survtech

Most manufacturers don't recommend running separate control lines to multiple PTZ's from a single port. The problem is that the data signals can reflect back around the multiple data paths and cause intermittent operation. There are two ways to run multiple PTZ's off a single RS485 port: 1. Daisy chain them by running your twisted-pair data line into one PTZ, then out to the next. Conventional wisdom says you should only have the terminator enabled on the last PTZ in a chain, but we typically leave all terminators on and daisy-chain up to three PTZ's with the termination turned on with no problems (makes a 33 ohm load). 2. Use an RS485 "data distribution unit" like the Pelco CM9760CDU-T or the Kalatel KTD-83. With each method, your system must be able to send data to multiple addresses on a port and each PTZ must be set to a different address.

600w? Wow, that may reach across the state! I assume you mean 600mw. Please let us know what you think of Trapeze and FireTide. I've heard good things about both systems but would like other opinions. Forget Motorola Canopy for IP cameras. We tried one of those for a remote location and found that the system can't maintain a continuous connection between points. We frequently had to reboot the video servers because they would lock up after each lost connection.

Is this you?

Yes, it was quite low - I have no idea what who ever fitted it, thought they were doing. I'm not sure why the cameras failed - but they were definitely dead. I took a couple apart !!!!!! they had a fuse inside!! I replaced one fuse - and it blew instantly on power up. So before chucking it away, I thought I'd stick some foil on the fuse - and smoke started coming out the back of the camera !!! Ah, the old "foil on the fuse trick"! An old quote says "If you use the wrong fuse, the circuit blows to protect the fuse". Are you sure the pictures are of the same supply? The first one says Griffon and George and the output is 1A 9-0-9 VAC. The second says Creative and the output is 12V 1.25A.

Beware of using PC power supplies. Many won't work properly or at all if they don't have a minimum load on either the +12VDC or the +5VDC output.

All I can think of is either a bad camera or a ground loop or some type of interference.

How wide an angle lens did you try? Computar has 1.8-3.6mm wide angle varifocal lenses that will give you better than 140 degree horizontal field of view on a 1/3" camera. Pelco has 1.6-3.4mm lenses that will go even wider. Computar/Ganz Part numbers are: TG2Z1816AFCS - auto iris T2Z1816CS - manual iris Pelco Model Numbers are: 13VA1-3 - manual iris 13VD1-3 - auto iris

Given the choice, I would choose 24VAC over 12VDC any time. By the way, 18VAC is a bit low - are you certain the cameras have failed or is it possible the power voltage is just too low? That's 25% below spec, which is quite a bit. Typically, the range should be +/- 20% max (depending on the camera). For 24VAC, that's 19.2V to 28.8V. Some 24VAC cameras can tolerate up to 30VAC or more, while some manufacturers insist on the supply being +/- 10%. Of course, then you have manufacturers like Dallmeier, who insist on the supply voltage being 12VDC +/- 5% which is both stupid and difficult to accomplish in real life installs. STUPID ENGINEERS!

After you remove the 4 screws, it should just pull apart. There is probably an o-ring inside that is making it difficult to get apart. Just work a flat head screwdriver around the gap and it should come apart.

RG59/U @ up to 750 feet (228 meters) RG6/U @ up to 1,500 feet (457 meters) RG11/U @ 1,800 feet or more (548 meters) I agree, considering the price of RG11U (over $2.00 per foot vs. $.10 per foot for RG59U), you would be better off using UTP. At that distance you would need to have at least one end active (Tx or RX).

Probably not possible. The CCTV system may not even be connected to the internet.

I'm not familiar with that unit, but I assume that means you can choose to have it give preference to the frame rate over resolution or the other way around. If that's the case, you will have to decide which you prefer: a higher quality picture at a lower frame rate or more frames per second with a lower quality picture. That's not uncommon. The typical high-quality recording is at 4CIF (704x480 in the U.S.) that is four times the resolution of CIF (352x240). Many DVR's can not do 4CIF at full frame rate (704x480@30fps.), so something has to give.

Common Intermediate Format. It means the resolution of a digital video signal. It has nothing to do with Frame Rate, which is the number of pictures per second.

C and CS are the distance between the lens and the imager. C-mount lenses are 5mm deeper between the threads and the back of the lens than CS-mount lenses. What that means is that you have to match the camera to the lens, with one exception: If the camera is a C-mount, you must use a C-mount lens. A CS-mount lens would be too far from the imager and would not focus. If the camera is a CS-mount, you can use a CS-mount lens or you could use a C-mount lens with a C-to-CS adaptor, which is nothing more than a 5mm spacer with threads on the inside and outside. Most modern cameras use CS-mount lenses. Some are universal - they have an adjustable lens mount that allows use of either type of lens by moving it in or out. This feature is sometimes called a back focus adjustment. Edit: sorry, I got it backwards. I had it right, then checked myself on the internet before submitting the post. The first website I checked had it wrong. Silly me! I trusted wecusurveillance.com. "This CCTV lens adapter allows you to connect a CS lens to a C lens mount camera, it gives the correct spacing so the lens does not touch the CCD chip."

You can get lens holders for board cameras from Marshall Electronics: Miniature Lensholders for Board Cameras

Nothing, if you attach the composite out from the cable box to the video or composite in on the monitor. You can also use the S-Video if both the cable box and the monitor have them. What do you mean by "bnc to coax adapter"? If you mean bnc-to-f, that won't work. You need to use the video signal, not the RF. Use a bnc-to-RCA cable or connector from the composite video (yellow) out of the cable box to an input on the monitor.

I'll be there with two of my techs. I don't attend any of the classes any more because, in my experience, they are mostly just manufacturers' forums to push their own products. There's no way I'm going to pay to see what is basically a sales spiel.

I suggest temporarily disconnecting the new fan and try it again. At the least, make certain the new fan has the same specs as the old one, especially voltage and current draw.

WD has its own set of issues, especially with the WD5000YS 500GB and other RE2 drives. We have nearly 800 of them in 35 RAIDs that were installed in November, 2006. At first, the failure rate was very low, which pleasantly surprised us. However, since early 2008, the failure rate has climbed to the point that we are replacing 4-5 drives every couple of weeks. This seems to be happening to other users as well - if you do a web search on WD5000YS failure rate, you will find a number of complaints. The funny thing is that WD is not being very forthcoming on the cause(s) or cure(s) for the problems. We specified WD drives for our 2006 storage upgrade because we were very happy with their support. They were very proactive replacing the drives in our original RAID systems. WD Provided 830 250GB RE drives for free to replace the desktop drives that were failing in our original SCSI/PATA RAIDs. Now, they are dragging their feet and ignoring our requests for resolution of the problems. We did get them to analyze some returned drives and they claimed that 80% of them had no faults so we started testing them ourselves after they were kicked out by our RAIDs and found over 90% were either totally dead (they wouldn't even register in the test computer's BIOS) or DLG Diagnostics reported an error. WD has not commented on that since it was brought to their attention, other than to tell us to stop testing the removed drives. The odder thing is that we started testing the removed drives ourselves based on their recommendation. They even provided us with the SATA-to-PATA convertor we used to test the drives. Heat is not an issue with us since our RAIDs are in an environmentally-controlled room that is kept at 68 degrees by redundant AC units with cooling aisles. WD even admits that none of the returned drives have recorded excessive heat.

Funny, I used it when setting off explosives.

If you want to send analog composite video to multiple monitors, you have two choices: 1. If the monitors have "looping inputs" (an in and out for each input), you can just daisy chain them. Run your RG-59 or RG-6 coax from your source to the first monitor's input, then from its output to the next monitor's input, and so on. With looping, the coax distance limits apply to the the total distance, so I wouldn't exceed 750 feet total distance with RG-59 or 1000 feet with RG-6. 2. You can feed the source to a video distribution amp and run separate cables from its outputs to each monitor. For that, each monitor line can be up to 750 feet using RG-59. A disadvantage to the first scenario is that if one of the monitors gets disconnected, all subsequent monitors will lose their signal. The second method is also less subject to interference between monitors. You can also use twisted-pair to distribute the signal.

OK, but I have yet to hear glowing tales of successful IP, especially megapixel, camera deployments at any casino. Yes, there are some casinos who have deployed IP cameras and it is a fact that most casino surveillance departments are reluctant to air their dirty laundry. Still, most of us are resisting the change due to the facts I have stated and many others. This is especially true of properties with substantial investment in analog so the first properties to use IP will likely be new builds, something you won't see much of in the current economic climate. We were the first casino in the U.S. to record 100% of our cameras digitally. The lessons we learned during the painful two-year teething process make us reluctant to deploy IP cameras until the reliability of the total system has been proven. I think most casinos feel the same way.

Please re-read my reply since I edited it. As far as the network is concerned, for our experiments we are hooking the IP cameras directly up to our Cisco 4507R core switch - a $60,000 piece of equipment that far exceeds the capabilities of your normal network switch.

Good luck! Big corporations typically prefer to use the services of other big corporations. Most are not willing to take a chance on a smaller supplier, especially one with whom they have no experience.

I tend to agree with cctvexpert on this. The reliability of IP cameras has yet to be proven. In our experiments with them, we have seen many problems with cameras dropping off the network randomly. While they do reappear, that alone makes them unsuitable for our purposes. The other aspect is redundancy. Analog camera distribution systems don't require it. After all, what can go wrong with a piece of coax or analog twisted-pair? Computer networks are far less reliable and one major issue we would have to address when incorporating IP would be how to assure the reliability of the camera signals. The frame rate limitations of every megapixel camera we have seen makes them unusable for what we want to use them for: table games where the suit of the cards can determine the outcome of the game, the faces of wide area slot machines, cash handling and counting areas, etc. The thing is that our NVR system is limited as to which brands of IP cameras we can use. All the ones we tried were unable to give us more than 15fps. Our MICS (minimum internal control standards) requires 30fps. Other limitations include latency of IP PTZ systems, low light problems with many existing IP cameras and, the biggest factor, the cost to add the infrastructure for IP.