videobruce

I don't mean ones that have RS485 terminals, but a recorder that can control the PTZ functions of a PTZ dome camera without using an external controller?

How about a separate section just on lenes? After reading a document from Tamrons' "megapixel" lenes that can only resolve "200 lines" that sound as there is a major problem in the CCTV industry if their 'best' lens can't even do what wasn't even considered 'high resolution' back in the fifties.

Are these the Wintel/Motorola/Sony of the CCTV industry?

We seem to be on the same page now. Before all of that, my issue has been designing software around hardware and vice-versa. Effectively locking out most compition, hence the "Wintel". I didn't coin the phase. This extends anywhere from software; Office, for example to browsers and all those webmasters that design websites around something that isn't, hasn't and never will be any kind of standard just because they are paid (one way or the other) to do so, or they are just lazy and don't care (or know better). What a vast waste of money. Just as with PTZ protocols; why do you need more than one?

Overclocking the processor (something I didn't subscribe to). Untill recently, Intel didn't support AMD (natually).

No I don't. It's called having 'principles'. I don't like being bullying around. It's far more than "just chipsets". It's shortsighteness on the part of manufactures. It's not just Geovision. Both, but it's not a issue with AMD processors.

I don't use Wintel products (other than the O/S). I have used Via chipset boards for the past 7+ years. I don't support the 'Wintel' machine any more that I have to (the O/S). That's your opinion and it's NO bottom line! Those manufactures went ahead and used a chip that is incompatable (possible by design to exclude non-Intel products). Any manufacture that trys to exclude any compitition by proprietary designs can drop dead. If their products are good enough there should be no need to do so. I don't support monopolies.

Bulls**t! The "pile" is the Wintel monoply in the computer industry with the close relationship M$ has with Intel effectively locking out anyone else. The O/S is designed around the Intel processor and chipsets making it difficult for Via/AMD to compete. For anyone that supports the 'Wintel machine' you only make it worse. Wintel has no reason to change. Best example is Idiot Exploiter. Finally in the past few years people have woke up to the fact IE is not the only browser. They also discovered IE is nothing but bloated, full of sercurity holes and completely overated since it it forced on you from day one. Alternate browsers as Opera and Moxilla/Firefox and taken a large chunk out of Bills' quest for domination of the internet. I did, now YOU Goggle "Intel chipset problem" and give me a count on how many 'hits' you get. Most/many of the problems with the early Via chipset drivers were the 4in1 driver package from 5 or so years ago. My point is; these companies knew there was a problem with this "HiNT" chip, but they went ahead and used it anyway. Via chipset boards have been very popular in the 'enthuist' community since they always gave the uses options that were unavailable with Wintel boards. Guess they don't get the 'hint'. Oh, as far as the "rocket science" part, I was using it in the extream.

What a name for a chip. Now you got me wondering. I found this; http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=431 Scroll down 2/3 of the way down on the page. I also found this; http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/pc_hardware_faq/2_43_What_disadvantages_are_there_to_the_HiNT_EISA_chip_set.html But, I'm not sure if that is the same thing. I noticed the actual spelling is "HiNT" as in an acronym.

Explain further? Crossbar as in 'bus' within the card for each input? One encoder per input?

The question is; why aren't they compatable? This isn't rocket science, or shouldn't be.

The "hint" chip?? Whats' that have to do with the topic? There isn't any price difference between Via and Wintel MB's for the most part and if there was, it's just because you are paying for the name, the same as you do for any of the above overated names I mentioned.

I don't like monoplies hence the references to those manufactures where each one DOES have a monopoly in each field. Why won't these cards work with Via chipsets? It isn't a performance issue.

Has anyone done tests on using cat5 (with baluns) as a replacement for RG59 regarding video frequency response rolloff?? IOWs', what does the video look like using cat5 vs coax after a couple of hundred feet? It just seems using a twisted pair with two matching xformers HAS to affect the video quality. Next, can I assume only one of the pairs of the cat5 is used for video? Can I also assume another pair could/would be used for power?

I'm not laughing.

That is a age old question that can be answered by watching TV. Your average smaller TV has no comb filter. That automatically interperts into >240TVL. Watch your favorite TV program and then watch the output of the best CCTV camera you ever saw or the output of a camcorder. Which is better? The television program. Even thought the TV has say 200 TVL a higher resolution source will still look better. To use a extream case, hook a 3 chip ENG/EFP camera (<700 TVL) to a low resolution monitor, then connect a (supposed) 480 TVL CCTV camera and tell me which will look better even though the monitor will/can only do >240 TVL. The same applies to any recorder in spite of a higher resolution image taking up more HDD space.

I know it's called marketing, but exactly how can a 768H x 494V (effective) chip have different resolution specs, especially from the same manufacture?? I see specs from 460 to 550 TVL from the same 1/3" 768x494 spec. This includes from the same manufactur(s).

I received a reply from NUVICO regarding specs on two PTZ cameras. The cheaper (newer) one had a higher TVL than the more expensive. Their response is here;

1. Analog cameras into a PC, 2. IP cameras into a PC, 3. Analog cameras into a DVR, 4. IP cameras into a NVR. As far as internet access to the cameras what/where is the difference (other than not being able to work with choice 3)?

Pros & cons for PC based systems vs standalong other than; conveinance of a standalone (easier to operate) vs the flexibility of a PC (upgrading). PTZ control; is a PC better or can a DVR do the same? Cost difference; I've seen capture cards from $100 to over $1500 (plus cost of the PC) and DVR's from $500 to over $6,000

"Embedded DVR" meaning 'Standalone', correct? I do understand the flexibility and upgradeablity part of a computer. I should of qualified the question with the application; Systems of 4 to 8 cameras, most of them fixed and outdoors. Possibility of a PTZ dome. One person would operate the system (no multiple operators or users). Cost is a major issue, but not at the expense of image quality. As much as I know my way around computers, I don't like them for tasks as these since I perfer a dedicated box that's easier to operate. NO booting up or crashing issues. Also todays PCs' are power hogs even at idle. I haven't measured the power comsumption of a DVR. I did come across a 2 1/2 year old thread on the same question in this forum, but figured that was then and things have changed since then.

Ok, after a few phone calls and a e-mail directly to Japan; $2540 (dealer) for the EWM-40 direct from Elbex. (I do have the owners manual if you want to PM me.)

I was only refering to color.

My bad, never thought of that angle.

Any/all DVR's will have this?