survtech

Aha! Your pix remind me of the primary reason why I moved here in the first place!

How little?

Actually, it's the "IP Video Market Info" group.

Some of their PC-based hybrid DVR/NVR's come with a Blu-Ray burner. http://www.aventuratechnologies.com/search/?search_query=blu-ray Of course, any PC-based recorder can have a Blu-Ray burner so that's not necessarily a bonus!

We've used the GVI's with good results. We've also had good results from the Video Baluns Unlimited products.

We finally received the Panasonic WV-CW504 demo. Although it shows some promise for WDR applications, it is basically useless for most indoor casino applications. For one thing, it weighs as much as a small car ( ). This camera would definitely need to have a safety chain tied to the roof support structure to prevent it from seriously injuring someone if it fell. For another, the menus are far more complicated than is necessary. We could live with that after setting one or two up for specific applications, then duplicating the settings prior to installation but the third thing we noticed is that despite the claims of 650 lines of resolution, the images are no clearer than the 480-540 line cameras we currently use. Although I acknowledge the limiting factor(s) may be our matrix switch (Pelco 9780) and/or our monitors, we are still unable to identify the suits of more than 70% of the cards; which is what we really want to gain. I guess IP megapixel, or maybe HDcctv, are the only viable options.

A matrix switcher can route any input to any output. It can feed the same input to multiple outputs simultaneously. A matrix switch can only feed one camera at a time to a monitor. A multiplexer typically puts multiple inputs on one output simultaneously; either in real time as a group (2x2, 3x3 or 4x4, etc.) or to a recorder (sequencing the inputs rapidly).

I've seen that happen when the DVR/NVR has issues with the storage. Notice that the artifacts appear to happen right after the video "stutters"? When it happened on our system, it wound up being either a degraded SCSI connection or a RAID losing part of its online storage. It's also possible the hard disk can not handle the "data throughput" you are feeding it. I would suggest checking the hard disk / storage subsystem.

Soundy, technically you are correct. But in actuality, the Panasonic installer may have run into two issues: some inspectors tend to go overboard, depending on who they work for and their degree of a_holiness; and UL would prefer that everything under the sun be submitted to them for testing. A good case in point is rope lights. Many are manufactured with indicators that designate where to cut them to length. They can be cut at intervals determined by where the short strings are connected to the main power wires in the rope. Electrical contractors supposedly can buy them at electrical supply stores but the consumer can not. The NEC allows trimming and splicing but the UL does not. Since hardware stores don't want to take a chance, they only carry UL listed rope lights.

I don't believe that is the case. I believe the UL wants every separate piece of the system, including cable, listed. Here's an example: UL warns of communication cable with unauthorized UL Marks Northbrook, Ill., USA -- November 5, 2009 -- Underwriters Laboratories (UL) is notifying consumers, manufacturers, regulatory agencies and authorities having jurisdiction that the Communication Cable, identified below, bears an unauthorized UL Mark for the United States and Canada. This product has not been evaluated by UL to the appropriate standards for safety for the United States and Canada, and is not authorized to bear the UL Mark. It is unknown if this product complies with the United States or Canadian safety requirements. Name of product: Siamese CCTY Coax Cable - CM 2/18 AWG + RG59/U

The funny thing is, we've used ours more to show Architects and Construction Supervisors how to properly light an area than for our own information. We did gather a sampling of light levels for areas that were properly lit and areas that were not. After many years doing this, I can usually tell by eye if an area is properly lit. Since our camera locations for many scenarios are pretty much set in stone, we often just install the camera that typically has worked in the past for a particular application, then get any lighting issues fixed after-the-fact. Of course, that would not be an option for many of you. And no, it's not for sale due to low usage!

Read it again. No equipment failed; just some inspector required UL listing. BTW, who was your rep?

We use the Extech LT300 Light Meter. It is reasonably priced and pretty accurate. Here are the specs: * Wide range to 20,000Fc or Lux with high resolution to 0.01 Fc/Lux * Relative mode indicates change in light levels, peak mode captures highest reading * Remote light sensore on 12" (305mm) coiled cable - expandable to 24" * Utilizes precision photo diode and color correction filter * Large LCD display with analog bargraph * Backlight for readings in low light levels * Complete with 9V battery, light sensor with protective cover, protective holster, and pouch case

UL listing basically means nothing for low voltage equipment. Perhaps in a very few places (NYC?), but I've never heard of an inspector requiring UL listing for either 12VDC or 24VAC equipment. Don't believe everything your rep tells you!

I have to strongly disagree. While chipset will have an effect on the potential quality of a given camera design, there are far more factors that can adversely affect the end product: power supply design, ancillary circuit design, parts selection, production methods, quality control and a whole slew of other factors come into play. You could have two cameras that employ exactly the same chipset and one could be far superior to the other due to the other's cheap circuitry, shoddy production line and/or poor QC. That is often the primary difference between high-quality goods and cheapo stuff!

I don't know about warranties on the chips themselves, but Ikegami provides a 10-year warranty on their standard analog fixed cameras and a 5-year warranty on their dsp analog fixed cameras in the U.S..

1/6 of the pixels??? Image sensors cover two dimensions, not one. To compare area, you must multiply length and width. The difference between a 1/3" sensor and a 1/2" sensor is approximately a factor of 2. Best, Christopher Duh, what was I thinking? You're right - actually it's 0.12 sq. inch vs. 0.053 sq. inch.

I think you just proved my point. If you cover 1/6 of the pixels (the difference between a 1/3" and a 1/2" sensor), yes, each remaining pixel would get the same light as it would with the 1/6 not covered, but you would also have only 5/6 the number of pixels. I guess the point I was making is that if a 1/2" sensor has the same number of pixels as a 1/3" sensor the larger pixels of the 1/2" sensor would each gather more light.

Correct.

The cable in the first picture appears to have substantially less shield coverage than the one in the second picture. I would estimate 70%. CCTV coax cable should have 95% or better shielding.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Sensitivity is generally used to describe sensors, not lenses. In addition, f1.4 is f1.4, independent of the size of the lens, so it's not clear what you are trying to say is reduced. A smaller lens on a larger sensor would result in falloff at the edges, but this discussion is about a larger lens on a smaller sensor. What I'm saying is that the image provided by the lens will be substantially larger than the sensor. That means some of the image picked up by the primary lens (the front) will be focused on a non-active area, effectively reducing the light falling on the active area of the sensor. Essentially, a 1/3" lens on a 1/3" camera focuses most of the image on the sensor (with some overscan due to the round image focused on a rectangular sensor plus approximately 10% (according to lens manufacturers). An equivalent 1/2" lens will have a much larger percentage of its output that does not hit the sensor. Obtaining the same field-of-view would reduce the effective light. So if the front glass is the same size on a 1/2" lens as on a 1/3" lens, the light gathered by the sensor would be less from the 1/2" lens.

That statement is pretty funny considering you went on to discuss it, then posted another response! The main points are: 1. If you put a 1/3" lens on a 1/2" camera, you will see a "tunnel effect", where the sensor is not fully covered by the image. 2. If you put a 1/2" lens on a 1/3" camera, it will work but light sensitivity may be reduced. 3. 1/2" sensors with equal pixel count to 1/3" lenses should have better sensitivity (* assuming 1/2" sensors have larger pixels). 4. YMMV - it's usually best to match sensor to lens sizes (1/2" to 1/2", 1/3" to 1/3", etc.) * Apparently some manufacturers only scan a portion of the pixels on the sensor. In that case, the pixels may still be small and the light sensitivity may drop accordingly.

Yes, a 1/2" imager should be a bit more light sensitive than a 1/3" imager, all else being equal. But using a 1/2" lens on a 1/3" imager won't increase the light at the imager for the reasons stated above. In fact, there are instances where a 1/2" lens won't transmit as much light to a 1/3" imager as a 1/3" lens. Actually, the imager size means little; it is the pixel size that matters. The larger each pixel is, the more light it will gather. For instance, a 1/2" 3-megapixel camera will have less light sensitivity than a 1/3" 1-megapixel camera because the smaller pixels in the 1/2" camera will not collect as many photons.

Is there a bright and/or pulsing light source in the image frame? If so, that appears to be a problem with Spectra domes (and I believe many other brands because most dome PTZ's use the same Hitachi or Sony camera heads). Their autofocus circuitry appears to get confused and is unable to maintain proper focus. The Spectra II BCBW was the first dome we had that experienced this. We had many talks with Pelco Tech Support and Manufacturing and they admitted that the Sony camera heads they used had "a problem with the fuzzy logic autofocus circuit". According to Pelco, Sony knew about the problem but refused to do anything about it. The biggest problem with the Sony cameras is that once they went out of focus, nothing could get it to come back, whereas the Hitachi replacement camera heads will usually refocus when moved. Because of that, we have replaced the camera heads in many of our Spectra II and a few Spectra III dome drives. We do that in-house and have saved a huge amount of money by doing our own repairs. We purchase the parts from Time Lapse Supply. We figure we've saved over $80k in the last two years versus buying new dome drives for out-of-warranty PTZ's. That includes repairing just about any failure: camera heads, power supplies, logic boards, belts, fans, plastic parts and slip rings.

500 to 700 feet is very do-able for the video signal using passive baluns. It is not possible for power over twisted-pair. I suggest you use at least 18/2. One pair of 24 gauge wire has a maximum distance capability of a bit over 200 feet for a 24VAC camera that draws about 5 watts (200mA @24VAC). Using two of the four pairs for power would increase that distance to about 450 feet. Increasing the power needs of the camera (for instance, with LED IR) would decrease that capability substantially. Link to a CCTV Wire Length Calculator HERE Link to a calculator that determines the effective gauge of tying multiple wires together HERE