survtech

True, unless the camera and DVR support "up-the-coax" control. That is both rare and not the most reliable method. Usually. The vast majority of PTZ's use RS422/RS485 communication for data. Although RS422/RS485 can be bi-directional, for PTZ control you only need 1-way communication - transmit at the controller and receive at the PTZ. CAT-5 twisted pair is the most common method, using one pair, but I've also used 22/2 shielded and even 18/2 twisted power cables for short runs. Using CAT-5, control can be run up to 4000 feet. It depends. You can safely daisy-chain up to three PTZ's on one data line; even more if you turn off the termination on all but the last one in the chain. If you can't daisy-chain due to the PTZ's being in widely spaced locations, you can use a "code distribution unit". Pelco makes the CM9760-CDU-T which handles up to 16 PTZ's (more if you daisy-chain on each output). The less expensive alternative is the Kalatel KTD-83, which has 5 outputs, and it's brother, the KTD-83-16, that has 16 outputs.

Are you using the correct jumper? I believe those cameras have separate jumpers for 12VDC and 24VAC.

Do a web search for "VGA splitter" and "VGA extender". There are many on the market.

But the big question is: do they really want to? Although the ONVIF (Open Network Video Interface Forum), which includes Axis, Sony and Bosch, is working on some standards, in reality they are fighting an uphill battle against the many smaller manufacturers; especially the Chinese, who want their own set of standards. I wouldn't hold my breath for real standards any time soon. The assumption that IP cameras can fill in for two or three analog cameras is quite a stretch. That is only in some specific cases and only when you are using megapixel cameras. 640x480 IP cameras have no better resolution than their analog equivalents and would require a 1:1 swap. Even with megapixel cameras, their supposed increased efficiency depends entirely on what they are watching. I can think of a number of applications where megapixel IP cameras would not give any better coverage than analog. Then we have network infrastructure problems. I'll grant that there are instances, especially with small-to-medium size systems, where you can place IP cameras on existing networks and save quite a bit on cabling. But what do you propose to do in a casino with an existing analog system? When you have over 1000 cameras, you can forget about riding along on the existing network. The video data streams would swamp the system. Then you have the problem of network security. You can't just allow anyone to tap in to sensitive video streams. You can't trust the IT personnel to manage the system. And you don't have enough space for the switches, patch panels and other infrastructure necessary to distribute the video data. To top that off, very few IP cameras are small enough to mount in many existing domes, requiring another huge investment. The point is that the costs to convert from a 1000+ camera analog system would be far greater than you claim. In our case, many millions.

Latency is a problem on PTZ cameras. Try following a moving vehicle or a running person at 200-300 feet with 300ms or more of latency.

This cable is junk. Get better cable from a local electrical supply. Tell them your looking for cctv siamese and they will know what your are talking about. rj58 or rj59 will both work fine. Not RG-58. It is the wrong impedance. Use RG-59 or RG-6. Make sure the cable has a solid copper center conductor, not copper clad steel. Also, make sure the cable has at least 95% braided copper shield, not aluminum or steel.

It's not the storage or recording systems we don't have the space for, it's the distribution system. Space for IDF closets is nonexistent and making the room for them would encroach on the gaming floor - something that would be a difficult "sell" to the casino. Keep in mind that we would have to follow ethernet best practices. That means 100 meters maximum distance from camera to switch and from switch to recording system. The existing system is a mix of RG-59 coax and analog twisted-pair with runs that go from each camera directly back to the Surveillance Room for RG-59. For twisted-pair, the runs are all CAT-5 - 4-pair from the camera to 66 punchdown blocks to 25-pair backbones to 66 punchdown blocks to 4-pair to our recording system. Each camera run is approximately 50 ft. to approximately 700 ft. with no break except for the non-IP-ready 66 punchdown blocks. Although network switches are only 1U, we still have to put them somewhere with power and cooling. Switches would need to be in secure, air conditioned rooms and the power would have to be UPS'd because we can't afford to have multiple cameras go out if someone kicks off a circuit breaker or we have a power failure. Remember, we have over 1000 cameras; most too far away to home-run ethernet cables. Many are too far to get back with one "jump", so they would either have to come back on fiber or go two "jumps"; with the added latency.

OK, I'm hooked. The concept is intriguing and I would be very interested to see the product(s) when they come out. If they can do what you say, they would solve some problems at our casino - the lack of an IP infrastructure and the lack of space to incorporate one. IDF closet space is severely lacking and trying to obtain any would be problematic, at best. Keep me posted.

Yes, 95% is close enough, as long as it is copper and the center conductor is copper, not copper clad steel.

I'm not so sure you can blame WalMart for CC's problems. Best Buy is doing OK. "When BBY reported 3rd quarter 2009 earnings of $0.35 per share, it beat the $0.25 consensus estimate of the 3 analysts covering the company. BBY is expected to announce 4th quarter earnings the week of March 26, 2009." - Reuters CC had its own set of problems. According to 24wallst.com: "January 16, 2009 Circuit City's Hari Kari Today marks the official death of Circuit City Stores, Inc. All hopes of reviving or saving all or part of the company are gone. The company is now officially seeking approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to liquidate its assets. We held little to no hope for Circuit City for some time. There were many problems at Circuit City not seen at other failed retailers. We criticized former CEO Schoonover endlessly as his efforts were wrong every step of the way. If you are looking for blame, you don't need to bother blaming a recession, competitive pressure or the move to lower-end technology merchandise. Schoonover ran this ship ashore. Over and over. And over. This was not Wal-Mart and it was not Best Buy. It was Schoonover and his underlings that went along with the plans. There will now be some 30,000 new jobless claims added to the list over the next few weeks. The company noted, "We are extremely disappointed... we were unable to reach an agreement with our creditors and lenders to structure a going-concern transaction in the limited timeframe available... this is the only possible path for our company." Circuit City said that it will offer more details about the liquidation of the stores and other assets, the status of the company's Web site and firedogSM services operations, and more. This is a statement from the Land of Duh as is the case in most bankruptcies or liquidations, but the company did confirm that there will likely be ZERO value left over for the stockholders. We would advise ANY COMPANY OR ORGANIZATION to not consider Mr. Schoonover as a candidate to lead any future company. Not unless they own a lot of put options. Jon C. Ogg January 16, 2009"

RG-6 is more expensive than RG-59. It can transport video for longer distances, though. Watch out what type of cable you are buying. Make sure you are getting CCTV-rated cable, not CATV-rated. The differences are that CCTV-rated cable has a 100% solid copper center conductor, not copper-clad steel and it also has a 100% woven copper shield (tinned or untinned with/without foil) versus CATV's aluminum or steel strand and foil shield. If the suppliers you are checking only carry RG-6, most likely it is CATV-rated, not CCTV-rated. Most suppliers of CCTV-rated cable sell more RG-59 than RG-6 due to the cost premium.

It sounds like the wires are crossed between the receiver and the pan/tilt head. Perhaps the pre-wired cable has been messed with.

Pretty much all fixed cameras pull approximately the same load (approximately 5-7VA) and they don't cause voltage spikes on larger power supplies so I fail to understand their logic. That's because the UL and CSA require the ground be specified for manufacturers to obtain certification. The UL and CSA don't understand CCTV and ground loop issues.

Because a CRT monitor is analog and an LCD monitor is digital. An analog signal must be converted to digital either inside or outside of the LCD monitor for it to display. The conversion process is part of what causes the picture quality of LCD monitors to look poor. LCD monitors look great with IP digital camera signals. You could use a computer monitor with an NTSC-to-VGA converter but the result will not be any better than an LCD CCTV monitor would give. LCD CCTV monitors are the same as computer display monitors, but with built-in NTSC converters. The other issue is display resolution. The closest equivalent to a CRT display would be an LCD with 640x480 native resolution. That would give the best picture from an analog camera. Most LCD displays are different - they have 1024x768 or higher native resolution so the monitor has to "interpolate" or fill in the extra pixels. This also causes reduced picture quality.

A difficult question. Under normal circumstances, there should be no difference since you are feeding it the same analog video either way. Perhaps there is an issue with termination? If the LCD is not terminating the signal and the CRT is, or if they are both terminating the signal, that might explain the difference.

Try cleaning the video heads and tape path. It sounds like either dirty or worn out video heads or tape guides. Time-lapse VCR's are very sensitive about mis-tracking and poor signal quality. They need strong sync with no noise in the vertical blanking interval to lock onto the correct channel.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean DVI is simple. I'll give you an example. At work, we have two computers KVM'd to a single monitor using Startech SV221DVI KVM's at each station. When we originally hooked up the systems, we used hp L-1925 monitors and everything worked well. After a couple of years, the monitors started to die so we bought hp L-1940's to replace them. Everything else stayed the same: computers, video cards, cables, KVM's etc. The monitor would only display for one of the computers. The other computer would not display through the KVM but would display when connected directly to the monitor. We tried changing the cables, KVM's, video card and drivers on the computer that wouldn't display. We contacted hp Support, who could not resolve the problem. We eventually bought some different monitors and relegated the problematic ones to single-computer stations. That solved the problem. There are plenty of horror stories about DVI incompatability problems.

We used to call it "Jenglish".

It could be a mis-translation from Japanese? I could understand if they stated "Do not use a transformer smaller than 10 VA", but not larger. It kind of reminds me of some old 1960's Panasonic Service manuals we had when I used to work for Radio Shack: "Please to be putting the wire to the attachment place."

No. I found the manual on-line and here's what it says on Page 3 (emphasis mine): Cautions: 1. The installation should be made by qualified service personnel or system installers. 2. The connections should comply with the National Electrical Code (NEC 725-51). 3. ONLY CONNECT THIS TO A 24 V AC CLASS 2 POWER SUPPLY. Be sure to connect the grounding lead to the GND terminal. (for WV-CP484) 4. To prevent fire or electric shock hazard, use a UL listed cable (VW-1, style 1007) for the Input Terminal. (for WV-CP484) 5. Do not use a transformer larger than 10 VA. (for WV-CP484)

I agree. Although we buy much of our equipment from one source, we still elicit bids from other companies occasionally; especially when we have a large project. That keeps our suppliers honest and their pricing low. It never hurts to get three competitive bids for a project. You don't necessarily pick the lowest bid because you also have to factor in the bidders' reliability and ability to deliver as promised; their customer service, etc.

I don't have a clue why they would specify that. We never have a problem running a single power cable for both the camera and the heater/blower. Just make sure you provide sufficient power to handle the camera plus the heater/blower plus at least some safety margin. Make sure your wire gauge is sufficient to handle the total load with a safety margin and make sure your power supply is fused to handle the maximum load the equipment can draw plus a safety margin too. We typically power outdoor PTZ cameras with heater/blowers with 3-1/2 amps fusing and at least 14/2 power cable on suitable Altronix power supplies (ALTV2416300 or ALTV2416600 for multiple outdoor PTZ's). Despite Panasonic's recommendations, grounding the camera is asking for ground loop problems unless you run the ground wires all the way back to the monitoring location and totally insulate the camera from contact with any local grounds. Those specs are probably legalese required for UL or CSA certification. The UL and CSA aren't concerned about ground loops and poor video; they are mainly concerned with electric shock hazards.

Manufacturers' claims tend to be a bit over-optimistic. With passive-passive on CAT-5 at 1,000 ft. (300 meters), the picture of color cameras starts to exhibit color fringing and other artifacts. You can get useable video up to at least 1,500 ft. but with definite defects. As you near 2,000 ft., the defects become overwhelming - loss of color, poor sync, loss of contrast, etc.

Passive baluns will have no problems up to at least 300 meters, perhaps longer.

Actually, DVI can be either analog or digital. It can also be very confusing with DVI-I (analog), DV-D (digital), single link and dual link connectors, all of which may or may not be compatible with the equipment at either end.