting the focus(as rory has suggested). If you focus an AI lens in bright lighting, the aperture will be quite small, and the depth of field will be significantly increased; so you could effectively be setting the focus at any point within the enlarged Depth of Field. When the light level drops and the iris opens, the image could then go out of focus as the Depth of Field contracts. The purpose of a light reducing filter is simply to allow a reasonably exposed image to be focussed, when the iris has been set to maximum aperture. Without the benefit of a light blocking filter, there may only be the slightest of shadow areas visible in a white image, which isn't the easiest thing to focus upon.

That's possibly an impossible question to answer. Depending on where the cable is installed, under what operating conditions (particularly temperature and UV exposure), and of course, the original quality of the cable outer jacket, it could potentially be anything from 5 years upwards. I'm still using cables (RG 59B/U) that I bought in the early '80s, but that isn't necessarily indicative of what would normally be expected. Maybe the obvious thing is to carefully inspect (and test) the clients cable, and try to establish whether there's another ten years life in it. In theory that should easily be achievable.

Whatever housing you eventually go for, it's worth considering that if it's an extremely snug fit, should you place the unit in full summer sun, the temperature inside the housing could rise to a point where you are effectively cooking the camera. Whilst there may not be any suggestion of problems in the short term, it can significantly reduce the service life of any camera, no matter how well built.

GECAMGUY, Interesting problem you have there. Just a suggestion, but if you simply want to establish whether it's an exposure or Infra Red issue, try hand holding a Neutral density (NDx4) filter over the lens, then replace it with a light blue filter; both should be readily available from a decent photographic store. If the picture looks good with the ND filter, then it's an over exposure issue. If it improves just with the blue filter, then it would indeed suggest that the existing IR block filter is not cutting enough IR reaching the imager. Once you've established the cause of the problem, it should be fairly straightforward to do something about it.

So .... that makes two of us It must be a fairly new model, even CBC's UK site doesn't have any information on it. Maybe time to have a word with Mr Google

Apologies if I've missed any reference to this recorder elsewhere, but I was just wondering if anyone has any experience of using the Ganz C-MP DVR's. Particularly interested in any feedback on the C-MP 8 channel unit. Thanks in advance.

I haven't used that camera myself, but the description suggests that the auto iris function hasn't been enabled on the camera. If the camera is fitted with a slider selector for AI:DD, make sure it's set to DD before attempting to adjust the iris level pot. Also double check that the Electronic Iris or Electronic Shutter function (Sony usually describe it as CCD iris) is turned off. If you want to double check whether the lens iris is working at all, unplug the iris lead and remove the lens. Plug the iris lead back into the socket, and power up the camera. Position the lens so you can look through it, then place your hand over the cameras lens mount to prevent any light reaching the imager. You should see the iris open. If you take your hand away, and point the camera towards a light source, you should be able to see the iris closing.

ditto, I returned the same error a couple of times, but for me that's nothing unusual

Hey guys, It's quite likely to get a wee bit worse before it starts to get better. SIA licensing for consultants has now been put back till late 2007 (at the earliest), and heaven only knows when CCTV installers will get their shiny new piece of plastic. We could probably all do a lot better working in the States, mind you, it's a heck of a long way to commute everyday

Hi krahim and welcome, Maybe the first thing to do is establish whether the telemetry is actually functioning correctly, before you start worrying about the wireless transmission system. If you can take the transmitter to the camera position, and hard wire with a short length of twisted pair cable, you should be able to confirm that all the various functions are working correctly. If it works o.k., you know the problem is likely to be with the transmission side. If it doesn't work, then obviously check power supplies and connections, particularly to the terminal blocks on the receiver card. Do a few simple tests and then perhaps post back with your findings.

rory ... my knight in shining armour Authenticating individuals will never be anywhere near 100% no matter what you do. For example, in the U.K. there are no operator licences for CCTV, although the regulatory authority (the SIA) are hoping to start issuing licences, one day not very soon That's why anyone and their uncle can set up a CCTV business, and why standards of professionalism are the funniest thing since Rowan and Martins Laugh In (my great grandparents used to tell me about it )

The nearest lens to a 4mm suitable for a 3 megapixel camera, might be the Schneider 4.8mm f1.8 (C mount). Not an easy lens to locate, and I dread to think what the price might be BTW, welcome to the forum GrahamM

As threads go this one is particularly interesting, not least because at a fundamental level, no one is really disagreeing. Whatever the tools whether they're IP or analogue, they are there to be used, and hopefully in the most cost effective and efficient way possible. As we all know, in the real world things aren't always done for the most ... professional of reasons. There is a huge lack of education in all areas of the industry, and whilst there is a lot to be said for sticking to what you know, most businesses fail simply because they refuse to grow and adapt. Most of the day to day 'operational' problems I come across, were ironed out in the early '80s, but for various reasons, as an industry we've slipped back on the evolutionary scale, to a point where I'm beginning to see the same mistakes now being made by a third generation intent on using only IP based equipment. It really isn't relevant which technology is being used, if it's not being used correctly. Old school or new wave, if it's not doing what the client needs, then it's not doing! The interesting thing about this forum is you won't ever hear anyone say, I don't want to learn any more, I know enough already. That I guess is why we are all here, and long may it continue.

.... and nobody mentioned the consultants .... Story of my life

Can't argue with that Thomas. Seamless integration is too often a polite way of suggesting crease free confusion! Too many in the industry are so in love with the technology, that they don't really appreciate what it is they are trying to do with it. Interesting times indeed, but whilst it's becoming consistantly more difficult for experienced CCTV pro's to cut through the BS, the end users who are increasingly buying in to whatever is offered, are often being sold a hollow promise, rather than a sustainable solution.

Pity my sizzling ear lobes Thomas ... I think you've hit the nail on the head! Unfortunately, the subject of IP surveillance just isn't as straightforward as we'd like it to be. I can't specifically comment in relation to what goes on stateside, but the move, er, on second thoughts make that aggressive push, towards converting analog systems to IP technology in my neck of the woods, is gathering momentum, although not necessarily for all the right reasons. Nobody is going to argue that in many situations and given the budget, you can do some seriously impressive things with 'Digital', that just wouldn't happen with analogue. But we also know that for the majority of everyday applications, particularly in the small to medium size system sector, the bottom line costs just don't compare. That said, in the ongoing battle for 'Digital Solutions' supremacy, most knowledgable insiders in the UK tend to agree that the next few years are going to be seriously messy. Cost aside, the IP camp would have us believe that "seamless integration" is almost a foregone conclusion, and yet the old dogs have a slightly more jaundiced, and dare I say instinctive view of the probable outcome. In general, IT departments are staffed by IT experts ( ) who may well know there self healing rings from their fibre backbones, but unfortunately they often know squat diddly about the subject of applying CCTV. Plugging in a camera and getting a picture, really isn't rocket science. The old guard that have almost been weaned on Vidicon tubes and Genlock, can generally put togethor a seriously effective surveillance package, but they often don't have the knowledge and experience to leverage all the benefits out of applying IP technology in everyday situations. Over here, the conversion to IP is promoted as the best thing since John Logie Baird, and yet despite all the growing (and often misguided) end user demand for Digital, and the industry's grateful push for a ready source of additional profit, there is one glaringly obvious problem. We had a very good trade show here in January called IIPSEC, which is basically all about IP technology. The overriding impression that struck me as I drove home from the event (or sat stuck in a jam to be accurate), is that the analogue old guard, and the digital bright young things, actually speak completely different languages; and the thoroughly depressing part is, they don't even realise it. Analogue will certainly still be in use ten years from now, and IP will have probably gobbled up perhaps 80% of the market, but the crucial time will be between perhaps 2008 and 2012, when the Video Surveillance industry will have to get smart to keep growing. Industry growth is assured as long as "CCTV" is flavour of the month, but not everyone appreciates living under saturation surveillance, and there are some signs that unlike the U.K., many folks in the U.S. just aren't that enamoured with surrendering familier aspects of their privacy, for a less than assured payback. If you ever consider a change of career Thomas, then you could well have a very bright future as an industry analyst. Or maybe we should all just set up a global CCTV brand, and then show the big boys how it should be done Oh and I nearly forgot, crappy domes didn't put in an appearance until some time during the mid '80's (if my memory serves me correctly), and we did manage quite well without them

A 2.8mm or 2.9mm lens on a 1/3" camera is simply classed as an ultra wide angle (equivalent to 3.6mm or 3.7mm on 1/2", or 4.8mm on 2/3"). Describing a mild case of barrel distortion is not strictly speaking a fish eye lens. If there is a significant level of distortion, then the chances are it's probably a rubbish lens. In practice, a fish eye optic will generally give a circular image or acutely distorted near full frame image, with horizontal angle coverages normally well in excess of 140 degrees (ish)

I agree with rory's comments. There will always be occasions where a thread takes a somewhat .... 'creative route' (hands up, even I've done it), and more often than not that's what makes it more interesting. Where one or two members choose, or inadvertantly start to monopolise an individuals thread, there is nothing to stop any member politely pointing out a drift away from the subject. I'm guessing it doesn't often happen, because it doesn't often cause offence. We could (and perhaps should) all take individual responsibility for our postings, and if we feel things are getting too far off the mark, take it upon ourselves to do something about it. It shouldn't be a case of relying on or expecting a moderator to pull things back into line, as and when necessary; more as a last resort. After all, even moderators are allowed some sleep under the Geneva convention P.S. As always, big thanks to larry and the mods!

So from geordie land to lancashire, and then off across the pond; sf 1964, that must be one heck of an interesting accent you've got there Bit ov a ****ney meself, if yer get me drift

There ar so many ANPR (plate recognition systems) on this side of the pond, that some surveillance specialist companies won't even look at the application anymore. It's just so common and .... getting so much cheaper everyday. In fact, there is an ongoing project to link all the countries highway agency cameras into the first national ANPR system, which is due to go live within months. This will in theory ( ) allow the police to track any vehicle anywhere in the U.K. Daedalus, it may be worth researching the software package first, to see what fits the bill for you, and then look at the imaging part in relation to each location (your Law Enforcement colleagues around the country, may also be able to point you in the right direction ... including any Homeland Security grants that may be available). Without wishing to state the obvious, there are literally hundreds of cameras that could successfully be configured for plate recognition, and it really doesn't have to cost a fortune to do the job right.

sf1964, You really don't want to mount the camera any higher, unless you absolutely have to. Is there any way you could fit a basic 'L' shaped wall bracket, so you have the same level of movement available, as would be if it were ceiling mounted?

There are many ways of hiding a camera, and generally the most successful are custom disguised for a particular situation. The trick is, to look at possible locations for installing the camera, and then think about appropriate disguises. That will then give you some idea as to how large the camera can go. As rory suggested, at the bottom end you could look at PCB board cameras, perhaps with a CS mount so you can fit the exact lens required. That said, you can certainly get 16mm board lenses, and I've also seen longer focal length offerings from some far eastern manufacturers, but to be honest, the quality will not match a conventional 'C' mount optic, and the maximum aperture is usually around f2.5 as opposed to perhaps f1.4 for a decent screw mount lens. I can't really offer any useful comment or suggestions on suitable disguises, as I just don't know enough (make that anything!) about building construction methods and designs in your 'hood. A fairly obvious question for you surf1div1, but is there any way you could mount the camera indoors looking out?. If you can, then your equipment options suddenly increase dramatically. How about an alarm box mounted on the property? Remember, the actual working end of the camera will only need a hole, perhaps 1/2 > 3/4" in diameter to look through, and nobody is going to spot that at 60'+ distance (especially if you add a couple of extra holes for good measure ). Without seeing the house, I'm really just guessing blind

sf 1964, A couple more suggestions for you to try with the 'pan 474 dome' over the bar (incidentally, I don't know this camera at all). Pan the camera about 10 - 12 degrees to the right, and perhaps 10 degrees down. That should tidy up the framing to exclude unwanted overhead space, and the nearest TV on the left hand side of the picture. Initial impressions look like there is a degree of flaring being caused by light shining onto the dome cover. If you can, perhaps try using black 'gaffer' tape or insulating tape, to tape over the entire dome cover around the lens. This should help to reduce internal reflections in the cover itself, caused by side lighting. It may or may not help, but it's certainly worth a try.

I vaguely remember a figure of 70 feet distance being mentioned earlier on. If the vehicle is parked at that distance from the camera, I agree with rory that perhaps a 25mm fixed lens would be the lens of choice for a 1/3" format camera. At that distance, a 6 footer should occupy about 60% of the picture height, and a 13 - 14' long vehicle will probably fill the screen (no idea how long your vehicles are stateside). If you need more width, then a 16mm will be the obvious choice (about 20' width at 70 feet distance). If you go for a very sensitive camera, then a decent tungsten halogen light source should throw out more than enough light to produce a decent image at that distance (in B/W mode). Keep the camera covert though, for all the reasons mentioned so far.

originally posted by Jasper:- Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:07 pm Agreed. Unfortunately I can't help breaking out in a cold sweat every time I see a written reference to a 'Pye Observation System'. Also, line powered cameras were quite popular in the early '80's, but hardly ever used these days (shame really). I don't know about the "5th generation language"; I'm still trying to wrap my poor old grey cells around BASIC