survtech

ayalas, To get back to your original question, If you are considering going IP, there are a number of potential problems to deal with: 1. Infrastructure: What is your current infrastructure, coax? You will either have to replace it with CAT5/6, keeping in mind 100m distance limitations to the switches, or utilize products like the Veracity HIGHWIRE to place IP on coax. If you currently use analog twisted-pair, you will also have to change your infrastructure to use 4 pairs per camera or a device to put IP on single twisted-pair. Either option adds $$$ on top of the camera prices. 2. Network: Many will try to convince you to use basic unmanaged network switches. I believe that is a mistake. Casinos require 100% video transmission uptime at high quality settings and frame rates. Cheap switches often don't meet that requirement. High quality switches add to the cost of a system. 3. Coverage: Many in the IP industry point to how megapixel cameras can supposedly replace multiple analog cameras. I don't believe that is necessarily true. While there are applications that can utilize megapixel cameras more efficiently, proper camera coverage of say, rows of slot machines would be comprimised by such use. No camera can see through solid items so trying to replace a number of cameras aimed down rows of slots with one covering multiple rows would prevent seeing the fronts of many machines. 4. Reliability: One seldom-mentioned problem I forsee with IP and megapixel IP cameras is equipment longevity. We have many analog cameras that have operated flawlessly for well over 10 years. Nearly every IP megapixel camera I've seen gets HOT! Heat is a major contributor to shortened life of electronics equipment. Something to consider. If, by chance, you are considering deploying HDcctv, be aware of the technology's limitations; including lack of much available product, lack of backing by major industry companies and lack of testing in real-world applications. I've said many times: "it's OK to be on the cutting edge of technology as long as it isn't the bleeding edge".

As far as HDcctv (or HD-SDI) goes, please understand that Matt and I were among the first people to express an early interest in the technology. The HDcctv Alliance's website used to have a forum (I don't know if it still does). Matt and I were the first non-Alliance posters to express interest in, and ask questions about, the technology (questions, I might add, that were never satisfactorily answered). And therein lies much of the problem we have with HDcctv. This problem has been the bane of the HDcctv Alliance since day one. Many of us have a problem with people claiming to introduce a so-called "disruptive technology" without providing facts and figures to back up their wild claims. The HDcctv Alliance in general, and Todd Rockoff in particular, have been vociferous in their marketing statements but curiously silent when presented with legitimate questions about the technology and its capabilities. Even simple questions like "what is the distance HDcctv signals can be sent" are often answered with vague statements saying that some future version will allow longer than 100m on RG59/U or twisted-pair. The article about the Golden Gate Hotel and Casino points out a serious problem the HDcctv Alliance has with name recognition and is the likely cause of Todd's "testiness" on the subject. Many writers and companies in the industry use the term "HD" to describe any device capable of delivering higher resolution than analog and "CCTV" to describe any security cameras. The two terms are often combined in some way. IndigoVision is one example - they describe their system as HD CCTV. This continues the confusion in many; I believe that includes tomcctv. HD CCTV (or HD-CCTV, etc.) is not the same as HDcctv. Most HD is megapixel IP. (To be more accurate, 720p is not actually megapixel, but I include it in my post.) IP is being deployed in many places, including a few casinos. Likely that is what tomcctv is referring to in non-US casinos since HDcctv is barely in the early stages of its initial availability. Like I said, IndigoVision (a major player in europe and fairly popular in the U.S.) is IP; not HDcctv.

ayalas, 80% of your cameras are PTZs? Wow! I would have expected the opposite percentage. We have around 160-170 PTZs, nearly 1/3 of those outdoors, and 800-850 fixed. If you have 150 cameras total, the 80% figure would mean 120 of them are PTZs. What are you using on table games? We have one fixed camera per table and one PTZ for every 2-3 tables. I don't know what regulatory authority you have, but the NIGC MICS (Minimum Internal Control Standards) requires either one fixed camera per table and one PTZ for every four tables or one PTZ for every two tables. I don't particularly agree with the second option. That pretty much always leaves one table with no camera coverage if both tables are open. Although I have expressed previously that fixed cameras cannot take the place of a PTZ, the opposite is also true. Reliance on PTZs alone can cause its own set of problems. PTZs invariably are pointed in the wrong direction when something happens so my theory of casino camera coverage is to cover pretty much every square inch of gaming floor with fixed cameras and install PTZs spaced in such a way that they can be aimed and zoomed on any area too. That allows every incident to be captured from its start (albeit possibly with lower resolution), and a PTZ zoomed in once Surveillance is aware of it.

I caught that too. Let's send the link to Todd. I love giving him apoplexy! " title="Applause" />

Megapixel lenses are designed to tighter tolerances than standard lenses to be able to focus better over the entire image. You can use standard lenses on megapixel cameras but the results may be less than optimal. That said, I am unable to find any megapixel zoom lenses so you would have to use a standard zoom lens. One thing to consider is that a 1/2" lens designed for a 4:3 imager may exhibit some "tunnel effect" when used on a 16:9 megapixel camera. Keep that in mind when ordering lenses. You may want to get lenses designed for 2/3" cameras. There are plenty of auto-iris megapixel lenses, however.

There you go confusing the issue again. When I first questioned you about IP, you said that the casino didn't install IP but HD, as in HDcctv. Please get your facts straight. The Golden Gate Hotel and Casino installed an IP system: IndigoVision. http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2010/11/18/historic-las-vegas-casino-leads-industry-into-hd-cctv/ "The 99-camera system will completely replace the existing analogue/DVR equipment and be installed in full compliance with the local Gaming Board by IndigoVision’s Authorised Partner and gaming specialist, Southwest Surveillance." For one thing, 99 cameras is a laugher. The casino I work at has nearly 1000 cameras and that is by no means a large installation. There are some casinos that have 5000+. IndigoVision is not HDcctv. The term HD usually applies to 720p or 1080p IP in most people's minds. But you would get a huge argument if you broached that subject with the HDcctv Alliance. HDcctv uses HD-SDI to transport the signals; not IP. Perhaps you would like to read further? http://www.highdefcctv.org/. That is what we were referring to as "not ready for prime time".

I didn't say that a PTZ can take the place of many megapixel cameras; I said that megapixel cameras; especially 180 and 360 degree cameras, cannot take the place of a PTZ. The issue is pixels per foot (or to make the math simpler, pixels per degree). A Pelco DD427 Spectra IV dome drive, for instance, has a 27x zoom. At its maximum zoom of 91.8mm, it sees a 2.3 degree angle of view. To further simplify things, at 4CIF that would be 278 horizontal pixels per degree (640/2.3=278). Probably a bit less, because Pelco claims "angle of view"; which is probably diagonal, rather than horizontal. A 10mp, 16:9 imager is 4288x2416 pixels. Assuming a 180 degree horizontal field of view, 4288/180= 24 horizontal pixels per degree. Obviously, a PTZ has to be manned to be of much use but assuming it is (and it is in casinos), an analog PTZ can be zoomed in to see a much sharper image of an incident. To get approximately the same horizontal resolution from a fixed 180 degree camera would require more than 11 times the number of horizontal pixels. By the way, that would also apply to vertical pixels, but I'm too lazy to do the math for that. Suffice it to say, 180 and 360 degree fixed cameras would need hundreds of megapixels to be able to zoom in on a scene that an analog PTZ would handle with aplomb.

Funny, it appeared to me as if you started the argument: That was your statement, was it not? No mention that you were copy/pasting a manufacturer's advertising blurb! So, you post an incorrect statement that most casinos have gone HD, which is far from true. Then when questioned about that statement in regards to megapixel IP, which few casinos deploy, you point to a different technology that is not readily available and even less likely to have been deployed in more than a small handful of casinos. You then proceed to post a list of benefits of this technology without stating that you copy/pasted it from a manufacturer's blurb, then accuse me of causing problems?

Not your quotes? Who said "Live images and playback images look the same!", Dowshu? Look, I understand the theory of HDcctv quite well; having been a huge thorn in the HDcctv Alliance's paw for well over a year. My points are still valid if you believe what you posted. It's not a personal thing - my motto is "money talks, BS walks" no matter the source. 1. In order to have as high a quality of playback as live with HDcctv, just like with any other system, the compression would have to be very low; making the recorded bitrate very high. HDcctv uses the same compression as IP. 2. "Honeywell is a Fortune 100 company with a workforce of approximately 128,000, of which approximately 58,000 are employed in the United States.[1] The company is headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey. Its current chief executive officer is David M. Cote. The company and its corporate predecessors were part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average Index from December 7, 1925 until February 9, 2008._ - Wikipedia 3. You didn't respond to my other comments regarding gaming commissions. What, exactly, is this "Casino Control Commission"? Are you referring to the New Jersey Casino Control Commission?

What Casino Control Commission? If you are talking about U.S. tribal casinos, in many states (especially true in CA) each tribe has its own Gaming Commission. They would have to approve any new technology. There is no such thing as a standard set of regulations for all gaming venues. Then you must be using a huge recording bitrate. HDcctv is no different from IP megapixel in that respect. Are you certain your name is not Todd Rockoff? Some of your statements are quite misleading. For one, our Honeywell Enterprise VMS/NVR is capable of at least the same level of performance you are claiming. We run all cameras at 30fps. By choice (but not by spec necessity), we are recording 960fps per server but could easily run at double that; we just chose not to due to the possibility of losing up to 64 cameras if a server goes down. Our system has been recording 30fps / up to 960 total fps/server 7/24/365 for 8 years. Many other systems can duplicate that capability, including Dallmeier, NICE Vision, Synectics, Geutebruck, etc. Nothing unique there! The rest of your claims are equally suspect, as there are many systems out there that meet, or exceed, your statements.

So you're talking about HDcctv or HD-SDI? Those systems are definitely not ready for prime time in the casino business. Very few cameras are available; DVRs tend to be aimed at small deployments; the very few switchers on the market cost an arm and a leg, have weird configurations like 4x4 or 8x2 and are ill-suited to CCTV; being primarily designed for broadcast TV. Also, there are very few HD-SDI monitors and their cost is amazing (example: JVC DT-R17L4DU 17in R-Series HD LCD 16:9 is $2,500) so the signal must be run through the DVR's circuitry and fed to a VGA monitor. The DVRs are very basic and unsophisticated. I don't know which casinos you are dealing with but I would venture that most casinos would be very hesitant about deploying an unproven technology in critical applications. That's just asking for trouble. As I've said many times: cutting edge often becomes bleeding edge! You may be able to use existing coax but that depends on the distances involved and type. I find it hilarious that the HDcctv crowd continually hypes this supposed benefit out of one side of their mouths while saying out the other side that it requires high-quality RG59 to go 100 meters and if you want to go farther you have to use RG6 or RG11. Not only does that mean replacing existing cables anyway but what casino would want to pay the price for RG11; both in terms of cost, space requirements and difficulty to "pull"? Further, many casinos have deployed CAT5 with baluns for analog cameras. HDcctv cannot use this medium so the cabling would have to be changed anyway.

I'm not familiar with that keyboard. Is this an address limit issue (the keyboard can only access 9 addresses) or a termination issue? If the keyboard can only handle 9 addresses, a CDU-T wouldn't help at all. If the problem is the load, there are two ways to solve it: one would be to use a CDU-T and "star" each PTZ to it (or for far less $$$, a Kalatel KTD-83) or just turn off the termination on every daisy-chained PTZ except for the last one. Star PTZ control deployments to an unbuffered port are usually frowned upon. The issue is called SWR and what it means is that the control pulses echo around within the star and can cause lost or duplicated command signals. Star connections should be made using a "buffer" for each leg. That is the function of both the CDU-T and the KTD-83 (and other RS422/485 code distribution units. By the way, the code distribution units (the "CDU" in CDU-T) can be placed in the field so that control wires don't have to be home-run to the controller. The KTD-83 is smaller than the CDU-T and easier to mount on a wall or above the ceiling.

Actually, very few casinos have deployed any IP cameras and far fewer have totally gone IP. Most who have are brand new properties. The cost to convert a property to all-IP is immense: the entire video delivery infrastructure has to be changed or devices like the Veracity HIGHWIRE used. In the first case, where does the casino put the networking equipment? There is rarely room for additional IDF on the casino floor and best practice requires that mission-critical areas like Surveillance IDF closets be cooled, UPS'd and have severely restricted access. In the case of the HIGHWIRE and competing products, figure on them adding $200 to $600 to the cost of each camera. Also keep in mind that most existing IDF space in casinos is set up to accomodate computer workstations, POS, slot machines, ATMs/kiosks and the like that sit on the floor while cameras are installed in the ceiling. Different paths for the data. For table games, 720p (1280x720) in 16:9 or XVGA (1024x768) in 4:3 is usually sufficient resolution. Higher resolution cameras often suffer from poor low light performance and table lighting can be a problem in some casinos. HD cameras have the same problems with improper lighting as analog cameras. If the image is washed out by improper or poorly placed table lighting, no camera will be able to provide useable video. Other areas that could benefit from higher definition are: WAP slot banks (requiring less cameras per bank), cash handling/counting operations, POS and cash drawers and area overviews. HD resolution typically provides significantly reduced or no real benefits in more general casino applications like hallways, slot banks (if covered by suitable quantity and quality analog cameras), restaurants, food prep areas and other less critical areas. In addition, no HD camera can substitute for a good PTZ with a quality zoom lens. John Honovich and I agree that it would take at least hundreds of megapixels and many petabytes of recorded data to duplicate the capabilities of a good PTZ. Ignore the claims of 180 degree and 360 degree camera manufacturers! For that matter, PTZ cameras should never be used as a substitute for fixed cameras. They are often pointed in the wrong direction when an incident happens.

Laws are a bit more lax in some countries. That is, if there even are any laws. And even where there are, are they enforced?

There are a number of products that can send IP over coax: Veracity HIGHWIRE: http://www.veracityglobal.com/products/ethernet-over-coax.aspx EnConn: http://www.enconn.com/products.htm Gefen: http://www.gefen.com/gefentv/gtvproduct.jsp?prod_id=5275 Nitek: http://www.nitek.net/products/extenders.htm Vigitron: http://www.vigitron.com/product.aspx?ProductId=4 The downside is that these products add $100USD or more to the cost of each camera.

I would need to know the model of the PTZ and the model of the back box. Typical Pelco Spectra series dome drives are fused for 2 amps and draw 20+VA (around 1 amp at 24VAC) without a heater and up to 73VA (around 3 amps) with a heater/blower. You can find Pelco spec sheets at http://www.pelco.com. The Spectra IV SE spec sheet is at http://www.global-download.schneider-electric.com/85257689000007EE/all/64366387210E41C98525771B0053D82B/$File/en_c2448_spectra_iv_se_r042710.pdf

Even copper-clad power wire has a reduced distance tolerance (higher voltage drop per unit length) than copper due to its higher DC resistance per foot/meter (that also applies to 24VAC power because 60Hz is essentially the same as DC for these purposes). One way to test for CCS (copper-clad steel) is with a magnet. If it "sticks" to the center conductor or shield, that is CCS. Of course, if the inner wire is CCA (copper-clad aluminum), the magnet test won't work.

Does the relay operate ("click") on alarm when you connect it to the Alarm Output port? If so, leave it connected there, then connect the (+) lead of your power supply to the COM of the relay, the (+) lead of the siren to the NO of the relay and tie the (-) of the power supply to the (-) of the siren. If the relay doesn't operate on alarm, it's possible that the Alarm Output of the DVR is only a switched contact. Check your DVR manual to be sure. If the Alarm Output is just a relay closure, you can eliminate the separate relay and connect the (+) of the power supply to one leg of the Alarm Output and the (+) lead of the siren to the other, then tie the Power Supply and siren (-) leads together. Careful with the second option, if the Alarm Output is anything but a contact closure, connecting an external power supply to it can damage the DVR. READ YOUR MANUAL FIRST! Especially be aware of any voltage, current or power limits listed for the Alarm Output.

That is not an "F" connector. It is a "Clamp-On BNC Line Socket" connector. The washer is too narrow because the connector is made for RG-58, not RG-59. Apparently, it is also a "female" connector, not a "male" (hence the term "Socket"). http://www.maplin.co.uk/clamp-on-bnc-line-socket-1574

I haven't seen CCA, but CATV cable is CCS (copper-clad steel).

You can also try imaging software and install the image on the second computer. I've used Acronis True Image with excellent results. It even allows you to grow partitions (say, put the image from a 500GB hard disk onto a 1TB disk).

You could try folding the stripped end of the wire over on itself at the end before inserting it. In my experience, IDC-connectored baluns make a more positive connection than screw-type. They're also easier to install.

"Varifocal Sync Focus" basically means it acts like a true zoom lens in that once the focus has initially been set, the lens can be zoomed in and out without requiring re-focusing.

Soundy: home-running multiple PTZs to the same port is, in many respects, the same as daisy chaining. If all PTZs attach to the same port and all are terminated, the net impedance would be the same as if they were daisy-chained and all were terminated. So 2 PTZs would net 50 ohms; 3 would net 33 ohms, etc. Home-running multiple PTZs and tieing the data cables together could potentially cause signal reflections and intermittent control issues. It's not too likely if the terminations are proper and remain in place but if a termination is removed from one or more lines, it becomes more possible.

If it's a Windows-based DVR, you could just try enabling Remote Desktop on the DVR and remotely accessing the DVR from another PC. To do this, if it has Windows XP, right-click on My Computer, click on "Remote" and check the box that says "Allow users to connect remotely to this computer". On the workstation, click on .