Cooperman

Rory, if you believe that, you'll believe almost anything. If I change careers tomorrow and become a CCTV installer, a plumber or a taxi driver, I'd definately have a much better standard of living Mind you, it wouldn't make the cost of living here any more palatable, but at least it would be a bit less painful. Still we've got the extra burden of the 2012 Olympics to look forward to .... that should help push our local taxes up even further Maybe time to consider a career change ....

Could be the platinum wiper arm ...?

You obviously don't come up to London very often. The Congestion Charge here is a right pain in the ...... £ 100 fine ( $ 175 ) if you forget to pay the £ 8 charge ($ 14 ) by Midnight

An old trick they used to use for cameras in desert conditions (Middle East etc.) was to fit a double sunshield on a housing. The outer shield reflects back the suns rays (unless its painted black in which case it absorbs the heat), and air is drawn between the sunshields by convection, reducing the 'skin' temperature of the housing below. I know years ago, a very few manufacturers (Vicon springs to mind) used to fit fans to draw air between the sunshield and housing, but those were seriously big housings (still got one knocking around somewhere). With all this talk about global warming, maybe there's going to be a developing market for this type of product.

I just had another look at that van photo, 'cos something about it was bugging me. Now I think I know what it was .... if my powers of deduction are correct, the van belongs to London's Metropolitan Police Service (I've seen it), it's parked in The Mall (I've driven up it), in front of Buckingham Palace, home of ..... (it'll come to me ). Definately is a Metal Mickey camera, and if they're selling at those prices Stateside, methinks someone is being a bit creative with the price list

I'm guessing this might answer your question rory http://www.fvcctv.co.uk/Distributors.htm

Nice cars guys. Steve 6690, you know you can't do that to your number plate, the ANPR cameras will never be able to read your registration

Happy thanksgiving to all those Stateside.

scottj, now that's what I'd call a bit of a bummer. 8 grand for a plastic toy! Talk about spending a penny ..... hope you get it sorted. jisaacmagee, When you mentioned Extreme moondance, I had to do a double take, especially the van mounted camera. I'm almost certain thats actually a "Metal Mickey" http://www.fvcctv.co.uk/Mic300.htm

I have done something similar in the past, but we had to use an analogue screen splitter to display two cameras. I think from memory it was a JVC unit, but unfortunately they've not been in production for quite some time now. The only product I could think of that might do what you want is a British built Quad with horizontal and vertical split options built in. I've not used it personally, but it may be worth a look:- http://www.videoswitch.co.uk/VQ.htm

Makes absolute sense to me AV. It's worth a try to see if it will solve the problem. In practice, the difference between poor quality RG59 and a decent grade cable, can be far in excess of the losses associated with fitting some connectors and adaptors. A purist approach to maintaining signal quality at every stage is advisable and commendable, but in the real world, clients will rarely agree to pay the extra cost

Just because it's in a textbook, doesn't necessarily mean it's either appropriate or correct. It may be an opinion and it may possibly work, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better way of doing it. The whole point of setting a correct back focus point, apart from the issue of allowing the original lens to produce a sharp image on the focal plane, is that when changing lenses or for example altering the focal length on a zoom optic, you should be able to achieve a focussable image without having to readjust the back focus again. In fact, if you focus a zoom lens at maximum telephoto setting and then change it to wide angle setting, the image should remain sharp if the back focus has been set correctly (and it's obviously a half decent lens!). Try and do that the other way around, and the image will almost certainly go out of focus as you move towards telephoto. If an engineer does not have access to the Minimum Object Distance for a given optic (which of course varies from one lens design to another) , or there is a variation within a batch production, or the iris is set to anything other than maximum aperture, it just ain't gonna produce the desired result. We can do an awful lot with modern equipment, but we can't change the laws of physics.

I know you probably know this already rory, but for the benefit of anyone else thinking of putting cameras in black housings, it's important to make sure that they are not going to be installed in full sun. It's not unusual to find black housings being used for street surveillance over here, but whenever they are subjected to intense sun, the internal temperature (resulting from solar radiation) can quite literally bake the camera alive..... and then it goes dead If it is going to be used in full sunlight, it's certainly worth fitting a small circulatory fan inside, to keep the air moving, and help minimise hot spots on the PCB's.

I'm just curious spytown, but the method you've suggested for adjusting the back focus, is this a general North American technique, or perhaps something you just do yourself? No disrespect intended, but with almost thirty years experience of setting up cameras, this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone attempting to fix a critical setting (back focus) using a variable (the lens Minimum Object Distance), when a fixed reference point (infinity) is the same the world over. With some lenses, the Minimum Object Distance can actually vary between units in a production batch, much less different models. Also unless the iris is opened fully, the increased depth of field caused by even slightly stopping it down, means the back focus point could be anywhere within the DoF range, and that's obviously not the point of the exercise.

Hi eric_clapp, The most likely reason for your problem is that the "Termination Switch" on the rear of your new monitor is set to the wrong position. If you use the new monitor in the middle of the two old units, you will have to slide the termination switch from '75 Ohm' to position 'High'. If the monitor was used at the end of the "chain", in other words a video input connected but no output cable, then the switch would need to be set to '75 Ohm'. Give it a go, and if you still have a problem, we'll have to come up with some other suggestions.

How about Korean, Mandarin or Japanese translations? We might then get those much needed improvements actually built into the products at source

Filled up the car last week at $8.65 per gallon..... seriously considering wind power!

The only thing that's unusual rory, is this one has a U.K. address. Most of these scams come from either Eire, The Netherlands, or Nigeria. Identity theft is the fastest growing crime here in the U.K., and once some basic information has been handed over, you really don't want to know want can happen!!

If you need to set up the back focus on any camera:- 1) Set the lens focus ring to infinity and point the camera at a very distant object. 2) Set the iris to maximum aperture (use a filter to reduce the light transmission through the lens sufficiently that you can see at the very least the shadow areas [i.e. the dark bits!!]). 3) If a Varifocal or Zoom lens is fitted always set the focal length adjuster ring to maximum telephoto. 4) Adjust the back focus until a sharp image is displayed, then adjust the iris control (without the filter fitted) to achieve the desired level of exposure. It should then be possible to manually focus the lens on objects at any distance, and focal length setting. If you can't focus the lens using the method above, then it may be a C / CS mount issue, in which case, either fit a 5mm spacer ring behind the C mount lens, or if you don't have a spacer ring, gently unscrew the lens (with the camera and lens in a darkened environment) then manually move the lens away from the mount a few millimetres and you should begin to see a sharp image appear. If that happens, go and get a spacer ring!! Nowadays it's almost unheard of for a CS mount lens to be fitted onto a C mount camera; if you try it, it just ain't gonna work!!

Congratulations larry .... onwards and upwards

Hey ColdFeet, Just a very quick response to your dilemma. 480 lines is high resolution, 520 > 540 is very high resolution (or as good as they get for the moment). I haven't used either of the cameras you are considering (in any case, PAL standard cameras here in the U.K. would be different anyway). As recognition is the main requirement, concentrate on more high resolution cameras with narrower lenses, rather than fewer top end cameras. Unless you have unlimited funds for this trial, you're more likely to reach your objective with a greater number of narrower viewing cameras. To save cost, consider the possibility of having the camera housing made up to accommodate, the number of cameras you intend to use, and you could also think about having a low cost (experimental) tube type IR illuminator made up, which would throw out light for 360 degrees, and cost a fraction of some of the high end illuminators.

Zark As ColdFeet has correctly suggested, connecting Pins 2 and 3 will switch over to monochrome. For manual changeover, use a simple toggle switch (which could be remoted a few metres away), or for auto, use a light level sensor switch. Be careful though as some light sensors are sensitive to Infra Red and you could end up with the camera changing back to colour when you really want mono. A quick tip for you - if your Infra Red light source is man enough for the job, don't point it at the patient, but rather direct the light up towards the ceiling. You should get a much softer and more pleasing lighting effect.

ColdFeet, ultimately it shouldn't matter too much which way you approach your problem, as long as you get there in the end. I've certainly come across applications in the past (usually very high security) where 360 degree coverage was required, but not specifically with facial recognition. I've also looked at facial recognition at greater distances but only for a 180 degree zone. If you were to use just four cameras, then on a 1/3" imager you'd be looking at either a 2.8mm or 2.9mm lens to each cover 1/4 of a full circle (not facial rec. though). Within your budget, it should be quite workable to make up an array of PCB board cameras that would do the job, but you'd be using most of the channels on a 16 input DVR! If you consider using monochrome 400+ line resolution PCB cameras, there's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't do what you want, but you will need to have a custom fabricated housing manufactured; now that sounds like a fun project.

Active UTP would certainly be worth considering, but another reason to seriously consider fibre, is that particularly in a large factory environment, there won't be any risk of earth loop hums (ELH). Any copper systems unless fitted with suitable isolation techniques, would almost certainly be at high risk of ELH, given the likelyhood of many mains distribution boards, all earthed to different potentials.

If it's 200 feet of resonably new multimode, an OTDR test may be a bit of an expensive luxury (the optical equivalent of testing 20 metres of RG 59B/U!). I agree with SeanMort that it would be better and cheaper to spread your risk, so use fewer video channels per fibre. As suggested, 2 x 4 channel would be preferable to 1 x 8. Depending on the application and possible recording requirements, you could perhaps consider using a multiplexed display down a single fibre, and then use additional fibres (all using single channel TX:RX modules) to select individual images for display / control. With 4 > 6 fibres to play with, you have a number of options, any one of which may fit the budget / clients requirements better than another. Personally, if someone tells me their fibre is fine, I'd want that in writing just to cover my .....